Okay. Let’s rewind a bit. It’s my impression that I failed in adequately expressing myself the first time around, so I’d like to take a few steps back and clarify a few things first before replying to at least some of what you have written here in this post. I’m not sure it benefits either of us — or anyone else — for me to respond to each paragraph.
First, rewinding. Your disagreement with @Evolv was not unreasonable, but you’ll notice I used a certain word: “combatative”. I believed that there was another way for you to express your point of view, but I fear I fell into the exact same trap as you. Rather than replying in a “yes, and…”-sense both you and I made the choice to respond in a “I disagree”-sense.
That’s the main reason I got involved, really. I’ve interacted with you plenty on here, and lent you an eye on a different online community other than this one and it is my impression (granted, I may be wrong) that your communication pattern doesn’t consistently result in you getting your point across but rather results into disagreement. And, while it is perfectly healthy to not agree with everyone, if I were in your shoes it’d be my preference if despite with disagreeing with one another both parties manage to see the others point.
Hopefully, that makes it clear. I’m a bit sleep-deprived so it’s quite possible that what I’m expressing here in text fails to express what my mind is adding in-between the lines. I certainly hope not. But, a brutally honest TL;DR: if you’d written your response in a slightly different way, much like you were in the beginning
I wouldn’t have written anything. Probably.
Now, an attempt to respond to your reply.
Absolutely, I have no arguments there. Nor do I have any arguments with this,
But I do not agree with this,
as long as one adheres to this,
Note that I’m not saying that it is impossible to undo, but I’m not in agreement with you that it’s too easy — even more so if an individual makes conscious choices to opt for the less caloric dense varieties when in doubt, reserving the more caloric dense varieties for after a workout. Granted, it’s not a perfect model, and I won’t defend it ad infinitum. Just offering it as an alternative to tracking calories at least when starting out to make habitual changes.
I haven’t read it. I wouldn’t dispute that there is a hierarchy of importance that goes roughly,
- Calories
- Macro-distribution
- Micronutrients/gut-biome impact
- Nutrient timing
I also believe there are other aspects beyond those that do matter. These are harder to quantify. But, enjoyment, satiety, digestion are some parameters I’d keep in mind.
Right, and my argument is that going into a deficit isn’t the first step to take for all individuals. Making decent food choices might be the first step. If someone isn’t eating a decently clean diet, then I think going into a deficit is short-sighted if it’d be an alternative to first make habitual changes to food sources before going into a structured deficit. As an example, I’ll take you @samul. You have training down, and you eat reasonably clean. If you want to lose fat, then relative to where you are and seeing as you don’t seem to have any mental problems related to dieting then yes, going for a 500kcal deficit per day is a reasonable first step.
To continue the metaphor, starting with the empty bar in a diet-context means different things for different people. A lot of us that are regulars on this forum have similar starting points, but that goes out the window in the Beginners section.
It’s fine. I have my own n=1 experience too, and that impacts how I respond in these matters. This summarises my experience fairly well,
@EyeDentist wrote something absolutely beautiful related to this,
and what I’m arguing is that depending on one’s starting point one should at least consider starting with this,
and start thinking about how you’re going to eat for the rest of your life.
and retain weight (assuming you aren’t at an unhealthy, obese weight), and once that becomes second nature tweak the intake using a vertical approach. The reason I mention this is because OP does not fit this description:
I wasn’t defending him as much as “attacking” you if we are going to use those words. I don’t really agree in whole with either one of you. I read what you both write and go “yes, but…” a lot.
In the context from which you asked that, all I can say is this: if I eat 3000 kcal clean, I’ll have so much energy to do stuff with. I’ll inherently be more active. Not maybe to the point of putting me into a deficit (fat loss) but certainly enough to make the surplus less aggressive. And, those calories will be feeding activity that is beneficial to me. I’ll be getting more fresh air, doing added mobility work, and having a lot of fun using my body as a medium. Repeat 365 days and I’ll be more physically equipped than if I were eating trash.
No argument there, but I like to consider things other than solely fat loss seeing as in relation to
eating also triggers other things. An influx of energy, with which to do things. Happiness. Sadness. 
Random side-bars
Isn’t rice quite low in the micronutrient department? And quite high in the arsenic department unless properly soaked etc.