Then you have a lot of recent posts for someone who isn't presenting any useful actionable advice ITT.

Lol considers himself the sole expert in nutrition talk.

He thinks vegans generally are laughable in that regard, that is where his bar is. And while many Vegans are not knowledgeable and do not meet all their nutritional needs, I always say 'anyone who has any focus on diet is going to be better than the vast majority of the populace who never think about diet'.

Anyway, he does know his stuff so that is not my issue. I am quite sure he knows more than me and i have no issue conceding that and I consider myself far above above average in that regard.

My only issue with him is his condescension and quick handed dismissal, as a way to 'flex' his knowledge. I am quite sure if he instead said my approach was a bit too simplistic and many other things should be considered for long term success, he would not be getting the push back now, he is getting. I know I would not push back.

I'm saying that obese people eat between 3-5K calories. Obviously the person that eats nearly double the calories will be much fatter. Are you thinking that people who are 250 pounds eat only 2000 calories daily, or do you think a person that eats 5000 calories a day is bed-bound (e.g., 900 pounds)?

Yes. 3500 calories = 1 pound of fat, roughly. There are other considerations, but for a fat person, cutting 500 net calories per day will result in an average drop of 1 pound fat loss per week.



Someone mentioned to drop 115 calories each day to lose 1 pound of fat per month. I went into detail why that is not practical or possible due to the limitations of accurately measuring EPOC, TEF, TDEE, among other variables.

That resulted in fat people wanting to argue with me because they're experts on diet and exercise but just "can't get started" and other reasons as to why they can't cut what they've all claimed to be very simple, cutting 115 calories each day.

Why can't a guy who's 5'8" and 180 be at 15% body fat ?

Show your proof.

I don’t know all the intricacies but 5k calories per day is like eating about 20 slices of pizzas per day right ?
I don’t know how weight it gains but they are surely around 300 pounds + .
Unless they trained or have a hard manual job .




A person cutting 500 calories will drop more then 1 pound per week .
And fat people will lose even bigger because it’s easier for them losing weight since their % fat is much higher .

I was dropping more then 2 pounds per week without training and I wasn’t cutting 500-1k calories I tell u that much .

I just stick up to drinking water , stop eating sugar and more vegetables.
Obv after the first 3 month the easy excess weight got out and it was harder afterwards.

But I did lose around 30 pounds in first 3 months couple year as ago .

1k calories cut on fat peoples should see vastly superior results then 1-2 pounds lost per week …….

Ps: btw obv u probably know this but how u eat your meal throughout the day is key as well .

You don't need a calculator to eat a few hundred calories less a day.

I'm sorry if that makes me fat.


I know enough about playing the guitar to know that only really shitty guitar players feel the need to compare themselves favorably to Keith Richards.
Not that ol Keef minds. He'd likely still sign your wife's belly for you.

You guys have a lot in common anyway. He's probably almost as skinny as you.

Nah, I simply asked how it would be possible to have an average person's TDEE be so accurately calculated that one could specifically drop only 115 or so calories per day. Most overweight people can't accurately count calories with a scale to start with and their guesstimates are wildly inaccurate, and that's the easy part.

If you only ate 3 boxes of pasta each day, then that would be very easy to do. But yes, gradual fat loss is better than quick fat loss, for a variety of reasons, so I didn't take any issue with that part specifically.

This is why I asked for your 1RM on the compound lifts. Since I have never seen a picture of you, I have to only go by your height and weight. If you're 5'8" and 180 and can squat 495 pounds, then 15%BF is reasonable.

But hey, you claimed you are 15-16%BF so what method did you use to determine that?

Why are you fixated on one food for the day for shock value? Obese people eat ~5 times a day and 600-1000+ calories per sitting, so if they only ate pizza, then 16-20 slices in a day would be easy.

Go look up a medium fries, quarter pounder with cheese, medium Coke. That's like an overweight person cutting back on his McDonald's dinner so he has "room" to hit a pint of Ben & Jerry's 2 hours later. Let's look it up: it's 1100 calories. Good Lord.


This is bro science and goes against the laws of thermodynamics. You're asserting that fat people are more efficient at burning fat simply because they have more of it.

I think you're conflating that a fat person walking a mile will burn more calories than a thin person walking a mile will burn. That is true - the fat person's BMR is higher - it takes more energy to accomplish the same task.

A person's TDEE is his or her TDEE. When you cut 500 from your TDEE, you average a pound per week of fat loss.

Also, I didn't say a pound per week; I said a pound of fat per week. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, a person's water weight can fluctuate 5 pounds in one day easily.

Ketoholics lose more weight while cutting the same deficit because 1 gram of carbohydrate stored retains ~3 grams of water; that is ~6x more water than the other macros require to process. Even in ketosis, the body needs a calorie deficit to burn stored body fat over dietary fats.


How much were you cutting? How much were you exercising? Post your food and exercise logs.

And... how many calories was that per day? Show your logs. Nice job on the weight loss, though.

Show the science. There's a reason why a 400 pound person stays at roughly 400 pounds. If that person starts cutting 7000 calories per week, he or she will lose, on average, 2 pounds per week of fat.

How you eat your meal, as in what?

I didn't say you need a calculator. I said you need to know what your baseline is so that you can actually eat a few hundred fewer calories. If subbing a baked potato for fries and a tea for Coke will accomplish this, then so be it - for most people (you?) it's not that simple.


You wouldn't know the difference between an open D tuning and a drop D tuning, let alone what's legit.

Nice try.

Strange hill to die on. Eating less is hard but it's not because it's hard to know what less is.

A good blues player is Willie McTell. No idea who Robben ford is and I've played blues on the guitar for 35 years (he may be very good, who knows). Keith Richards is evidently a superlative professional rock guitarist.

It is when you are setting the goal to be 115 fewer net calories and never bothering to ever count calories before or during.

Kind of talking about dudes still alive.

LOL.
I go by weight .
All I know is losing 1-2 pound per week is not a huge job with simple everyday habits,
it certainly didn’t need to cut 500 to 1k calories for myself …..




The meal eating is actual simple .
Eat less per meal but eat more meal per day .

By eating a little less but more often will teach your body that a regularly food intake occurs and holding fat isn’t necessary for preservation .

A lot people think eating twice a day but big portion is better then 5 day a meal small portion ,
but all they do is teach their body to hold fat since they don’t eat often enough to not have to build fat .

This is pure bro science.

Robben Ford is a jazz guitarist.

If you understand that you understand much of lol's posts.

Yes. I made the claim and you said I was wrong and called me fat.

I don't want to make this about me though, I said show your work.

Tell me how you determined that.

The biggest difference between you and Keith is, you know he's alive and it bothers you.

It is.

But my view on diet and weight control, adjustment, maintenance is that 'anyone who takes any level of active consideration and effort towards the ends of bettering their results will end doing better, generally than those who never think about it.

So call it a form of placebo effect or whatever, but if that is what makes him think he will win, and he is willing to do it and stick to it, while adjusting his amounts to get the results, then I think that is fine, even if he is not properly correlating what is the actual mechanism of his results.

And while it is bro science, I will say it is bro science I believe has a good foundation of bro logic behind it but as an opinion matter I would never state it as anything more than a bro science opinion as I am unaware of any sci based investigations in this area.

But I certainly believe that over the long history of mankind's evolution, being able to deal with periods of feast and famine effectively was a key natural selector as to who survived and who died.

Those with an ability to more rapidly adapt to fat storage for times of shortage that lead to famine as opposed to those who struggled to do so, where the ones more likely to pass on their genes.


Thus in an ancient world this adaptation was a life saver but in our world of today, in the first world, where junk food and constant food abounds it is now our most dangerous legacy health evolution.

"...Try to approach your weight loss in the same way you gained it. Focus on tiny imperceptible changes in diets that can see you lose about a lb per month over time, which is the same way you gained it. Keep the changes small so you don't feel like you are dieting or craving and be patient as you figure it out. It takes only minor focus for you to see directionally over the coming months if you got things slowly moving in the right direction and then to continue or adjust on that. This is a marathon and not a sprint'.


Would you say the delivery of such advice is wrong or irresponsible or just better not said if one is not going to give the more complex advice along the lines of what you would give?

Afaik marketing departments had already classified blues, jazz and rock by the time The Stones came on the scene so it's fair to not classify him as a blues guitarist in the context of others who where branded as such.

But, and this may no longer be true, he did consider himself one. All the skinny white English Boomers seemed to.

Which fit into my original comment on Keith as I said he was a badass back in the day. Not that he had great musical chops or that he was better or worse than any other musician. I meant it as an observation on how he lived his life some of the ballsy things he did and the fact that he could express himself so effectively as a blues style guitarist.

True , it’s not super backed by science but the idea is this and to me it does make sense and it did worked , shrug .

But losing weight shouldn’t take a phd either .

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...s-2193233.html
« we gain weight when we skip meals because our metabolism slows right down as a result of storing fat. Your body assumes you're starving and goes into survival mode » .

So the point is with 1800 calories per day as an example
It’s better to eat six small meal every 2 hours of 300 calories instead of 2 big meals of 900 calories for example .
( or obv you can changer a bit like 400 calories main 3 meals and 3 small snack 200 cal.)

By eating little but often , your body is in constant burning phase instead of storing fat .

Obviously not all as the same genetics either .
But eating huge meals trying to skip other meals is totally bad .

I always heard that too.
I suppose there may be some benefit to eating smaller meals throughout the day as sugar won't spike and hormones may stay in balance.

But...that fat is going to go if you don't eat enough.

It has only one job..........ONE JOB !!!!

The whole thing about the body going into starvation mode has been completely debunked. Intermittent fasting can accurate fat loss. If you eat throughout the day then your blood sugar will be bouncing up and down and it can be difficult to get your body into fat-burning mode.

It's the female version of bro science, whatever that's called.

Robben isn't a jazz guitarist. If you knew anything about jazz, you would know that. A couple of super locrian and diminished licks does not make a jazz guitarist.

Well, you're 5'8" and 180 pounds, 60-years-old+ and you're not a serious weight lifter, so your body fat is pushing 30%. You've also failed multiple times to disclose which body fat measurement you used, which is what fat people do.

I have no issues with Keith.

If people could make these imperceptible changes in their diets, they wouldn't be gaining 12 pounds every year in the first place. To keep gaining 12 pounds each year means to keep increasing food intake.

Come on, bro. Have you ever seen starving people in impoverished countries? They are not fat, yet you're asserting that if a fat person skips a meal, his or her body will go into starvation mode and retain fat even in a calorie deficit. The first law of thermodynamics trumps all that housewife tabloid weight loss bullshit.

You know how many people lose shittons of weight fasting 16-20 hours a day? Turns out fatties can't eat the same amount of calories during a 4-8 hour window as they can during a 24-hour window and starvation mode is bullshit.

Also, you keep saying you didn't have to cut 500-1000 calories per day to lose more than 2 pounds per week, so how much did you cut? I bet you didn't keep a log and you have no true idea how much you were cutting or...

Since u can’t follow a conversation and compare orange to apple, nvm ….
U win .

Well, there's not a myth you've brought up that I haven't heard before and that hasn't been thoroughly debunked already, but you're free to keep perpetuating myths. P&S is a good format for that than say H&F is, as you'd be getting torn up there a hell of a lot worse than you are here.

That said, feel free to point out what I'm not following and what oranges I've compared to your apples.