Nope. You don’t understand the basics of the differences between the following statements and what is logically sufficient to respectively refute each.
-Anyone should be taken with a grain of salt;
-Most should be taken with a grain of salt;
-Some should be taken with a grain of salt.
Your original post said anyone. Your next post says preponderance of evidence (implying most people). These are different but you try to pass them off to mean the same. Not very precise wording for someone called “mathematics”.
It matters not an iota what the population in question does (try the same with any triathlete can ride 40 kms under an hour, most triathletes can ride 40 kms under an hour, and some triathletes can ride 40 kms under an hour), and what is respectively needed to negate each.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for your other point re: taking with a grain of salt, it's just a constant moving of the goal post. When someone doesn't track, you say that the person should track. When tracking is provided (longitudinally over a decade, where for most the decade CICO mostly tracked with mass), you then say it's not necessarily accurate and consistent. Implicit in your series of posts is that it can't be ruled out that CICO has changed. This sort of outright dismissal seems rather unnecessary. Nor is it helpful. I can understand that for society at large, there are many who couldn't square just how much they are eating vs they are expending, but that prevalence is lower for the posters here and even less likely for the OP.
And for the record, b/c I also use HR, I can tell within 2 weeks if a PM is reading high by at least 3%; and I also do static calibration at least annually and when I see numbers that seem a tad too good to be true. In fact, I once noticed that I was doing efforts 10 W higher than what I should be doing, did a static calibration to notice that my numbers were inflated by 3%, complained to SRM that my PM was reading high, was told that the slope really shouldn't drift that much, and was shown to be right when I sent in the unit and SRM giving the unit a new slope matching what I determined using static calibration. Ditto for when I receive a new unit. Your hypothetical of "a power meter that was off by 10-50% for 18-70% of your rides" is so far beyond the pale that it's simply laughable.
But it wouldn't surprise me if you were to simply move the goal posts further with utterances such as "your scales were off" and "you weren't as meticulous", even though none of my methods changed and I still experienced a 3kg gain followed by a 3kg loss in 6-month, despite maintaining a higher CICO deficit during the time I experienced the 3kg gain. Anything but the recognition that the assumption of consistent basal metabolism might have been incorrect, also as if such a recognition were an anathema to personal responsibility.
-Anyone should be taken with a grain of salt;
-Most should be taken with a grain of salt;
-Some should be taken with a grain of salt.
Your original post said anyone. Your next post says preponderance of evidence (implying most people). These are different but you try to pass them off to mean the same. Not very precise wording for someone called “mathematics”.
It matters not an iota what the population in question does (try the same with any triathlete can ride 40 kms under an hour, most triathletes can ride 40 kms under an hour, and some triathletes can ride 40 kms under an hour), and what is respectively needed to negate each.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for your other point re: taking with a grain of salt, it's just a constant moving of the goal post. When someone doesn't track, you say that the person should track. When tracking is provided (longitudinally over a decade, where for most the decade CICO mostly tracked with mass), you then say it's not necessarily accurate and consistent. Implicit in your series of posts is that it can't be ruled out that CICO has changed. This sort of outright dismissal seems rather unnecessary. Nor is it helpful. I can understand that for society at large, there are many who couldn't square just how much they are eating vs they are expending, but that prevalence is lower for the posters here and even less likely for the OP.
And for the record, b/c I also use HR, I can tell within 2 weeks if a PM is reading high by at least 3%; and I also do static calibration at least annually and when I see numbers that seem a tad too good to be true. In fact, I once noticed that I was doing efforts 10 W higher than what I should be doing, did a static calibration to notice that my numbers were inflated by 3%, complained to SRM that my PM was reading high, was told that the slope really shouldn't drift that much, and was shown to be right when I sent in the unit and SRM giving the unit a new slope matching what I determined using static calibration. Ditto for when I receive a new unit. Your hypothetical of "a power meter that was off by 10-50% for 18-70% of your rides" is so far beyond the pale that it's simply laughable.
But it wouldn't surprise me if you were to simply move the goal posts further with utterances such as "your scales were off" and "you weren't as meticulous", even though none of my methods changed and I still experienced a 3kg gain followed by a 3kg loss in 6-month, despite maintaining a higher CICO deficit during the time I experienced the 3kg gain. Anything but the recognition that the assumption of consistent basal metabolism might have been incorrect, also as if such a recognition were an anathema to personal responsibility.