He’s not the only one
@Tom1234, please do point out where my views differ from yours. Thank you.
Because you seem to extract bits of posts and imply things that haven’t been argued. I don’t know about UM but I never argued against those ideas you have highlighted earlier here.

Do you misunderstand my posts intentionally?
No, of course not.
I think it’s easier to quote the specific section of text to which you are replying to avoid any confusion.

I meant I still don’t know why you believe nobody believed you on EF.
No, don’t know either. This doubt is related solely to the study which has been discussed on MSM too.
I don’t specifically know who it was, either
Regarding the inflammation part - that is a hypothesis on the part of the research scientists. I’m not sure they even have a way of proving it.
The actual calorie study was pretty advanced in itself.

I don’t know about UM
I understood you in the way gaburko expresses in his #58.

Regarding the inflammation part - that is a hypothesis on the part of the research scientists. I’m not sure they even have a way of proving it.
The actual calorie study was pretty advanced in itself.
Exactly what I thought.
As for the calorie deficit strategy in order to lose and maintain weight loss is something I never argued against.
If you find this idea in any of my posts, feel free to quote it.

If you find this idea in any of my posts, feel free to quote it.
You never wrote that. I never thought you had. Apologies if I gave the impression that you had.

If you find this idea in any of my posts, feel free to quote it.
I think this is a bit of a “lost in translation” myself and Tom interpreted your “not sure why you believe that” as a reference to the calorie research that excercise provides less than assumed. What you were reference is not this, but Tom’s statement about people not believing him on EF
Ultimately, I think we’re all saying the same thing

Ultimately, I think we’re all saying the same thing
I’m not sure bowlie agrees on this one because he said something about hamburgers being basically calorie free if eaten without the bun and the fries and the ketchup.
In all fairness, I think he might have meant carbs free or something like this.
I will quote him as I learned my lessons.

A burger withou the bun, ketchup and fries is practically calorie free. Just saying.

I’m not sure bowlie agrees on this one because he said something about hamburgers being basically calorie free if eaten without the bun and the fries and the ketchup.
In all fairness, I think he might have meant carbs free or something like this.
I think he meant it as a joke. Or as the ratio of flavour strength vs. calorific cost is among the best
However, we know that there are no 0 calorie or negative calorie foods, this has been debunked quickly and ultimately
A piece of diet wisdom from Garfield the cat, c-mid 1980s “A pie cut up into small slices has fewer calories than a whole pie”.

hamburgers being basically calorie free if eaten without the bun and the fries and the ketchup
Burgers are calorie-free after 11pm on a Friday when you’re pissed as a fart and out-out in town.
220 calories for the Pattie so not too many. For the Macdonalds burger pattie, 65% of those are from fat

free or something like this.
I will quote him as I learned my lessons.
Over half the calories in a hamburger are in the bun. Ketchup has 20g of carbs per teaspoon.
So I mispoke,
But if you grill the meat, rather than fry it, you lose a lot of fat and their calories.

I think he meant it as a joke.
I’m not sure why he replied to me then as I don’t even eat hamburgers. (I don’t say nobody should eat hamburgers btw, but fast food in general is just something that I never needed to worry I eat too much)
I would have never done the fast-food experiment Tom1234 has done. What for?

However, we know that there are no 0 calorie or negative calorie foods, this has been debunked quickly and ultimately
I thought there were some foods where the energy required for digestion was greater than the calorific value.
EDIT: According to wikipedia, not, unless you count iced water as a food: Negative-calorie food - Wikipedia.

BMI just over 25, so technically overweight but in nobody’s view would I have been considered so
BMI is now well on its way out to being used as any sort of measure of overweight. It doesn’t work for too many people, particularly anyone with a decent amount of muscle mass (many professional footballers are over 25 BMI). Trouble is it’s not easy to find an easy subsitiute. Measuring fat content would be better but that needs specialequipment to be done properly.

BMI is now well on its way out to being used as any sort of measure of overweight.
It’s used now primarily for initial screening.
Some medics use a BMI measurement out of “normal” range as a flag to let them know there needs to be further investigation.
Anyone in the “normal” range is neither going to be underweight or obese but it’s also true that not anyone above the “normal” range is overweight.
Currently it’s the best quick check we have which doesn’t require any specialised equipment or training.
How accurate are those bathroom scales which can measure fat percentage? I expect some readily available and low price sort of electronic instrument will be used in future.

However, we know that there are no 0 calorie or negative calorie foods, this has been debunked quickly and ultimately
Cool. Thanks. Keep those fallacies coming!

How accurate are those bathroom scales which can measure fat percentage? I expect some readily available and low price sort of electronic instrument will be used in future.
Agree with your post. Just a note on those bathroom scales. We have one and I’ve never trusted its absolute number. However, what’s more important is the trend, which tends to be accurate, especially if one weighs oneself at similar conditions (eg. 2x a month on a Friday evening before dinner).

BMI is now well on its way out to being used as any sort of measure of overweight.
I don’t really care about BMI. How many (clothes) sizes did you go up it’s a pretty good assessment imho. But this is always related to your height and distribution of weight.