2x scramble wraps: 844 kcal, 44g protein
each: 2 jumbo eggs, 1 tsp oil, Mission fat-free whole wheat tortilla wrap, 1 slice process cheese food
422 kcal, 22g protein
1 cup V8: 60 kcal, 2g protein
3x Ball Park smoked turkey franks on Pubilx blended grain bread:
315 kcal, 27 g protein total
dogs: 45 kcal / 6g protein ea;
bread: 60 kcal / 3g protein / slice
totals: 1409 kcal, 75g protein. nice.
*I ran out of muffins and checked nutrition at the store... worse than I thought lol
Run 133: 3.3mi / 53m0s. 1st mi solid at 5.1mph. 199#, 511 kcal
Yesterday we calculated an "off day" baseline kcal expense of 2160, and 2070 on "gym days" before adding in the treadmill burn report. So today I burned 2070+511 = 2581 kcal, and took in 1409 kcal, for a net deficit of 1172 kcal.
My thoughts on food journalling and dieting are still evolving. Today it occurred to me that protein grams per calorie (p.g/kcal) is a more sensible index than the reciprocal, because a) that makes bigger numbers better and b) for zero-protein items like booze, it turns ugly divide-by-zero results into neat zeroes.
So I was looking at my heavy scramble-wrap brunch there, and a little bummed that I'd battened down 1090 calories before noon. Then I said wait, I ate that much because I'm planning on hitting teh gym today, so the thing to keep my eye on is calorie deficit. So then I wondered what's a safe calorie deficit. Bodybuilders do their thing in alternating stages: building muscle on a high-calorie diet, then "cutting" body fat on a reduced-calorie diet. Reducing calorie intake too low is counter-productive, so how little is too little? Broscience says "any time you're losing more than 2#/week"; or "20%"; or "if your lifts aren't suffering". I don't even lift, so the latter is meaningless.
On the popular theory that losing a pound of fat costs 3500 kcal, losing 2#/week means netting a 7000 kcal loss per week, or 1000 kcal deficit per day. 20% of my baseline 2160 kcal is only 432; 1000 kcal is more like 46% of that equilibrium point of 2160. So I'm throwing out broscience's unnecessarily conservative 20% figure too.
As far as ideal weight, the BMI formula is by no means sacred. I noted that at 147#, the midpoint of the putative "healthy" BMI range for my height, I was a high-school beanpole. There is another formula developed by Dr. GJ Hamwi that recommends 163# as ideal for my height, and at that weight with low-ish body fat I think I'd be light-military-grade fit. Height:weight ratio formulas can't describe fitness as accurately as body composition measures, but in the absence of a hydrostatic scale or a bioelectrical impedance analyzer, weight charting will have to be good enough.