Losing Weight At McDonalds

CoachReddy

whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. you don't consider your fast food high fat?

my "sugary foods" are fruit

my fats are animal fat, coconut oil, avocado and nuts/seeds

yours are?

~30% of calories from fat is not "high fat," no.

Your diet is 55% fat. I consider that high fat. But I also don't consider high fat to be a necessarily bad thing. I think that on a low-calorie diet for someone active, fat intake that high could be bad for performance because it'll necessarily mean lower carb consumption, but it's not a big deal, especially if you can do it and feel OK.

Layne Norton says that a diet super high in sugar/fat is bad because it means you can't hit your macro goals. He also criticizes people who eat as much high sugar/fat food as they can and are proud of it. I don't eat a diet high in sugar/fat, I meet my macro goals, and I don't boast about eating as much high sugar/fat food as I can.

really?

Yes. Really. You really do eat about twice as high a proportion of calories from fat than I do. I really do meet macro goals. I really don't eat "as much high sugar/fat food" as I can.

and you don't boast about your fast food intake?

jonnythan

whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. you don't consider your fast food high fat?

my "sugary foods" are fruit

my fats are animal fat, coconut oil, avocado and nuts/seeds

yours are?

~30% of calories from fat is not "high fat," no.

Your diet is 55% fat. I consider that high fat. But I also don't consider high fat to be a necessarily bad thing. I think that on a low-calorie diet for someone active, fat intake that high could be bad for performance because it'll necessarily mean lower carb consumption, but it's not a big deal, especially if you can do it and feel OK.

Layne Norton says that a diet super high in sugar/fat is bad because it means you can't hit your macro goals. He also criticizes people who eat as much high sugar/fat food as they can and are proud of it. I don't eat a diet high in sugar/fat, I meet my macro goals, and I don't boast about eating as much high sugar/fat food as I can.

really?

Yes. Really. You really do eat about twice as high a proportion of calories from fat than I do. I really do meet macro goals. I really don't eat "as much high sugar/fat food" as I can.

and you don't boast about your fast food intake?

Again, Norton did not mention fast food. He criticized people who "who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor."

Fast food doesn't mean high sugar, high fat. You're proof of that, in fact. Despite your total lack of fast food consumption, you get twice your % of calories from fat and roughly the same % of calories from sugar that I do.

CoachReddy

whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. you don't consider your fast food high fat?

my "sugary foods" are fruit

my fats are animal fat, coconut oil, avocado and nuts/seeds

yours are?

~30% of calories from fat is not "high fat," no.

Your diet is 55% fat. I consider that high fat. But I also don't consider high fat to be a necessarily bad thing. I think that on a low-calorie diet for someone active, fat intake that high could be bad for performance because it'll necessarily mean lower carb consumption, but it's not a big deal, especially if you can do it and feel OK.

Layne Norton says that a diet super high in sugar/fat is bad because it means you can't hit your macro goals. He also criticizes people who eat as much high sugar/fat food as they can and are proud of it. I don't eat a diet high in sugar/fat, I meet my macro goals, and I don't boast about eating as much high sugar/fat food as I can.

really?

Yes. Really. You really do eat about twice as high a proportion of calories from fat than I do. I really do meet macro goals. I really don't eat "as much high sugar/fat food" as I can.

and you don't boast about your fast food intake?

Again, Norton did not mention fast food. He criticized people who "who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor."

Fast food doesn't mean high sugar, high fat. You're proof of that, in fact. Despite your total lack of fast food consumption, you get twice your % of calories from fat and roughly the same % of calories from sugar that I do.

i eat twice as much as you... so... it evens out wouldn't you say? and again, my fats and sugars are from healthy sources. yours not so much.

shall we compare sodium?

IamOnMywayNow

2 McDoubles
1 Diet Coke

780 cals, 46 grams protein, $ 3.58

I will take the 2 McDoubles with just meat and cheese, add a medium fry and I am in:)

2LoveEnnisMccall6

try to avoid mcds, but there grilled chicken salads are lush, yummy!!!!!
add small fries, to fill me up abit more

jonnythan

whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. you don't consider your fast food high fat?

my "sugary foods" are fruit

my fats are animal fat, coconut oil, avocado and nuts/seeds

yours are?

~30% of calories from fat is not "high fat," no.

Your diet is 55% fat. I consider that high fat. But I also don't consider high fat to be a necessarily bad thing. I think that on a low-calorie diet for someone active, fat intake that high could be bad for performance because it'll necessarily mean lower carb consumption, but it's not a big deal, especially if you can do it and feel OK.

Layne Norton says that a diet super high in sugar/fat is bad because it means you can't hit your macro goals. He also criticizes people who eat as much high sugar/fat food as they can and are proud of it. I don't eat a diet high in sugar/fat, I meet my macro goals, and I don't boast about eating as much high sugar/fat food as I can.

really?

Yes. Really. You really do eat about twice as high a proportion of calories from fat than I do. I really do meet macro goals. I really don't eat "as much high sugar/fat food" as I can.

and you don't boast about your fast food intake?

Again, Norton did not mention fast food. He criticized people who "who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor."

Fast food doesn't mean high sugar, high fat. You're proof of that, in fact. Despite your total lack of fast food consumption, you get twice your % of calories from fat and roughly the same % of calories from sugar that I do.

i eat twice as much as you... so... it evens out wouldn't you say? and again, my fats and sugars are from healthy sources. yours not so much.

shall we compare sodium?

We are talking about Layne Norton's ideas, not your own. I care about Norton's ideas about a diet like mine. Your ideas about a diet like mine are irrelevant.

Norton has repeatedly said that sodium intake doesn't matter unless you have some sensitivity or condition which makes it bad.

Here's the bottom line: you thought you posted a quote from Layne Norton that "slams" my diet, but you did not. The quote you posted actually fully supports my diet.

CoachReddy

whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night. you don't consider your fast food high fat?

my "sugary foods" are fruit

my fats are animal fat, coconut oil, avocado and nuts/seeds

yours are?

~30% of calories from fat is not "high fat," no.

Your diet is 55% fat. I consider that high fat. But I also don't consider high fat to be a necessarily bad thing. I think that on a low-calorie diet for someone active, fat intake that high could be bad for performance because it'll necessarily mean lower carb consumption, but it's not a big deal, especially if you can do it and feel OK.

Layne Norton says that a diet super high in sugar/fat is bad because it means you can't hit your macro goals. He also criticizes people who eat as much high sugar/fat food as they can and are proud of it. I don't eat a diet high in sugar/fat, I meet my macro goals, and I don't boast about eating as much high sugar/fat food as I can.

really?

Yes. Really. You really do eat about twice as high a proportion of calories from fat than I do. I really do meet macro goals. I really don't eat "as much high sugar/fat food" as I can.

and you don't boast about your fast food intake?

Again, Norton did not mention fast food. He criticized people who "who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor."

Fast food doesn't mean high sugar, high fat. You're proof of that, in fact. Despite your total lack of fast food consumption, you get twice your % of calories from fat and roughly the same % of calories from sugar that I do.

i eat twice as much as you... so... it evens out wouldn't you say? and again, my fats and sugars are from healthy sources. yours not so much.

shall we compare sodium?

We are talking about Layne Norton's ideas, not your own. I care about Norton's ideas about a diet like mine. Your ideas about a diet like mine are irrelevant.

Norton has repeatedly said that sodium intake doesn't matter unless you have some sensitivity or condition which makes it bad.

Here's the bottom line: you thought you posted a quote from Layne Norton that "slams" my diet, but you did not. The quote you posted actually fully supports my diet.

:noway:

that's truly impressive. i'm honestly floored by your ability to convince yourself you're right on this. haha well done.

SoDamnHungry

2 Side Salads (20 calories each)
1 Packet Vinagarette (35 calories)
2 Snack Wraps w/o Cheese (420 calories)

5 Dollars, 495 Calories, 30 Protein, 13 Fat, 65 Carb


Don't even try to hate on that.

but you could easily make your own at home, probably cheaper - and you know everything that'll be in it, so it'll be better for you!

Yeah, but it doesn't taste the same when you make it at home. =(

CoachReddy

just posting again to reiterate

Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time, we just don’t agonize over having a homemade burrito with a low carb wrap or some reduced calorie ice cream. We see the value of a controlled intake in order to prevent uncontrolled binging. But I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."

http://www.shreddedknowledge.com/home/a-talk-with-the-doc-dr-layne-norton/

blwenz

SUBWAY

jonnythan

just posting again to reiterate

Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time, we just don’t agonize over having a homemade burrito with a low carb wrap or some reduced calorie ice cream. We see the value of a controlled intake in order to prevent uncontrolled binging. But I do see IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can and wear it like a badge of honor. That is not the point. If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default because you will not be able to hit a protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake conducive to body composition improvement if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods. The point is it’s ok to have these foods in small amounts if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."

http://www.shreddedknowledge.com/home/a-talk-with-the-doc-dr-layne-norton/

Yup. You know what term does not appear a single time in that quote?


"Fast food."

dovetail22uk

2 Side Salads (20 calories each)
1 Packet Vinagarette (35 calories)
2 Snack Wraps w/o Cheese (420 calories)

5 Dollars, 495 Calories, 30 Protein, 13 Fat, 65 Carb


Don't even try to hate on that.

but you could easily make your own at home, probably cheaper - and you know everything that'll be in it, so it'll be better for you!

Yeah, but it doesn't taste the same when you make it at home. =(

So true!

And all these bros arguing about macronutrients blah blah blah need a milkshake. It's just a BURGER.

albertabeefy

um. we were talking about Type 2 diabetes... why are you changing the subject?

No, I was talking about being a "Type II diabetic with severe pancreatic β-cell impairment." ... which is NOT the same as our current Type II diabetes epidemic.

Some people refer to my diabetes as LADA (Latent Auto-Immune Diabetes in Adults) or even "Type 1.5" ... but regardless, what I have is simply NOT the same as your garden-variety Type II diabetic and is not at all linked to obesity or being overweight.

and you're not getting me. i know it's about calories. but clean foods are generally lower calorie and take up more stomach volume, so it's much harder to eat a caloric surplus on a clean diet. you can argue if you want - i respect your experience and knowledge on many subjects - but on this I know what I'm talking about.

First, there's no medical or scientific consensus on a definition of "clean" foods. I personally believe whole dairy cream is a "clean" food - especially farm-fresh from grass-fed hormone-free cows. And trust me, it does NOT take up much stomach volume and is incredibly hypercaloric.

Your point is correct "generally", as you said, but most-certainly not always. And definitely not the case for people that over-eat due to psychological/emotional issues.

My problem with many of your statements is you present them as a "one-size-fits-all" and "what-I-say-is-correct" attitude - even when some of them are absolutely incorrect, or at-least based on assumptions you've made which are incorrect.

by "taxing your pancreas less" i was referring to not being in a caloric surplus and thus, not being overweight, both of which being easier to achieve on a clean diet

Again, caloric surplus has nothing to do with taxing a pancreas, carbohydrates do. I could decide to eat 5,000 calories a day right now - and if I did I'd tax my pancreas considerably less than 99.9% of the population because at 5,000 calories I'd still be eating about 80g of carbohydrate a day.

Beyond genetics:

Other type 2 diabetes risk factors include the following:

High blood pressure
High blood triglyceride (fat) levels
Gestational diabetes or giving birth to a baby weighing more than 9 pounds
High-fat and carbohydrate diet
High alcohol intake
Sedentary lifestyle
Obesity or being overweight

Ethnicity: Certain groups, such as African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Japanese Americans, have a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than non-Hispanic whites.

Couple of points:

Your first two 'risk factors' (hypertension and hypertriglyceridemia) are not risk factors for Type II - they're commonly seen biomarkers. Neither increases risk, nor have studies shown them individually to increase risk. They are an association and commonly present in obese people eating a high carbohydrate diet.

High Fat diets with carbohydrate restriction pose less risk for diabetes. High Carb diets, regardless of other macronutrients, pose greater risk for diabetes. High Carbohydrate combined with High Fat diets pose the greatest risk for diabetes. As such, high carbohydrates are more of a risk factor than high fat.

What many people are failing to realize, and that modern science is only starting to recognize, is that obesity doesn't CAUSE Type II diabetes ... it's actually a SYMPTOM of it. Thus the association.

obviously you know all that, but my point is diet probably - PROBABLY - plays a significant role)

I absolutely agree diet plays a role in Type II diabetes, and I don't think there's a probably about it, and I'm happy to message privately about that or in another topic. Diet isn't a factor in Type I and isn't proven a factor in LADA. Those are both auto-immune disorders and no evidence of any kind relates them to diet.

CoachReddy

@ albertabeefy, because no one wants all those quotes

yes the things I say come off as if I believe they're fact - because I do. that's why I believe them. and yes, I tend to generalize because ... well... MFP is a general population towards which generalities can apply. do they apply to everyone? obviously not, and those individuals never refrain from letting that be known, believe me.

i've also been known to change my positions when i'm shown credible evidence that i'm wrong about something. it's happened a number of times on these boards.

and if you want to debate what's clean and what isn't... there's a whole 'nother thread going on about that. and i believe that IS an individual thing that can't easily be defined by generalities.

as for the argument at hand... a caloric surplus will - most likely - carry far too many carbohydrates, and thus, tax your pancreas. are you saying that wasn't the case for you?

JossFit

Honestly, myfitnesspal isn't about dieting, it is about making a lifestyle change.

Um, no. MFP is a tool... thats all. It doesn't have an opinion or a care about what you eat. All MFP does is help you count calories and even then YOU set the amount of calories and even your macronutrients if you wish. It is a glorified calculator.

CristinaL1983

Edit: nevermind

breeshabebe

Oh good... another post where a bunch of body builders/ huge men/ women who don't have much to lose try to convince us all that McDonalds/eating poorly is okay and laugh at the attempt to eat healthy/clean.

albertabeefy

that's truly impressive. i'm honestly floored by your ability to convince yourself you're right on this. haha well done.

There is no science that shows he's wrong on this.

Reviewing his diet - sure much of it is processed - but there simply is no definitive proof this is "bad" for us. None. After decades of research trying to prove it, there's none. And no, I don't agree that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but you cannot prove he's incorrect any more than I can prove he's correct.

So you are simply stating an opinion. Which isn't correct or incorrect - it's an opinion.

His diary suggests he's getting his necessary vitamins/minerals/nutrients/antioxidants as well as what he feels are his own optimum macronutrient percentages. You should know we're all a little different in our macronutrient needs, therefore show us any science that show's he's incorrect.

If you cannot show anything scientific that show's he's unhealthy in his intake (and I'm quite sure you cannot) then perhaps you should agree to disagree instead of trying to mock and belittle him...

jonnythan

that's truly impressive. i'm honestly floored by your ability to convince yourself you're right on this. haha well done.

There is no science that shows he's wrong on this.

Reviewing his diet - sure much of it is processed - but there simply is no definitive proof this is "bad" for us. None. After decades of research trying to prove it, there's none. And no, I don't agree that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, but you cannot prove he's incorrect any more than I can prove he's correct.

So you are simply stating an opinion. Which isn't correct or incorrect - it's an opinion.

His diary suggests he's getting his necessary vitamins/minerals/nutrients/antioxidants as well as what he feels are his own optimum macronutrient percentages. You should know we're all a little different in our macronutrient needs, therefore show us any science that show's he's incorrect.

If you cannot show anything scientific that show's he's unhealthy in his intake (and I'm quite sure you cannot) then perhaps you should agree to disagree instead of trying to mock and belittle him...

When a guy like Layne Norton, who is infinitely smarter and more well-educated on this topic than I am, can't seem to come up with any criticisms of my diet then I figure I'm doing something right.

I follow his core recommendations pretty closely.

albertabeefy

yes the things I say come off as if I believe they're fact - because I do. that's why I believe them.

You believe they're fact because you believe them? No offense, but that's hardly a scientific methodology or a logic you should present your case with.

i've also been known to change my positions when i'm shown credible evidence that i'm wrong about something. it's happened a number of times on these boards.

Your opinion is not based in evidence, yet only evidence to the contrary will change it? Interesting position. I'm sorry, but this means your "position" in many things is OPINION (or belief) and you should speak as if it's opinion, not as if it's fact.

as for the argument at hand... a caloric surplus will - most likely - carry far too many carbohydrates, and thus, tax your pancreas. are you saying that wasn't the case for you?

That was NOT the case for me. Even when I was (admittedly) over-eating, my macronutrient ratios were most commonly in the 40/30/30 range with protein being my 40% figure.