How to measure calories of Haagen Dazs ice cream?

1810121314

Replies

  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    CMR...I love you. ROFLMAO!!! :flowerforyou:
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

    Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

    What you aren't understanding is that I've read the whole thread. This is not help and support. You are not clearing up anything . What you are engaging in is posturing, baiting and general douche baggery. The fact that you are more then likely a sock completes the unsavory package. I don't know the history of conflict, really much if anything about this board. My opinions are based on your conduct alone.

    Okay, here is the help and support you need. Don't do the LBM method, it's wrong. YOU CAN DO IT!

    So how much protein should I, a 175 pound male, eat daily?

    Depends on your goals, and activity factor.

    How about a quick matrix to cover a reasonable range of goals and activity? You know, that would cover 84% of the generally active population.
  • wheird
    wheird Posts: 7,963 Member
    Says LBM method is bad because inaccurate results from the less costly methods. Then says .5-1g/lb of bodyweight is better, despite having such a wide variance.


    Lololol.

    Only one person that I know could make that logical error.

    What's the problem, a scale cost 20 dollars, dexa few hundred.

    Hydrostatic costs less than a hundred.

    Still no valid research to support the LBM method regardless of price of BF testing.

    Strong avoidance.

    There is nothing to avoid. There is no valid research to support that LBM is a viable method to determine protein intake. The research on protein intake is based on total weight. There is nothing more to debate about on this subject. That's it.

    You have already admitted that it is a good rule of thumb and that the issue is prohibitive cost for bodyfat testing.
  • *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

    Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

    What you aren't understanding is that I've read the whole thread. This is not help and support. You are not clearing up anything . What you are engaging in is posturing, baiting and general douche baggery. The fact that you are more then likely a sock completes the unsavory package. I don't know the history of conflict, really much if anything about this board. My opinions are based on your conduct alone.

    Okay, here is the help and support you need. Don't do the LBM method, it's wrong. YOU CAN DO IT!

    So how much protein should I, a 175 pound male, eat daily?

    Depends on your goals, and activity factor.

    How about a quick matrix to cover a reasonable range of goals and activity? You know, that would cover 84% of the generally active population.

    Depends on many factors including hunger, fat intake and things of that sort. Generally, I would say 1g per lbs on up if you're reducing body fat. If you're bulking then You can bring it down under 1g per pound, this way you can have more calories with out the satiety effect of protein.
  • Hey, Bro...give it a rest. There are other threads in the forums. SRS, have some IC or something.

    wow.

    Bad logic.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    Whose rules?

    Please cite sources.

    I would hate to not give you the chance to credit people appropriately so you do not get accused of bad science or plagiarism. It's for the greater good!
  • Phoenix_Warrior
    Phoenix_Warrior Posts: 1,633 Member
    Plz do escuse me. I just came in here to be a douche

    a3ysu9.jpg
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    The researches is for when you can't find your ice cream.

    Then it's wesearches precioussss....
  • *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    Whose rules?

    Please cite sources.

    I would hate to not give you the chance to credit people appropriately so you do not get accused of bad science or plagiarism. It's for the greater good!

    Lyle Mcdonald
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    Whose rules?

    Please cite sources.

    I would hate to not give you the chance to credit people appropriately so you do not get accused of bad science or plagiarism. It's for the greater good!

    Lyle Mcdonald

    We're going to need links to what you are citing. :smile:
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

    Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

    Public bulletin board means everyone reads and comments brah. Even when it isn't convenient.
    So what is your complaint?

    Where did I complain? That was you whining.

    Pathetic effort.
  • *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

    Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

    Public bulletin board means everyone reads and comments brah. Even when it isn't convenient.
    So what is your complaint?

    Where did I complain? That was you whining.

    Pathetic effort.

    This is my whining?
    You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    Whose rules?

    Please cite sources.

    I would hate to not give you the chance to credit people appropriately so you do not get accused of bad science or plagiarism. It's for the greater good!

    Lyle Mcdonald

    LMAO. Talk about an appeal to authority. While I am a fan of Lyle's, you really need to do better than that. After all, you were provided with links to an actual peer reviewed study.

    How about some links to actual research?
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.

    Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

    What you aren't understanding is that I've read the whole thread. This is not help and support. You are not clearing up anything . What you are engaging in is posturing, baiting and general douche baggery. The fact that you are more then likely a sock completes the unsavory package. I don't know the history of conflict, really much if anything about this board. My opinions are based on your conduct alone.

    Okay, here is the help and support you need. Don't do the LBM method, it's wrong. YOU CAN DO IT!

    So how much protein should I, a 175 pound male, eat daily?

    Depends on your goals, and activity factor.

    How about a quick matrix to cover a reasonable range of goals and activity? You know, that would cover 84% of the generally active population.

    Depends on many factors including hunger, fat intake and things of that sort. Generally, I would say 1g per lbs on up if you're reducing body fat. If you're bulking then You can bring it down under 1g per pound, this way you can have more calories with out the satiety effect of protein.

    But anything between 87g and 262g (.5g - 1.5g/lb) is fine, right?

    And if I'm eating to a number (as I do), why would I care about satiety?
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member
    Hey, Bro...give it a rest. There are other threads in the forums. SRS, have some IC or something.

    WSsO9nv.jpg

    wow.

    a3f63c.jpg
  • QuietBloom
    QuietBloom Posts: 5,413 Member

    Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.

    Exhibit A: BroSciencePHD whining.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Hey, Bro...give it a rest. There are other threads in the forums. SRS, have some IC or something.

    WSsO9nv.jpg

    wow.

    a3f63c.jpg

    I think we need lots more ice cream gifs

    4_minute__hyuna___ice_cream_gif_by_teklaa-d5id9g4.gif
  • *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    Whose rules?

    Please cite sources.

    I would hate to not give you the chance to credit people appropriately so you do not get accused of bad science or plagiarism. It's for the greater good!

    Lyle Mcdonald

    LMAO. Talk about an appeal to authority. While I am a fan of Lyle's, you really need to do better than that. After all, you were provided with links to an actual peer reviewed study.

    How about some links to actual research?

    If you're a fan of Lyle's you probbaly have his protein book. Go look up the references in there.
  • Mother_Superior
    Mother_Superior Posts: 1,624 Member
    *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    Whose rules?

    Please cite sources.

    I would hate to not give you the chance to credit people appropriately so you do not get accused of bad science or plagiarism. It's for the greater good!

    Lyle Mcdonald

    Ronald Mcdonald

    See? Anybody can say names, unfortunately that's not what it means to cite a source in support of an assertion.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Also:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/protein-intake-while-dieting-qa.html

    "While less data on this group is available, bodybuilders and athletes have long used a protein intake of 2.2 g/kg (1 g/lb) lean body mass as a generalized intake level and as folks get very lean, intakes of 3.3 g/kg (1.5 g/lb) of lean body mass may be required to stave off muscle loss while dieting. In some very extreme cases, such as the near protein only diet approach of my own Rapid Fat Loss Handbook even higher protein intakes may be required for very lean individuals.

    So basically we have an intake continuum ranging from about 1.5 g/kg (0.68 g/lb) as a minimum for the obese non-training individual up to a high of around 3.3 g/kg (1.5 g/lb) of protein per pound of lean body mass for very lean heavily training athletes or bodybuilders with middle ground values being found in between those two extremes. You’ll note that I didn’t put any of those values in terms of percentages for reasons discussed in Diet Percentages: Part 1 and Diet Percentages: Part 2."

    If you are going to use an appeal to authority...at least get it right.

    Hmmm...I think I see LBM mentioned.
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    *whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*

    Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.

    Am I understanding this correctly?

    And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.

    In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.

    Once again bad logic.
    g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.

    The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.

    So in both instances the LBM method fails.

    Whose rules?

    Please cite sources.

    I would hate to not give you the chance to credit people appropriately so you do not get accused of bad science or plagiarism. It's for the greater good!

    Lyle Mcdonald

    LMAO. Talk about an appeal to authority. While I am a fan of Lyle's, you really need to do better than that. After all, you were provided with links to an actual peer reviewed study.

    How about some links to actual research?

    If you're a fan of Lyle's you probbaly have his protein book. Go look up the references in there.

    Yes I do.

    You made the assertion, you provide the support.
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    ice-cream-o.gif
  • sjohnny
    sjohnny Posts: 56,142 Member
    giphy.gif
  • Mother_Superior
    Mother_Superior Posts: 1,624 Member
    george-ice-cream.gif
  • sjohnny
    sjohnny Posts: 56,142 Member
    0092.gif
  • sjohnny
    sjohnny Posts: 56,142 Member
    IceCreamGifLge-1.gif
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    ice_cream_love___gif_by_solci_chan-d513rzo.gif
  • cmeiron
    cmeiron Posts: 1,599 Member
    TYep1.gif
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    ad-ice-cream-sandwich.gif
  • Also:

    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/protein-intake-while-dieting-qa.html

    "While less data on this group is available, bodybuilders and athletes have long used a protein intake of 2.2 g/kg (1 g/lb) lean body mass as a generalized intake level and as folks get very lean, intakes of 3.3 g/kg (1.5 g/lb) of lean body mass may be required to stave off muscle loss while dieting. In some very extreme cases, such as the near protein only diet approach of my own Rapid Fat Loss Handbook even higher protein intakes may be required for very lean individuals.

    So basically we have an intake continuum ranging from about 1.5 g/kg (0.68 g/lb) as a minimum for the obese non-training individual up to a high of around 3.3 g/kg (1.5 g/lb) of protein per pound of lean body mass for very lean heavily training athletes or bodybuilders with middle ground values being found in between those two extremes. You’ll note that I didn’t put any of those values in terms of percentages for reasons discussed in Diet Percentages: Part 1 and Diet Percentages: Part 2."

    If you are going to use an appeal to authority...at least get it right.

    Hmmm...I think I see LBM mentioned.
    Bad logic.