jofjltncb6 Member

The good old days when aggressive dieting caused you to lose weight from your body *and* your pocketbook. (If only the pocketbook gained it back as quickly and certainly.)

Popular, no doubt, because "I just started keto two days ago by not eating any carbs and all and I've already lost SIX POUNDS*!! Keto surely is the One True Way!" (* Of course, at least 5.5 pounds of this is not fat loss and this approach is entirely unsustainable, but woe be unto anyone who would dare to suggest that.)

The trick for me improving my times (and overall experience) was, paradoxically, to go slower. I had a bad habit of just going full sprint right out of the gate regardless every time, would hit a wall, and then would suffer for the rest of the workout (or would change my plans from a 5k to a...uh, 1.25k, yeah, that sounds…

Awesome, right? (Next, try the magic that is bespoke or at least altered shirts. A simple tapering to the waist really changes the look.)

I love my Apple Watch (3). The battery charges fast enough that I almost never struggle to keep it charged and use it to track movement throughout the day as well as sleep at night.

MFP works from a TDEE perspective if you log and eat back exercise calories.

I was actually a Cage fan... ...until Snake Eyes. That's when things went downhill for me. :cry:

Could rework it to be cumulative...so you'd just need to pull data at least once every 45 days.

Still tragically broken. :'( #theliteralworst

That's a little under my average TDEE when I'm training fairly consistently... ...but I still don't understand the question... ...or lack of question. Was there a question? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ETA: And if we're just talking about exercise in addition to pre-exercise TDEE, then a backpacking day would get me there.

Ironic duty demanded that I woo it.

The warning signs were there. An entirely inevitable result. Years ago, it would have escalated into mod intervention and likely thread-lock or thread-nuke even. #goodtimes

LOL Now I have to decide if those woo's were for my personal theory or because I tried so hard to catch up before posting. And these too! Woo'ed because I was shocked it took the "artificial sweeteners are obviously bad for everyone" people seven pages to get here? Or for my understanding of why this was 23 pages (which…

Finally. Page 7. What took you two so long to get here??? (And now I understand the 23 pages.)

That's actually what I suspect is causing that correlation...the "I'm having a diet coke, so I can afford to splurge a little and super-size my meal"/"I ordered the wooly-mammoth sized meal, so I'll have a diet coke to drink" phenomenon. (Okay, now to stop replying and catch up on the...TWENTY-THREE PAGES?!? WTF IS WRONG…

(ZOMG, CA girl!!! You’re still here too? I haven't seen you on the forums in years. (But that could be because I’ve been mostly away from the forums for years. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ )

I don't even want the cash money. I'd settle for a sponsorship in delicious foods. (Are you listening, Sweetgreen or Chipotle? Hook me up!)

Yup. Even when consistently weighing the same foods from the same soure, it's inevitable that there will be a fairly sizable error rate... ...but change those foods, especially to an entirely different "type" of food, and you'll likely see that error rate even greater. (And then there are the refinements that can be made…

Right? And then the inevitable book and documentary deals. (I don't even expect a piece of the action...just a brief mention in the credits is sufficient for me.)

For example? Love, ShillForBigPharma cc: FakeFoodIndustry

Adequate, quality sleep. And then movement.

Or team up a few candy bars with a quality protein powder... (I've actually already done this "experiment" before, but didn't document it beyond my food log...probably because I was not proud of those particular days. But if I call it an "experiment", I could do it without any guilt whatsoever!)

This youtube video says you're wrong: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLzxrzFCyOs

Ah, good point. People often forget that the ~3500 calories deficit needed to lose a pound is for fat and not the ~600 (right?) calories to lose a pound of muscle. So again, not a violation of CICO, but a consideration.

You missed the point (again). No doubt that some of that 24 pounds of loss was from a sustained net caloric deficit. (Good job!) But a component of it that was *not* from that was water weight. (And that has nothing to do with whether or not you are "drinking plenty of water" either.) That it was a low carb diet almost…

Glad I kept reading before posting as I was going to make a similar observation. CICO determines true weight changes, but not transient. As an extreme and (hopefully) illustrative example, if you weigh yourself, drink a gallon of tap water, and then weigh yourself again, you can’t (or shouldn’t) claim “CICO doesn’t work…

#getupthere bump

Are you questioning the sincerity of my incredulity?!? How dare you!!

I think that eventually happened in a thread where I argued with someone that 1500 calories of Snickers was far healthier than 1500 calories of raw broccoli (in one of those typical "I don't do CICO because I care about my health and don't eat nothing but candy bars every day" threads)...where I posited that one of those…

(I both love and am baffled that this post was woo'd. Would love to know what part of this could be construed (or even misconstrued) as woo. Or do people not realize that adjustments to calorie targets based on progress (or lack thereof) are an essential component of achieving their goal weight?)