I like how you confidently assert that I'm portly and then completely not take the bet. I'm calling you an intellectual coward, who wouldn't put yourself out there for fear of looking dumb, which has nothing to do with what you look like and everything to do with what you think and type.
I'm employing a tit-for-tat strategy when it comes to the insults, newbie. Don't call me "stupid" (which you have no evidence for), and I won't call you "a fat asian man" (which I have no evidence for). All you could potentially argue based on the words I'm typing is that a) you disagree with my position, or b) you disagree with the form of my arguments. "Stupidity" doesn't enter the equation, and this discussion will go more smoothly if you'll lay off the insults.
On b) is there any reason to believe that the caloric burning wouldn't be balanced out by a slower metabolism elsewhere in the day?
It very well might be. Again, ceteris paribus, exercise would help the average American diet far more than no exercise.
As a quick aside, there very possibly could be an "optimal diet"- which I mentioned earlier- that casts aside entirely the folk wisdom I'm employing here. But I'm not concerned with the "optimal diet" (although I would encourage you to explain what, exactly, that would look like).
How does A) help, especially in light of the negative effects of "keeping your body active"...?
Too many studies to count have shown that a sedative lifestyle leads to greater risk of stroke, heart attack, and the like. Being moderately active is a good way to keep your body working properly in general. No universal axioms here; just good, clean, common sense that can help the struggling average man reach a healthier position.
1 is a tautology, how the hell does it actually serve as advice?
I'm not sure you know what a "tautology" is, then. "Taking in fewer calories than you consume" isn't some self-defining repetition; it's a simple recommendation that you... uh... take in fewer calories than you burn.
Where do you go to find out how many calories you burn?
Google. Seriously though, it's not difficult to find out a) how many calories are burned in a typical, non-intensive day, b) how many calories you burn during exercise, and c) how many calories are in the food you eat. Just chalk up a quick balance sheet.
It doesn't even mandate that you need to exercise or eat less (which seems to be your position)!
...which is why it's only one of the three points I made, yeah?
Why not do things which speed up your metabolism without exercise or eat less without making a conscious choice?
This is potentially good advice as well.
I'm not saying that's untrue, but how is that useful advice at all?
Because it gives us a starting point: when planning out your diet, make sure that your planned routine will burn off enough calories compared to what foods you plan to eat, and if things don't balance out (or, if you're trying to lose weight, tip towards the lower end), then make an adjustment on one side of the scale or the other.
--
Houston Texans: 3-2
Division Ranking: 1st (tie)