DeguelloTex Member

***waves hands mysteriously*** "Oooh, look, squirrel!!"

You can't tone fat.

It sounds like you're still eating too much or just not being patient enough. Fat's probably not going to come off quickly and it almost certainly isn't going to come off from different places in the order you wish it would.

When the standard for evaluating potential bad outcomes is that they "can" happen, apparently we all need to behave as if they have happened. Or, I suppose, at least pray that they don't happen. I wonder how people with such an outlook on potential risks and dangers manage to strap themselves into a car and drive to the…

I'm not for or against sugar, just pray the sugar doesn't kill you. That's gold.

By "turn it into what sugar was going to do to [me]" you really mean "Asking for clarification of your statement that 'Unless you want to have a medical condition you should consider worrying about sugar'," right? You write about some vague, ominous-sounding "something," and when asked to clarify, the asker has turned it…

No cows, only poultry. And pies.

It's no more or less accurate than if the number had been more base-ten-friendly. I'm pretty sure the margin of error is pretty similar to my typical margin of error.

And now we reach the inevitable "I know, but I'm not going to tell you" portion of our program.

Eat less during the week so you can set aside more for the weekends.

So it's just a matter of happenstance that breast milk is sugary? The sugar's in the milk just because it was conveniently there to be used?

The leftovers are still there. I mean, there's still three pieces of chocolate pie that won't live to see tomorrow.

It appears to be somewhere between 4100 and 4300. ETA: If I stay consistent on the movement part.

No, hell, presume I'm just a regular guy. About what should I be worrying if I eat added sugar?

Excess water is unnecessary and can be detrimental to staying alive. "Can be" is, shall we say, pretty broad in scope. That something "can be" doesn't mean that it "will be," "probably will be," or even "is remotely fracking likely to be." If you want to make all your life, or dietary, decisions based on what "can be,"…

What's sugar going to do to me about which I should consider worrying?

I doubt it applies to ten women on the entire planet. It's not about applying to me. It's about claiming something that's borderline physiologically impossible. Again, what do you consider a "good deal" of muscle to add in a month?

Either adult human walkers weigh 333 pounds or the Runner's World formula is quite inconsistent with your first sentence. Or they're both wrong. I think I burn about 150 net calories per mile, which is relatively in line with your first sentence given my size and the average person's size. I do agree with the general…

At least it wasn't Dr Pepper.

Generally, it's better not to wait until the medical issues show up.

I bet what they say is: you don't violate the laws of physics and there's nowhere else from which that energy can come other than by metabolizing parts of your body.

Define "good deal of muscle," because unless you're a young male killing it in the gym, perhaps with pharmaceutical additives, you're not adding a good deal of muscle in a month, by any reasonable definition I've ever heard.

How do the MFP calorie goals differ from the calorie guidelines you mention?

Do you like it? Do you have issues with it? Can you fit it in your goals? Would you stop eating peanut butter because it can kill people, even if you didn't have any problems with it?

They have a low calorie section of the menu, if that's what you're worried about.

I plan the meals so I know how much room I have for everything else.

And now the laughable "documentary." It's like I'm psychic.

About 2400 of my 4350 calories are from carbs. Sometimes a little less if there's something really good and protein- or fat-heavy on the menu.

I'm certain I've read that, too. To say more than that would probably be seen as commenting on moderation, so I shan't.

Chocolate pie > all donuts.