[quote]Massthetics wrote:
I will happily challenge you on low fat diets I will probably learn something.[/quote]
You can, but I’m not going to play ball. Sorry, and this might seem like a dick move, but I’d rather not encourage what I see as severe and unnecessary over-analysis on your part. I’ll lay out my points, but then I’m most likely going to bail out. Reading and finding new information is very rarely a bad thing, but I get the feeling you’re making “decisions” about things without really understanding the big picture.
How about this: I’ll be more than happy to discuss/debate any topics you’d like… in six months time or when you weigh 85kilos, whichever comes first. Deal?
There is no single best way to lose bodyfat. Period, end of discussion. There are popular and unpopular ways; Effective, less effective, and ineffective ways; but there is no best way. Dr. Clay Hyght laid out some solid pros and cons of basic diet templates (low fat/low carb/low calorie) here:
This is a statement of opinion made entirely without context.
This is the problem with you making broad sweeping statements while having a whole 5 months experience. Bud, there are a ton of things you’ve probably never seen work in the real world or can’t imagine working. Give it a few years and then you can make that statement and have it carry a smidge more weight.
For most people, reaching a pre-determined protein intake is a key goal. Shakes play a role in reaching that goal for many people but if someone can fill their nutrition needs with whole foods, then, yes, a supplement would be unnecessary. For some people, that’s a big if.
Maybe 160 grams of protein is “easy” for you to achieve because you’re underweight and someone else does all your cooking? What about a 240-pound college student living in a dorm taking 15 credits and working a part-time job? Or a 200-pound office worker who puts in 12-14 hour days at his desk? Having shakes as a regular part of one’s diet is tremendously helpful for a lot of people.
Not arrogant though. Gotcha. 
First of all, literally sticking with “30 minutes” is extreme, and I’ve only heard of that in your example. Generally, an hour or so post-workout is talked about as being primetime. The oversimplified logic being, hard training creates certain nutrient demands. The longer those demands go unmet, the more potential benefits you miss. This also ties into why peri-workout nutrition, instead of post, has become more popular.
Looking at workout nutrition on a good-better-best scale (which is a useful way of evaluating lots of things in general), it’s good to have “something” after you train. If that’s dinner two hours after, fine. At least you’re not fasting.
It’s better to have liquid protein and carbs very soon after training. Preferably high quality protein and fast-acting carbs. It’s best to have high quality protein and carbs during training. If you provide proper nutrition at the ideal time, the meal after training is relatively-less important.
If you used the word “yet” at the end of that sentence, I would’ve agreed with you 1,000%. I feel that once you try pushing your calorie intake closer to 5,000 on a daily basis, you’ll be reconsidering your whole food-only stance.
Again, blanket statement that, sorry to say, shows you really don’t have a handle on things to be speaking this way. Context.
As a percentage of daily calories, some coaches (and studies) suggest that one can safely and effectively go down to about 20% of total calories from fat before problems pop up. So if someone’s eating 3,000 calories, they could have 70g fat a day and be good to go. (Understanding that nutrition is relative to training and goals, of course.)
Okay, cooking I can kinda-sorta understand (even though it’s hard to screw up scrambled eggs, hard boiled eggs, or chicken in a pan). But I seriously need to know how one “struggles” when making a sandwich. Please explain.