DeguelloTex Member

Per pound? That would be great. They're priced cheaper than the whole chickens here, but they're about 2/3 of the size.

Three weeks just mean be more patient.

It's almost like you can't trust the LA Times food editors to transmit accurate information.

On those days, I get up and I don't eat until lunch or whenever. Dinner is probably around 6:00 PM depending on traffic and activities. I can easily go six hours without eating if that's what I want to do.

nm, not worth the points to engage with the amphibian.

She didn't ask for a passive-aggressive swipe, either.

The idea that there even is a perfectly healthy way to eat or that having treats is unhealthy probably gets in the way more than a lot of things.

She wasn't.

Especially if it's something you'll make more than once.

And when you enter the ingredients, the numbers should match -- or be very, very close to -- what's on the package or at http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods

Yeah, exercise is separate. Going below your BMR, in and of itself, isn't an issue.

If you're gaining weight over a reasonable timeframe, you're eating above maintenance. How are you counting calories? It sounds like you're eating substantially too much.

Yeah, actually you did. Now, tell me how much longer you think it takes to put a chicken in the oven than a pizza. Does your water boil faster when you make mac and cheese out of a box than when you're steaming broccoli?

"Jesus Christ! If you weren't so tall I'd never have recognized you."

Cup of 0% fat Greek yogurt and 16 grams of cake batter protein powder.

No, that's way too little.

You probably want to weigh your food. Without that, there's really no way to know how many calories you're actually eating. If you were really eating that amount, you'd be losing weight. If you've stayed in a small range for a few months, you're eating at your maintenance level. And that's nowhere near 600-800 net calories.

If you're over 170, doing some exercise, and not losing weight, you're not really eating just 1200 and netting 600-800. You're probably eating more than you think and burning less than you think. How long have you not been losing weight?

A month isn't a plateau.

If it is, it's the worst drug ever.

If 150g of carbs fits into your calorie goal and otherwise works for you, yes, it should be OK. My "target" is 600g of carbs on lifting days and 350g on non-lifting days and I've unleashed my thin by 124 pounds. It's all a question of what works for you.

.004 from a male college swimmer. Take that, year and a half ago me. Unless we're talking natural waist and not around the navel, in which case a little slimmer than make college swimmer. Take that six months ago me.

Well, he edited so much it's hard to tell what he originally meant. The post currently reads as if weight loss is getting too much emphasis at the expense of fitness, but that kind of cuts against what he originally wrote. Perhaps he'll clarify.

I'm 51 and 6'9". Currently 214, down from 335. I have some fat I wouldn't mind losing, but I am not displeased at this point. I'm trying to eat enough to bulk, then I'm hoping to cut and then recomp/maintain. We'll see.

Which ones said to eat 80% carbs and over 2000 calories so as to avoid "starvation mode"?

This is a lot of wrong for so few words.

Cake. Ice cream. Milk. Those are about the only things that I couldn't make fit if I ate as much as I wanted on a given day.

3000 calories would be for a cut, but if I could actually splurge it would probably be as much chocolate cake with chocolate frosting with chocolate ice cream as I could manage. With milk.

Always? Yeah, you read a different site than I do. The prevailing, near-unanimous position I see is that they are separate.

Eating in a deficit and moving more. I walk every day and run three, though I'm questioning whether to continue the latter. Some days it's a couple of larger meals. Or one meal. Others it's smaller meals and snacks.