DeguelloTex Member

Like.

Chocolate milk without carageenan is just sadness in a bottle.

So, no, this isn't a concept unique to excess carbs or glucose.

At the risk of interrupting your rant, where did I say a person needs a good reason to choose to just cut out sugar? Your entire position is based on flailing against something that wasn't even said. Instigating of what, exactly?

You don't think "stupid and derpy" is a reasonable antonym for "cogent"? You don't think that people make dietary choices based on non-cogent -- "stupid and derpy" -- reasons? Why is pointing out that this happens -- and you know it does -- offensive to you? If you're offended that I think better decisions are made when…

Well, I'm not going to try to defend any poster other than myself. What I wrote was, ideally, people have a good reason for making the diet choices they do. Even if they don't have a good reason, though, it's still their call. How that is equivalent to telling someone what he should or shouldn't eat is utterly baffling to…

You'd agree, though, I take it, that storing excess intake as fat isn't unique to consumed carbs or glucose, right?

Exhibit A for my previous post.

It's not very accurate at all. If you could somehow exactly replicate conditions before every use, it would probably be good for tracking a trend, but that's not really feasible.

Well, when you're sufficiently emotionally invested in a particular decision, anything that doesn't emphatically support that decision probably feels like it's supporting the opposite. Even to the point where explicitly saying "it's his call" really means telling him what he should or shouldn't eat.

Your reading comprehension here is poor. Even in the context of low carb, I wrote, "Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic [sic] or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call." No one is required to have a cogent reason. Because diet choices are ultimately "his call." That is precisely the…

Is this unique to consumed carbs, or are unused/excess calories, in general, stored as fat?

I'm wearing substantially less when I weigh at home than when I weigh at the doctor's office. That's 6-7 pounds right there, even if the scales performed identically.

If satiety isn't an issue, why does she need more satisfying sources of sugar, even presuming that the amount of sugar she "should" eat matches what you think she "should" eat?

Where, exactly, did I tell someone what they should or shouldn't eat? Your assertion is wholly without basis.

I don't cut sugar. If someone wants to cut sugar, I think it would be ideal if it were done for a cogent reason. Even if it's done because of a derpy Facebook inforgraphic or a laughably bad "documentary," though, that's his call. The issue, imo, is when people start telling others what they should or shouldn't eat.

Do you have some medical condition which contraindicates eating chocolate cake? If not, make a choice and move forward.

Unless you have a medical reason to limit sugar, the only limit should be how it fits into the rest of your diet. Four grams seems pretty inconsequential.

Always? I think you meant "rarely." If you haven't seen the near-constant refrain of "CICO is all that matters for weight loss, but weight loss isn't all that matters," then I wonder what posts you've been reading. And not reading.

You weigh what you weigh. Staying off the scale doesn't change reality. If you're literally scared to step on the scale, you might want seriously to reevaluate your relationship with the scale and maybe with food and weight loss in general.

One good day doesn't mean you've succeeded. One bad day doesn't mean you've failed. You can't time travel. All you can do is move forward and try to do the best you can.

Twenty days probably isn't enough to know for sure. If you're not losing weight over the long term at 2100, though, you'll need to eat less than 2100 or exercise more to continue to lose weight. As you lose weight, your body needs fewer calories, anyway.

Because that information isn't always available. I was under the impression that MFP wouldn't give a goal of less than 1500 to a male.

One is probably added sugar and one is total sugar. That said, unless you have a medical reason to limit sugar, it's not really an issue. Also, 1200 for a male is very, very low. Almost certainly too low.

TDEE for 5'1", 160, 34, female, at sedentary, is 1570. There's a certain amount of movement built in to that sedentary number and if someone moves less than the average, even 1570 will overstate TDEE. Even if 1570 is completely accurate, an intake of 1600 is very, very close to TDEE and leaves little room for logging…

I think it's fair to say that that's not at all clear from your original post. And a legit 1600 is possibly above her TDEE, depending on her exercise burns.

Chances are most of it is water weight, which you'll probably gain back. If you haven't eaten much, you might not gain it all back.

Your shoulder blades (scapulae)?

If you know you tend to eat late at night, try prelogging what you're going to eat and sticking to that or saving some calories for later at night so that you're still within your goal intake. Exercise is usually a good thing. Starting with something even like a short walk and then adding on to the length can be good.…

Underpinning all of that is correct knowledge of how much she's actually eating, though. 1200 is clearly too aggressive but "eat more" in the face of already gaining 10 pounds probably isn't a good first step. I think she first needs to get a really good handle on what she's actually eating and then determine what deficit…