DeguelloTex Member

Accurate body fat percentage: Usually can't be done on a whim. Usually isn't cheap. BMI: Can be done on a whim. Is free. No, it's not better for everyone because there are multiple factors in play. Much like an "ideal" diet that won't be followed isn't better than a "good" one that will, a a body fat measurement that…

I'm so tall the extra weight doesn't show much. OK, for a long time, maybe it didn't. Then it did.

Try to continue doing what works at home.

That's the kind of response that tends to make me think "this guy is going to succeed."

Sometimes people lose more weight at first, so it may not be anything that should worry you. If it continues, I'd change things up to slow it down. Given that your BMI is in the obese range, presuming you aren't far more muscular than average, you could also aim for about a 1% loss per week, which would be a little more…

Because she couldn't know what's been posted unless she came back and providing more details would make it about her question.

Crazy talk. Straight up.

If by "research" you mean "people observed that the bottom parts of objects moving away from them disappeared before the top parts, rather than all of the object fading from view simultaneously" then, yeah, "research" brought us that knowledge.

I've had the scale go up for multiple weeks in a row even though I was absolutely, positively in a substantial deficit.

Maybe you skipped over this paragraph, even though it was in the bit you quoted (emphasis added): If you already have enough -- macro, micro, whatever -- of whatever X offers, more X isn't necessarily better than some Y, whether X and Y are broccoli, chocolate cake, ribeye, or anything else.

The same pros who gave us the low fat stuff? The egg and sodium merry-go-rounds? Newark? Your faith in government professionals is touching.

If you had time to lose, an open mind, and time to choose...

The correct answer is always Iron Maiden. I would also have accepted AC-DC, Metallica, and Five Finger Death Punch.

How do you get from "on any one day" your first paragraph to "always" in your second paragraph? If it can vary by day, it isn't "always." If it's "always," it can't vary by day. Surely, your point isn't so specious as to be "the best choice is the best choice."

No, broccoli isn't inherently better than the kolache. It might be. If you need quick energy, or you already have enough for that day of what broccoli offers, the kolache might be the better choice. Neither one can be said to be better without knowing the purpose. It's like saying a hammer is better than a crescent wrench…

My viewpoint is that carbs, food with carbs, and, indeed, all foods are best evaluated within the context of the overall diet, rather than as items existing in their own little universes. It doesn't make sense to say, "X is healthier than Y" when you don't know what part X or Y is playing in the overall diet at any given…

Your purported clarification is a pretty egregious misstatement of what I actually wrote.

I dispute it. It depends on the foods' places and uses in the overall diet.

Eat more, burn less, or some combination that results in 1944.4 less of a calorie deficit per day.

You're halfway there. That's a good thing.

Is this where you go to the mat distinguishing between "unhealthy" and "not a healthier food choice"?

She'll be chuffed to hear it. Some of my friends teach me how to speak British. As far as cheerleading and whatnot, I prefer to support by example. If I've already walked or run seven miles by the time you wake up, you can get some stuff done, too.

If carbs are over, what's under? Both protein and fat? One or the other? Sounds like you need to eat less fruit or adjust your goals.

That's barely three ounces. Mine might be large -- I, and my calorie goal are larger than most -- but that seems on the small side.

You certainly seem motivated to justify that people can eat it on a low carb diet. Why would you quibble about edge cases that you don't even believe are healthy in the first place? Never mind, it answers itself.

My portion of chocolate cake -- 180 grams -- has 83 grams of carb, fwiw.

Like the cake you're arguing for in the other carb thread, I guess.

I mean "address" the actual truth of the statement. Like what kind of food processing -- other than adding actual toxins -- introduces toxicity to food?

Fine for meeting one's macro targets, presumably.

Your food and drink. Hormones. Walking 20,000 steps.