I wasn't expecting my comment to blow up like it did. I would reply to kleinbloo, but he blocked me. I could write out a long detailed response and PM it to him (Edit: no, I probably couldn't have done that since apparently the block function does include a PM mute) but frankly I know he won't listen based on how hard he blew up after my initial comment. So I'll just write a response to you and anyone else in the thread that hasn't blocked me can just read this: Kleinbloo's endocrine issues are likely causing him extreme fatigue when he eats at a caloric deficit, something I would think is especially likely since he mentioned having to increase intake by about 500 calories in order to not feel light-headed after riding. That is understandable, and I admit that I started writing my standard boilerplate "it's all about CICO" response as soon as I saw his statement that he was eating at an extreme deficit and not losing weight, without reading the rest of his comment first. However, regardless of the effects his endocrine system are having on his body, they are not allowing him to eat at a sustained caloric deficit without losing weight. It simply isn't possible, and no matter how long and detailed of a response you write, that won't change. That ~15 miles/day of riding that he mentioned (1000 miles over the last 2 months)? The 500 calories he added would be about right to cover that extra burn; for most people cycling burns between 25 and 40 calories per mile, or around 375-600 calories for his mentioned daily riding. His medical issues may make it difficult, or maybe even unsafe, in a way that isn't fair to him, to lose weight. I'll admit my initial comment was rushed and insensitive since I didn't take the time to read his entire comment before writing mine. His endocrine issues may be reducing his caloric expenditure, making it so that the recommended intake from MyFitnessPal is too high. While he may have legitimate medical issues that make his case somewhat different and may even make an attempt at weight loss inadvisable, those issues do not, and cannot, give him free-energy-from-nothing superpowers. The above discussion was for your benefit, and for the benefit of others on the Internet you may come across. Ending it here, and forever, is for mine.
Hey man, 1) you were rude, 2) you're now saying it was OK to be rude because you're still right, because oh by the way 3) you still think you're more of an expert on someone's body than the person who lives within it. This isn't a world where you have to choose between being right, or being liked, not usually at least, for sure, but in this moment, with your words, you are seriously narrowing your options. In a website built around community, are you sure the choice you're making is the best one for you - the one you wanna make? Also, there's this thing known as a public apology. You know. For shit done in public. But if you were going to apologize, what would you even say? Because this is you buckling down. Nothing else.
The only thing I really did was tell the guy that it really is all about calories in vs. calories out. He could have just politely disagreed and moved on, but he got butthurt and went on this long self-absorbed rant about how tough he has it and how he's the special case to which this law doesn't apply. But it does apply to him just like it does to everyone else, and everyone else has their own set of challenges in life too, and that definitely includes me. I'm guessing you're friendly with him based on the way you're sticking up for him, and that's fine, but I don't know him, and right now all I see is someone that overreacted, and to whom I definitely don't feel the need or desire to apologize.
Are you talking about the 'Introducing Metaphoria' post? It does sound like an interesting series, but I don't really see the similarity. I do feel like I could have been more tactful with my initial comment. But I've also learned I strongly dislike the kinds of people that take unintended offenses and try to frame them as personal attacks, which is why I have no intention to try to reconcile. But you are correct, Hubski is a great site with a lot to offer. The community is top-notch and the site mechanics give the power to the user to craft their own experience, instead of letting other users dilute it. I really need to come around more often.
It's odd: I can't find the post I meant to have you see. Short version is: I made a post about something. kb came in and told me something about the topic of the post. I said (here and forth paraphrases) "You're confusing some things". kb went "I have awards, I'm recognized for those things I talk about etc., so curses onto you". I went ballistic, in a form far less polite than what you've replied with to ref. Soon enough mutual muting ensued. Since then I've learned that kb sometimes delivers better than your take-out pizza. The guy's as soft as sandpaper on the outside, but he has something behind that big mouth of his that's worth looking at.
No it was not. It was for entirely your own benefit. The reason nobody respects your opinion is because it's so incredibly simplified that you didn't even bother to finish reading up about his situation before throwing the standard statement every fake internet expert makes. You even admit that in your post. Had you wanted to be helpful or actually given a shit about him at all you would have ask him if he had spoken with a professional who could maybe figure out a better plan that would work for his situation. In other words simply saying this is how it should work and all the info on the internet revolves around that so maybe consider seeing somebody who can give you a plan that fits you and your issues. People who care about someone direct them to professionals who can assess all the information and give someone detailed help. What you gave was just a standard reply from somebody who thinks they have the world figured out and want everybody to know. The above discussion was for your benefit, and for the benefit of others on the Internet you may come across.
I'm hardly an authority on the subject (read: I just did the maths after looking some stuff up in encyclopaedia assuming that burnt values per mile you gave are correct) these numbers work for 6 pound loss for pure fat that has a caloric value of 9000kcal/kg. Adipose tissue on the other hand is roughly 7700kcal/kg. You seem to be using the first value as in: 375 kcal * 60 / (9000kcal/kg) = 2.50 kg = 5.50 lbs lost weight in 60 days (hence the 60 in numerator) is closer, and with much lower range, to the value klein reported. However, for adipose tissue it should be (again, I'm taking this from PWN encyclopaedia): 375 kcal * 60 / (7700kcal/kg) = 2.92 kg = 6.42 lbs Again, I am in no way qualified and any corrections would be much appreciated. Not to even mention that I'm uncertain if I got the meaning behind the quote correctly. Either way, as far as I am aware for now, klein's reduced weight is pretty consistent, although in the lowest quarter for both ranges, with these values. Depending on the method of measuring the weight and its accuracy on top of that. I'll end it by saying that if thermodynamics taught me anything, this model is too broad of an approximation. Klein is not an isolated cylinder after all ;).That ~15 miles/day of riding that he mentioned (1000 miles over the last 2 months)? The 500 calories he added would be about right to cover that extra burn; for most people cycling burns between 25 and 40 calories per mile, or around 375-600 calories for his mentioned daily riding.
600 kcal * 60 / (9000kcal/kg) = 4.00 kg = 8.80 lbs 600 kcal * 60 / (7700kcal/kg) = 4.68 kg = 10.29 lbs