Well, I thought our organs contained a high water content and... I dunno whether I thought the rest of it was just sloshing around inside us - I guess I've never really given it much thought. But I suppose I didn't really think a piece of steak would be over 60% water. I just googled it...
but what are all the missing grams of nutrition in food that aren't included on nutrition labels?
For example, I had a ranch steak for lunch and of the 100g, only 36.6g are accounted for in Fat, Carbs, Fibre, Protein and Salt. Umm what's the other 63.4g? Pixie dust? I know there will be a...
Yeah, maybe I'll start something. At the end of the day, we're all different - in our will power, choice of foods, calorie restriction level, general metabolism, activity levels etc etc, so results are absolutely going to be different for everyone.
I've not really been an on again/off again dieter. I'm an all or nothing person, so unless I am 100% committed, I don't even bother to try. So, I've lost weight only once before - about 10 or 11 years ago, where I followed pretty much the same diet I'm doing now (low carbs - focus on low GI)...
lol, I don't have a problem pacing myself with chocolate - I don't particularly have a sweet tooth. My go-to was always crisps, not chocolate sweets cake or biscuits etc. That said, I've always had chocolate in the cupboard and my mum could never understand how I could grab 4 or 5 maltesers...
Since my diagnosis in May, I've been including 70% Lindtt dark chocolate as a 'sweet treat', but I know that the higher cocoa solids are even better, so bought a 90% bar and had a square of that yesterday. I usually have 2 squares of 70%, but I couldn't do that with the 90... it was..... not...
I'm eating around 1400 to 1500 calories a day (I haven't got a strict limit, just monitoring out of interest), with probably 40-50g of carbs, 75-100g of fat and 100-120g of protein. I haven't had a problem with hunger or lack of energy at all. I am a firm believer that a large part of feeling...
You've said this a few times before, but it's only partially true - there is a limit to which your metabolism will slow and people will often reach a plateau in their weight loss because of this, but it's definitely not true that it's exponential and that you have to continually reduce calories...
Poor choice of words on my part - I wasn't really disputing that, but my point was that I'm not hungry with my way of eating, so if that's the key benefit then I don't feel like I need it, so I'd rather save the unnecessary calories. Does that make sense?