DeguelloTex Member

Don't force yourself. Eat when you're hungry, within your calorie goals.

Still not a ratio. (Though the 36 at least makes some sort of sense, now.) Waist to height ratio is .36 : 1

"Need" is a pretty poor word, there. I get around that much a day, but I'm probably much larger than you and, even then, it's more about satiety than physical need.

Not sure what to make of that waist to height ratio.

It doesn't take much more effort to put a chicken in the oven to roast than to put a frozen pizza in the oven to bake. Almost everyone is busy. That's almost always a cop out answer to rationalize laziness.

Food doesn't tone your body. Hard work can build muscle, but you're going to want to make sure you get plenty of protein.

Wrong. Iron Maiden. Always Iron Maiden. Iron Maiden is the CICO of music.

Imagine you ate what was in the packet, then drank the water. It would stil be water. I go through Mio hand over fist because I don't like plain water very much. It's still drinking water.

You described uninformed, not misinformed. If the restaurant lies about the calories, that's one thing. If the eater doesn't know what calories mean, that's another.

Whatever works for you.

Agree completely. What works, works, and some sense of context and scale is a good thing.

It was as consistent as the issues inherent in logging and calorie content would allow it to be, anyway. You're talking about 70 50 calorie tastes to make a pound worth of difference. That's rounding error.

I didn't mean you, in particular, but a couple hundred calories a day for a week is 1400 calories. That's a lotttt of "tastes" on an ongoing basis. I mean, the resolution of a scale that weighs in 2/10 of a pound like mine does, even in a perfect world, would require 100 calories of tastes, every day, to make the scale…

If tastes are causing your weight to change unexpectedly, they're more than just tastes, so you should be logging them.

Then do that.

Don't eat more than you've pre-logged.

Not necessarily, no.

Yes. Yes, I do.

Four. days. later. Be more realistic, please.

It was Friday. I now have a soft cap at 25,000 steps -- vacation excluded -- or I'm never going to be able to gain any weight.

Well, imo, you want a certain amount of protein, so upping fat or carbs requires a drop in the other for the same calorie level. That's just how it had to work, math-wise. Really, though, if you're getting enough protein for your goals -- you are -- and enough fat -- 30% will probably do it, depending on body weight and…

It's a lot of protein but not so much as to be a problem unless you have some medical issue. If that ratio works for you, it doesn't look like there's any reason to change it.

I did both, but it was far easier for me to eat 1000 calories less per day than to burn a legit 1000 a day.

And, really, you're not competing against the 19 year old you, anyway. Most likely, some of the (small) metabolic hit already took place when you (generic) got fat. At this point, you're just competing against the relatively recent you and the cost of that is probably less than a couple of cookies a day. Absent a medical…

If that's accurate -- probably not -- then 1000 was her maintenance level. Loss and gain are about deficit and surplus, not zig-zagging.

When I go to sleep. Often right up until I turn off the light.

You're either in a deficit or you're not. Your body isn't confused or surprised like that.

That's the thing that makes me wonder: I think Disneyworld will actually mean fewer steps for me unless I get out and move before the rest of the family wakes up.

Usually 1600-1800, not counting dessert.