How to measure calories of Haagen Dazs ice cream?
Replies
-
She made many violations on forums topics when I have seen them. She has done it on this topic. Yet nothing happens to her. it's pretty sad actually. How the community is, filled with biases. I get it, she's a myfitnesspal.com favorite, I get that. The mods let her get away with stuff, that's very obvious.
If you have issue with her posts, report them.
Yes, she's a local fav because she provides value, brings intelligence and frankly gives a lot of herself, what do you bring? So far, I'm not seeing much but foisted aggressiveness.
I brought more... I exposed the truth...
1)I already discussed how she is misleading people with her ice cream posts.
2)Her macro calculations is bad science.
3)How she's knocking off someone elses method (not exactly but for the most part).
You should be thanking me.
1. She is not misleading them. There is no factual reason why a person cannot eat ice cream as a part of their daily diet and lose weight.
2. Saying it or typing it doesnt make it true.
3. Just like nearly every name in the fitness industry. Pointing this out means absolutely nothing and you are just grasping at straws.0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So it doesn't make sense to cite evidence in support of your claims or in opposition to Sara's, but it does make sense to base scientific assertions off of unsubstantiated declarations. Maybe read another hundred or so books (Some by British authors even!) and then come back and try again. :drinker:0 -
She made many violations on forums topics when I have seen them. She has done it on this topic. Yet nothing happens to her. it's pretty sad actually. How the community is, filled with biases. I get it, she's a myfitnesspal.com favorite, I get that. The mods let her get away with stuff, that's very obvious.
Really I'd like to see those posts....
I am about to take one for the team and get my first warning...but will hold my tongue...
I got news for you buddy some adults here actually read more then the average and we do use words that maybe aren't commonly used....that doesn't make them arrogant it makes them well read and verse in many topics.
Just because it's not common language for you...try to get out more and dig your head out of whatever crap you are getting your info from....why track calories if you eat ice cream....:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
As for Sara she is a valuable member of this community and when you become half of what she is you will still only be a little man trust me on that...
Now I am off to have a bath, drink some wine and eat more ice cream cake cause I took Sara's advice...and AMG have lost significant weight and body fat...ie .8g of Protien per LBM...
You are misinformed. Due to the fact that I resist using a commodious vocuabulary. That does not infer that my reading is impaired. Frankly, I don't have self esteem issues, I am not trying to impress anyone.0 -
*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.0 -
You are misinformed. Due to the fact that I resist using a commodious vocuabulary. That does not infer that my reading is impaired. Frankly, I don't have self esteem issues, I am not trying to impress anyone.
You misused the word infer.
While thesaurus.com can give you synonyms, it can't fix everything.
You think that because you are confused and bewildered, everyone else is as well.
No one else is; cogent thoughts hit you and you respond at a right angle. Again, it's a very distinctive trait.
Would you like to step up and demonstrate some integrity yet, or shall we go on?0 -
LMAO...coz wrong!!!!
He's wrong, quite unhinged and clearly disturbed. He has been wrong about nearly every thing he's written in this thread as far as I can figure.
However what he IS doing right now is soaking your time so you can't help people. That's truly crappy.
That's before we get to the point where he doesn't have the self-respect to own up to his stupid game.
You are right oh wise one.
Also...I am actually supposed to be working :happy:0 -
LMAO...coz wrong!!!!
He's wrong, quite unhinged and clearly disturbed. He has been wrong about nearly every thing he's written in this thread as far as I can figure.
However what he IS doing right now is soaking your time so you can't help people. That's truly crappy.
That's before we get to the point where he doesn't have the self-respect to own up to his stupid game.
You are right oh wise one.
Also...I am actually supposed to be working :happy:
Right and if I see you back here again, I'm sending him your e-mail address.0 -
I came in here thinking that it would be fun. I am rather disappointed.0
-
*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.
Thanks!
Sorry you are currently a freak magnet. I'm pretty sure being railed against by the village idiot counts as cardio. Thereby allowing for more ice cream.0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.0 -
I came in here thinking that it would be fun. I am rather disappointed.
I thought it was a thread about really being serious about ice cream calories just because of the size of the thread. Like, really serious about ice cream. Or maybe even a rival to the squat thread (there's a palate cleanser). I'm late to the party and leaving early but this is the least fun with ice cream I've ever had.
This really should be a thread about cauliflower.0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
In before "the average person is not an athlete" and then "here is a study about protein in mice"0 -
She made many violations on forums topics when I have seen them. She has done it on this topic. Yet nothing happens to her. it's pretty sad actually. How the community is, filled with biases. I get it, she's a myfitnesspal.com favorite, I get that. The mods let her get away with stuff, that's very obvious.
If you have issue with her posts, report them.
Yes, she's a local fav because she provides value, brings intelligence and frankly gives a lot of herself, what do you bring? So far, I'm not seeing much but foisted aggressiveness.
I brought more... I exposed the truth...
1)I already discussed how she is misleading people with her ice cream posts.
2)Her macro calculations is bad science.
3)How she's knocking off someone elses method (not exactly but for the most part).
You should be thanking me.
1) No, she's misleading no one because there is nothing to mislead. She eats ice cream. That's all there is to it.
2) How is her macro calculations bad science?
3) You still have not provided any evidence of her knocking off anyone else's method.
a) She's never claimed to have come up with any "methods"
b) She does not tell people that these methods were based off her ideas
c) She's never tried to market in any way, shape, or form, these "methods" in order to make money or deceive people into believing she's the creator of said calculations, etc
And the only reason she should thank you is because you have proven that you have really earned your PhD and that your arguments are based on subtle insults and wild accusations.0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
In before "the average person is not an athlete" and then "here is a study about protein in mice"
Mice like ice cream.0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So it doesn't make sense to cite evidence in support of your claims or in opposition to Sara's, but it does make sense to base scientific assertions off of unsubstantiated declarations. Maybe read another hundred or so books (Some by British authors even!) and then come back and try again. :drinker:
You want me to cite papers that support that studies on this subject are based on total mass not Lean body mass? In this community it should be pretty common sense.0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
In before "the average person is not an athlete" and then "here is a study about protein in mice"
Mice like ice cream.
You arent the first person to claim that.
0 -
I came in here thinking that it would be fun. I am rather disappointed.
I too am disappoint.
0 -
You want me to cite papers that support that studies on this subject are based on total mass not Lean body mass? In this community it should be pretty common sense.
LOL. He can't find any papers.0 -
Can we have a discussion of flavors at least? Wow....this...so close to Christmas.....I vote for a cauliflower thread....0
-
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
In before "the average person is not an athlete" and then "here is a study about protein in mice"
Mice like ice cream.
You arent the first person to claim that.
:bigsmile:
Yes, but I AM the first person to provide them with tiny food scales and measuring cups. And itty bitty spoons.0 -
In before "the average person is not an athlete" and then "here is a study about protein in mice"
Mice like ice cream.
You arent the first person to claim that.
Yes, but I AM the first person to provide them with tiny food scales and measuring cups. And itty bitty spoons.
0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
I need to see the full paper.0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
I need to see the full paper.
Have you tried to do an internet search? Google is a pretty good choice.
I did it and I think this is what you are looking for....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/240927650 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
I need to see the full paper.
When you do, please do check out who Helm thanks in the acknowledgement.0 -
She made many violations on forums topics when I have seen them. She has done it on this topic. Yet nothing happens to her. it's pretty sad actually. How the community is, filled with biases. I get it, she's a myfitnesspal.com favorite, I get that. The mods let her get away with stuff, that's very obvious.
If you have issue with her posts, report them.
Yes, she's a local fav because she provides value, brings intelligence and frankly gives a lot of herself, what do you bring? So far, I'm not seeing much but foisted aggressiveness.
I brought more... I exposed the truth...
1)I already discussed how she is misleading people with her ice cream posts.
2)Her macro calculations is bad science.
3)How she's knocking off someone elses method (not exactly but for the most part).
You should be thanking me.
1) No, she's misleading no one because there is nothing to mislead. She eats ice cream. That's all there is to it.
2) How is her macro calculations bad science?
3) You still have not provided any evidence of her knocking off anyone else's method.
a) She's never claimed to have come up with any "methods"
b) She does not tell people that these methods were based off her ideas
c) She's never tried to market in any way, shape, or form, these "methods" in order to make money or deceive people into believing she's the creator of said calculations, etc
And the only reason she should thank you is because you have proven that you have really earned your PhD and that your arguments are based on subtle insults and wild accusations.
1) I eat arsenic everyday so what's your point?
2) It's bad science because there is no research to support it. Except that one paper that guy posted, which I could only find the abstract.
3) Go read any book by Lyle Mcdonald0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
I need to see the full paper.
When you do, please do check out who Helm thanks in the acknowledgement.
I am asking you to link me...0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
I need to see the full paper.
When you do, please do check out who Helm thanks in the acknowledgement.
I am asking you to link me...
Oh FFS.Have you tried to do an internet search? Google is a pretty good choice.
I did it and I think this is what you are looking for....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765
There. The link you keep wanting but can't seem to search for at all.0 -
0 -
tl;dr pages and pages of arguments over macros, clean eating, intermittent fasting, or whatevs... but to the original question, here's one way to measure it.
Step 1. Determine your TDEE with accuracy.
Step 2. Determine your starting weight (SW) with accuracy.
Step 3. Eat at TDEE plus binge on a full carton of Haagen-Dazs every day for a week.
Step 4. Determine your ending weight (EW) with accuracy.
Step 5. Do math. CPC = (EW - SW) * 500. CPS = CPC / SPC.
(CPC: calories per carton. CPS: calories per serving. SPC: servings per carton.)
For greater statistical accuracy, run the trial for a month instead of a week.
Oh sure -- there are other ways... but I challenge anyone to find a way that's more fun.
0 -
*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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions