Well thanks, but I think plenty of people have asked this question. It's the holy grail question of fat loss, isn't it?
If anything, the specific, somewhat new question I've asked would be: what if, after generations of low-fat, and low-carb, we try low-protein?
Thus immediately auto-excommunicating myself from the greater keto and carnivore community, as well, of course, from the normal/"healthy"/mainstream community because I mostly consume heavy cream.
> Thus immediately auto-excommunicating myself from the greater keto and carnivore community, as well, of course, from the normal/"healthy"/mainstream community because I mostly consume heavy cream.
That's right though. If you notice a tiny inconsistency in the revealed doctrine of the church, founding a new variant of your religion is always a terrible move, and it only leads to trouble. You should go straight to denying the existence of God.
They're going to burn you anyway. Hang for a sheep, at least.
Well if anyone has ever asked it before, it got lost in the sea of crap. You spoke loud and clear. Kate thought (and still thinks) you were a nutter, and she's got a lot of experience in the field, so I suspect you're not peddling the standard snake-oil.
If it's a standard question with prior art then I'm surprised you had to write all that stuff down. Why not just refer to wikipedia's list of "diet desiderata for which no plausible candidate has ever been found because no-one has ever been brave enough not to overeat one of the three macronutrients"?
Go on, show me where you copied this from and I'll stop praising you to the skies:
And if I'm not mistaken, you yourself have lost faith in your own ideas recently, with all your talk of calorie limits and weight-lifting and excessive commerce with Starbucks.
Stay strong, brother. You may not have been right but you were interesting.
Also, you didn't finish Breaking Bad? What is wrong with you? It just gets better and better as it goes on and Walter loses the bourgeois inhibitions that are holding him back and becomes a man.
I admit the chemistry can be a bit sloppy, but I can understand why they didn't want to tell people who can't read how you actually make ricin. You have to look past the surface details and embrace the romantic soul of the epic journey from slave morality to true freedom.
Yea I think there's a weird split. I think most fat/obese people are in a way looking for a "miraculous" solution like I am.
But the Academy (tm) has convinced itself, and many "evidence-based" hobbyists that losing fat without suffering and restricting calories is akin to violating the laws of physics. So, naturally, they aren't looking for a solution like that, because it would be crazy to look for solutions that violate the laws of physics.
Of course I think there is no law of physics involved, energy "balance" is clearly an accounting term (deficit, surplus?! Are you kidding me?). You don't run a scientific experiment to find out if Enron is running a deficit or a surplus, you ask an accountant to add a bunch of numbers.
As I said above, they looked like a sack of dumbasses whose opinions and advice were worthless while you were obviously talking sense and asking the correct questions. Hence my admiration.
Well thanks, but I think plenty of people have asked this question. It's the holy grail question of fat loss, isn't it?
If anything, the specific, somewhat new question I've asked would be: what if, after generations of low-fat, and low-carb, we try low-protein?
Thus immediately auto-excommunicating myself from the greater keto and carnivore community, as well, of course, from the normal/"healthy"/mainstream community because I mostly consume heavy cream.
> Thus immediately auto-excommunicating myself from the greater keto and carnivore community, as well, of course, from the normal/"healthy"/mainstream community because I mostly consume heavy cream.
That's right though. If you notice a tiny inconsistency in the revealed doctrine of the church, founding a new variant of your religion is always a terrible move, and it only leads to trouble. You should go straight to denying the existence of God.
They're going to burn you anyway. Hang for a sheep, at least.
Well if anyone has ever asked it before, it got lost in the sea of crap. You spoke loud and clear. Kate thought (and still thinks) you were a nutter, and she's got a lot of experience in the field, so I suspect you're not peddling the standard snake-oil.
If it's a standard question with prior art then I'm surprised you had to write all that stuff down. Why not just refer to wikipedia's list of "diet desiderata for which no plausible candidate has ever been found because no-one has ever been brave enough not to overeat one of the three macronutrients"?
Go on, show me where you copied this from and I'll stop praising you to the skies:
https://www.exfatloss.com/p/the-definition-of-diet-success
And if I'm not mistaken, you yourself have lost faith in your own ideas recently, with all your talk of calorie limits and weight-lifting and excessive commerce with Starbucks.
Stay strong, brother. You may not have been right but you were interesting.
> I’ll admit I didn’t finish Breaking Bad
Also, you didn't finish Breaking Bad? What is wrong with you? It just gets better and better as it goes on and Walter loses the bourgeois inhibitions that are holding him back and becomes a man.
I admit the chemistry can be a bit sloppy, but I can understand why they didn't want to tell people who can't read how you actually make ricin. You have to look past the surface details and embrace the romantic soul of the epic journey from slave morality to true freedom.
I thought the original idea was fun, but it quickly turned boring with lazy writing and every character on the show except Hank being super annoying.
Yea I think there's a weird split. I think most fat/obese people are in a way looking for a "miraculous" solution like I am.
But the Academy (tm) has convinced itself, and many "evidence-based" hobbyists that losing fat without suffering and restricting calories is akin to violating the laws of physics. So, naturally, they aren't looking for a solution like that, because it would be crazy to look for solutions that violate the laws of physics.
Of course I think there is no law of physics involved, energy "balance" is clearly an accounting term (deficit, surplus?! Are you kidding me?). You don't run a scientific experiment to find out if Enron is running a deficit or a surplus, you ask an accountant to add a bunch of numbers.
As I said above, they looked like a sack of dumbasses whose opinions and advice were worthless while you were obviously talking sense and asking the correct questions. Hence my admiration.