mondocat

The far more common pathway to steroids is the 40 something man who wakes up feeling tired, sore, and grumpy and decides he has to skip the workout today. Then he realizes he's doing this more and more. He discovers TRT, gets a prescription, and feels better. Not psychologically, though that too - but physically, in that he can continue living his life at the pace he was accustomed to. He's not getting huge, he's just trying to slow the natural descent of age. For some people, working out in some fashion most days of the week is their life: their physical and social connection and outlet. When it's removed, it doesn't just mean they're not setting that record or getting those clicks, it means their everyday quality of life goes down. And it's recoverable, with TRT, and some of their friends are already doing it, so they do it. They don't have heart attacks, rages, or become massive, and they're probably pretty honest about it, not that you've have any cause to even wonder in the first place. They just get to keep going.

Of course I only know my weight and that it wasn't changing for a while despite an extreme calories deficit (from my previous norm, if not my expenditure at the time). I'm assuming that my calorie expenditure dropped, and not, for example, that I wasn't just retaining water sufficient to match the weight I would otherwise lose at the time.

Despite the challenges in knowing calories in, much less calories out, agreed, just lowering your intake, and adjusting based on the outcome works, and is the only way to do sustainably do it. I was just challenging the assumption that calories out is fixed. In my case, I'm currently at a calorie deficit and losing weight (at 195, starting at 220), and at one point, I was at (or slightly below) 1000 calories a day for a month and did not lose a pound. (It was physically and emotionally miserable.) I went up to ~1500/day (and 2000 on gym days), and have lost 1.5 lbs/wk or so for months now. I don't think I "ruined" my metabolism, nad don't know if that was starvation mode or not, but I am convinced there's a calories "in" range in which your body will try its best to match calories "out", if only temporarily, and that I was in that range for a while.

That sounds simple, but only one of the variables in that equation is readily knowable, and the other is a function of the first. Meaning, only by counting calories- and all the calories, including cooking oil, salad “toppings”, etc do you know what the calories in is but then how do you determine what they should be, knowing that if you eat too little, your body slows down to preserve homeostasis? It turns out to be a far more complex situation that involves exercise to preserve the calories out part despite the drop in calories in. There is an ideal deficit below which it is counterproductive to go, certainly if you’re interested in body composition and not just losing “weight”. That ideal depends on activity and a variety of other minutia.

They said it was overbooked and needed two volunteers.

That does not clarify whether it's $10,000, or up to $10,000.

I was on an oversold WestJet flight a few days ago and a $2400 voucher was announced to give up your seat. I was told the amount corresponded to the delay, and that it was "up to" $2400, with a flight leaving the same time the next day, which was the longest option mentioned being worth $1500. I didn't see any confirmation from someone receiving the $10,000 so I would guess it was the same situation.

> Carrots have barely any calories and need a fair bit of chewing.

Not to undermine your point, because it's a good one, but the same guidelines should apply to anything you eat, even carrots. I was losing weight and tracking "calories" very closely. I started eating carrots for exactly the reason you mention and gained two pounds that week. At my next doctor visit, she told me she's never asked this question before, but "are you orange?" I was, from carrots.