Losing Weight At McDonalds
Replies
-
People who say "you'll be to acidic" or "you'll be too alkaline" are similar to those who say "eating too much protein damages kidneys" when, in reality, excess protein only causes damage when kidney-function impairment already exists.Last blood test pH was 7.41.
Similarly, most people's blood pH will stay within normal ranges (7.35 to 7.45) due to homeostatic processes designed to keep it there. Unless there's an impairment in the function of that regulatory mechanism, it's all good, imho.
Good quotes, and according to the science basically true if the person is also getting their vital nutrients/minerals/vitamins/antioxidents, which most health-conscious people (even the IIFYM crowd) are.I don't think I've ever referenced Layne Norton as a "guru," or any other similar word. I don't think I've ever referenced Norton on this forum at all, so be careful who you decide my "gurus" are.
Anyway, I wonder if this is the quote you're talking about:
"I think you need to hit a certain amount of protein/carb/fat/fiber intake. if you do that, the food sources you choose are quite insignificant."
Or this one:
"Can you tell I think the labels ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ are asinine? Many coaches will try to sell you on the fact that their are ‘magic foods’ but they are basically full of crap and use that as a ploy to rope people in to buying their services."0 -
Here are some more great Norton quotes:
On diet soda:
"They are fine, diet sodas are the best appetite suppressants i've ever used lol."
On "denaturing" proteins:
"Heat and acid will both denature proteins which means they will unfold from this conformational state. However, this does not 'destroy' the protein, it simply causes it to unfold. The amino acids remain intact and are still available. Just to make my point that it does not matter if you denature a protein, look at what happens during digestion. Proteins are exposed to concentrated acid in the stomach (6 Molar Hydrochloric Acid) which will denature almost ANY protein."0 -
When I talked about getting toxicity tests, I wasn't directing them at you specifically. You brought it upon yourself to insinuate that your diet could have made you toxic. Whether you were being sarcastic or an *kitten* is none of my concern, I was merely suggesting an area of further inquiry for you, that's all.
You said:
"If you eat McDonalds five days a week, your insides will be a ****show no matter what you might think. Your body will be acidic instead of alkaline, and you may as well buy yourself a casket now"
"the poster who mentioned that they ate at McDonalds 5 days a week, several times a day, that while their physical appearance has changed (they restricted calories and lost weight), the inside of their body is literally toxic"
I eat McD's and Taco Bell 5+ times a week, so you are literally talking to me.
You literally said my body is "acidic" and that the inside of my body "is literally toxic."
So, please. Tell me what toxins I have, and what you mean by "acidic."
It means your pH is probably quite low. Which is likely on a diet like yours, whixh , makes you more vulnerable to illness. PS ive got a great Layne Norton quote that rips diets like yours to shreds. And he's one of your IIFYM gurus!
Edit: will post when at a computer
Last blood test pH was 7.41.
I don't think I've ever referenced Layne Norton as a "guru," or any other similar word. I don't think I've ever referenced Norton on this forum at all, so be careful who you decide my "gurus" are.
Anyway, I wonder if this is the quote you're talking about:
"I think you need to hit a certain amount of protein/carb/fat/fiber intake. if you do that, the food sources you choose are quite insignificant."
Or this one:
"Can you tell I think the labels ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ are asinine? Many coaches will try to sell you on the fact that their are ‘magic foods’ but they are basically full of crap and use that as a ploy to rope people in to buying their services."
haha this convinced me to get up out of bed to answer you. well done!
here buddy:
"I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. 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/
SUGA SUGA SNAP!0 -
honest question really quick - what do you think causes fit people to have heart attacks? purely genetic? just wondering your thoughts on that.
i also don't think that McDonalds will kill you if you exercise moderation - but I know that to me that means a lot less often than it does for you.
real talk, people die because people die. we are all going to die. some of it is genetic. some of it can be prevented by diet and exercise. some of it can be doctored away. The man who invented jogging not only jogged most of his life but he also ate healthy....and he died of a heart attack.
being overweight/obese increases your risk of all sorts of maladies that can bring an early demise. But eating a 390 cal meal doesn't make you obese. Oh, that's right, it's got fat and sodium in it....and that means, what, exactly? remember when they taught us that eating fat made us fat? Then they were like, oops, my bad. And then they taught us that eating cholesterol gave us high cholesterol so we should eat eggs....and then, oops, my bad. remember when they told us butter was bad and the trans fats in margarine were good? oops, my bad again.
so you'll have to excuse me if i don't get my knickers in a bunch every time they point to new boogeyman. i'm losing weight eating at McDonalds and my labs get better every time time i've had them checked over the last 18 months. as a black male over 40 i'm at risk for everything (heart disease/diabetes/high cholesterol) so i get checked regularly for everything, yet my labs are as clean as yours.
eat what you want in moderation, exercise, enjoy every day of your life because nothing is promised (not even to the clean eaters)
^This!0 -
People who say "you'll be to acidic" or "you'll be too alkaline" are similar to those who say "eating too much protein damages kidneys" when, in reality, excess protein only causes damage when kidney-function impairment already exists.Last blood test pH was 7.41.
Similarly, most people's blood pH will stay within normal ranges (7.35 to 7.45) due to homeostatic processes designed to keep it there. Unless there's an impairment in the function of that regulatory mechanism, it's all good, imho.
this is just a hypothesis on my part, but don't you think it's better for the body if it doesn't have to work as hard to maintain homeostasis?
look into the phrase "dietary stress" - it's some really, really interesting stuff.0 -
When I talked about getting toxicity tests, I wasn't directing them at you specifically. You brought it upon yourself to insinuate that your diet could have made you toxic. Whether you were being sarcastic or an *kitten* is none of my concern, I was merely suggesting an area of further inquiry for you, that's all.
You said:
"If you eat McDonalds five days a week, your insides will be a ****show no matter what you might think. Your body will be acidic instead of alkaline, and you may as well buy yourself a casket now"
"the poster who mentioned that they ate at McDonalds 5 days a week, several times a day, that while their physical appearance has changed (they restricted calories and lost weight), the inside of their body is literally toxic"
I eat McD's and Taco Bell 5+ times a week, so you are literally talking to me.
You literally said my body is "acidic" and that the inside of my body "is literally toxic."
So, please. Tell me what toxins I have, and what you mean by "acidic."
It means your pH is probably quite low. Which is likely on a diet like yours, whixh , makes you more vulnerable to illness. PS ive got a great Layne Norton quote that rips diets like yours to shreds. And he's one of your IIFYM gurus!
Edit: will post when at a computer
Last blood test pH was 7.41.
I don't think I've ever referenced Layne Norton as a "guru," or any other similar word. I don't think I've ever referenced Norton on this forum at all, so be careful who you decide my "gurus" are.
Anyway, I wonder if this is the quote you're talking about:
"I think you need to hit a certain amount of protein/carb/fat/fiber intake. if you do that, the food sources you choose are quite insignificant."
Or this one:
"Can you tell I think the labels ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ are asinine? Many coaches will try to sell you on the fact that their are ‘magic foods’ but they are basically full of crap and use that as a ploy to rope people in to buying their services."
haha this convinced me to get up out of bed to answer you. well done!
here buddy:
"I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. 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/
SUGA SUGA SNAP!
Uh..... I don't see him "slamming" my diet. He said "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."
I do hit the protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake he recommends by eating McDonald's every day. He didn't say you can't do it "if you eat fast food every day." He said you can't do it "if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods." Turns out you can eat at McD's and Taco Bell without it being nothing but "high sugar/fat foods."
Again: I hit Norton's recommended protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake (more or less; I think my macros may be slightly different than his specific recommendations) while eating all this fast food. His criticism is of guys who don't maintain proper protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake.
As he says in this quote and many other quotes, it's ok "if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."0 -
When I talked about getting toxicity tests, I wasn't directing them at you specifically. You brought it upon yourself to insinuate that your diet could have made you toxic. Whether you were being sarcastic or an *kitten* is none of my concern, I was merely suggesting an area of further inquiry for you, that's all.
You said:
"If you eat McDonalds five days a week, your insides will be a ****show no matter what you might think. Your body will be acidic instead of alkaline, and you may as well buy yourself a casket now"
"the poster who mentioned that they ate at McDonalds 5 days a week, several times a day, that while their physical appearance has changed (they restricted calories and lost weight), the inside of their body is literally toxic"
I eat McD's and Taco Bell 5+ times a week, so you are literally talking to me.
You literally said my body is "acidic" and that the inside of my body "is literally toxic."
So, please. Tell me what toxins I have, and what you mean by "acidic."
It means your pH is probably quite low. Which is likely on a diet like yours, whixh , makes you more vulnerable to illness. PS ive got a great Layne Norton quote that rips diets like yours to shreds. And he's one of your IIFYM gurus!
Edit: will post when at a computer
Last blood test pH was 7.41.
I don't think I've ever referenced Layne Norton as a "guru," or any other similar word. I don't think I've ever referenced Norton on this forum at all, so be careful who you decide my "gurus" are.
Anyway, I wonder if this is the quote you're talking about:
"I think you need to hit a certain amount of protein/carb/fat/fiber intake. if you do that, the food sources you choose are quite insignificant."
Or this one:
"Can you tell I think the labels ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ are asinine? Many coaches will try to sell you on the fact that their are ‘magic foods’ but they are basically full of crap and use that as a ploy to rope people in to buying their services."
haha this convinced me to get up out of bed to answer you. well done!
here buddy:
"I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. 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/
SUGA SUGA SNAP!
Uh..... I don't see him "slamming" my diet. He said "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."
I do hit the protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake he recommends by eating McDonald's every day. He didn't say you can't do it "if you eat fast food every day." He said you can't do it "if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods." Turns out you can eat at McD's and Taco Bell without it being nothing but "high sugar/fat foods."
Again: I hit Norton's recommended protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake (more or less; I think my macros may be slightly different than his specific recommendations) while eating all this fast food. His criticism is of guys who don't maintain proper protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake.
As he says in this quote and many other quotes, it's ok "if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."
dude... you're reading what you want to read. he said the foods are ok in SMALL AMOUNTS if you are still hitting your macro goals and that 95% of foods should be clean whole foods. re-read if you need proof.
even funnier - he said he sees IIFYM-ers who wear their sugary and fatty foods as a badge of honor....
nice ticker.0 -
There's simply no scientific evidence to conclude diet soda causes hunger (as one poster suggested) or the host of other issues people tell us it does.On diet soda:
"They are fine, diet sodas are the best appetite suppressants i've ever used lol."
While there is scientific evidence that 'suggests' that diet soda could stimulate hunger (and the only evidence is artificial sweetener testing on rats - not 'diet soda' testing - that had rats given artificial sweeteners eat more than those given sucrose) not only is it very 'spotty' evidence, but there's considerably more scientific studies that contradict it.
There is evidence that correlates diet soda consumption with being overweight and obese ... but correlation isn't causation. It's just as likely overweight/obese people are choosing a diet soda rather than a sugary one to restrict calories, thus 'linking' diet soda to obesity.
For a hypothesis (IE: diet soda is bad for us or causes hunger/weight-gain) to be proven involves proper randomized controlled trials that not only show a positive correlation, but show the same correlation when the trial is repeated. This simply isn't the case with diet soda.0 -
When I talked about getting toxicity tests, I wasn't directing them at you specifically. You brought it upon yourself to insinuate that your diet could have made you toxic. Whether you were being sarcastic or an *kitten* is none of my concern, I was merely suggesting an area of further inquiry for you, that's all.
You said:
"If you eat McDonalds five days a week, your insides will be a ****show no matter what you might think. Your body will be acidic instead of alkaline, and you may as well buy yourself a casket now"
"the poster who mentioned that they ate at McDonalds 5 days a week, several times a day, that while their physical appearance has changed (they restricted calories and lost weight), the inside of their body is literally toxic"
I eat McD's and Taco Bell 5+ times a week, so you are literally talking to me.
You literally said my body is "acidic" and that the inside of my body "is literally toxic."
So, please. Tell me what toxins I have, and what you mean by "acidic."
It means your pH is probably quite low. Which is likely on a diet like yours, whixh , makes you more vulnerable to illness. PS ive got a great Layne Norton quote that rips diets like yours to shreds. And he's one of your IIFYM gurus!
Edit: will post when at a computer
Last blood test pH was 7.41.
I don't think I've ever referenced Layne Norton as a "guru," or any other similar word. I don't think I've ever referenced Norton on this forum at all, so be careful who you decide my "gurus" are.
Anyway, I wonder if this is the quote you're talking about:
"I think you need to hit a certain amount of protein/carb/fat/fiber intake. if you do that, the food sources you choose are quite insignificant."
Or this one:
"Can you tell I think the labels ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ are asinine? Many coaches will try to sell you on the fact that their are ‘magic foods’ but they are basically full of crap and use that as a ploy to rope people in to buying their services."
haha this convinced me to get up out of bed to answer you. well done!
here buddy:
"I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. 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/
SUGA SUGA SNAP!
Uh..... I don't see him "slamming" my diet. He said "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."
I do hit the protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake he recommends by eating McDonald's every day. He didn't say you can't do it "if you eat fast food every day." He said you can't do it "if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods." Turns out you can eat at McD's and Taco Bell without it being nothing but "high sugar/fat foods."
Again: I hit Norton's recommended protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake (more or less; I think my macros may be slightly different than his specific recommendations) while eating all this fast food. His criticism is of guys who don't maintain proper protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake.
As he says in this quote and many other quotes, it's ok "if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."
dude... you're reading what you want to read. he said the foods are ok in SMALL AMOUNTS if you are still hitting your macro goals and that 95% of foods should be clean whole foods. re-read if you need proof.
even funnier - he said he sees IIFYM-ers who wear their sugary and fatty foods as a badge of honor....
nice ticker.
He didn't say fast food is OK in small amounts. He said that high sugar/fat foods are OK in small amounts if you're still hitting your macro goals. Fast food and high sugar/fat food are not the same thing.
Furthermore, he also didn't say he sees IIFYM-ers who wear sugary and fatty foods as a badge of honor. He said he sees IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can as a badge of honor.
The problem with your posts is that you are equating "fast food" to "high sugar/fat food." That's simply not true.
You eat much more fat than I do, despite the fact that I eat so much fast food. You had 230 grams of fat yesterday. I had 51. That means that you had 4.5 times as much fat yesterday than I did, despite the fact that you only had about 1.9 times the calorie intake.
Similar deal with sugar, it seems. Yesterday you had 91g of sugar. I had 67. You consume much more fat than I do, and usually consume more sugar as well. It should be obvious by now that "fast food" and "high sugar/fat" food are not synonymous, yes?
I eat fast food 5+ times a week. I do not eat "as much sugary, high fat food as I can." I hit appropriate macronutrient goals. Nothing Norton said in any of the quotes posted here is in any way a criticism of what I eat.0 -
My personal belief? Sure, I agree.this is just a hypothesis on my part, but don't you think it's better for the body if it doesn't have to work as hard to maintain homeostasis?
However there is no scientific evidence that currently justifies that belief.
Here's an anecdotal example:
I'm a Type II diabetic with severe pancreatic β-cell impairment. I produce very little insulin on my own, and either must eat a very-low-carb ketogenic diet or I must inject insulin. (I choose the diet to better control glucose and restrict hypos.)
There are people who say I did this to myself. That my old diet, which was high in refined carbohydrate (though no higher than average), caused me to burn my pancreas out.
Yet there are millions upon millions who eat a very similar diet to what I did who never have a health complication. So what caused my pancreatic β-cell function issues? Was it my diet? Or was it genetics? Or environmental factors? Or aliens?
Even if I'd eaten cleaner, ate no "refined" carbohydrate or sugar, I'm quite sure "healthy" carbohydrates such as whole-grains, sweet potato, fruit, etc., would have had the same impact on my pancreas as the refined ones, because when it comes to overall glycemic impact - a gram of digestible carbohydrate is a gram of digestible carbohydrate, regardless of it's source.0 -
If you're gonna do McDonald's, do it right.
Quarter pounder with a side of chicken nuggets and a chocolate milkshake.
thank you! i'm either going all the way or not at all.0 -
When I talked about getting toxicity tests, I wasn't directing them at you specifically. You brought it upon yourself to insinuate that your diet could have made you toxic. Whether you were being sarcastic or an *kitten* is none of my concern, I was merely suggesting an area of further inquiry for you, that's all.
You said:
"If you eat McDonalds five days a week, your insides will be a ****show no matter what you might think. Your body will be acidic instead of alkaline, and you may as well buy yourself a casket now"
"the poster who mentioned that they ate at McDonalds 5 days a week, several times a day, that while their physical appearance has changed (they restricted calories and lost weight), the inside of their body is literally toxic"
I eat McD's and Taco Bell 5+ times a week, so you are literally talking to me.
You literally said my body is "acidic" and that the inside of my body "is literally toxic."
So, please. Tell me what toxins I have, and what you mean by "acidic."
It means your pH is probably quite low. Which is likely on a diet like yours, whixh , makes you more vulnerable to illness. PS ive got a great Layne Norton quote that rips diets like yours to shreds. And he's one of your IIFYM gurus!
Edit: will post when at a computer
Last blood test pH was 7.41.
I don't think I've ever referenced Layne Norton as a "guru," or any other similar word. I don't think I've ever referenced Norton on this forum at all, so be careful who you decide my "gurus" are.
Anyway, I wonder if this is the quote you're talking about:
"I think you need to hit a certain amount of protein/carb/fat/fiber intake. if you do that, the food sources you choose are quite insignificant."
Or this one:
"Can you tell I think the labels ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ are asinine? Many coaches will try to sell you on the fact that their are ‘magic foods’ but they are basically full of crap and use that as a ploy to rope people in to buying their services."
haha this convinced me to get up out of bed to answer you. well done!
here buddy:
"I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. 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/
SUGA SUGA SNAP!
Uh..... I don't see him "slamming" my diet. He said "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."
I do hit the protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake he recommends by eating McDonald's every day. He didn't say you can't do it "if you eat fast food every day." He said you can't do it "if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods." Turns out you can eat at McD's and Taco Bell without it being nothing but "high sugar/fat foods."
Again: I hit Norton's recommended protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake (more or less; I think my macros may be slightly different than his specific recommendations) while eating all this fast food. His criticism is of guys who don't maintain proper protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake.
As he says in this quote and many other quotes, it's ok "if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."
dude... you're reading what you want to read. he said the foods are ok in SMALL AMOUNTS if you are still hitting your macro goals and that 95% of foods should be clean whole foods. re-read if you need proof.
even funnier - he said he sees IIFYM-ers who wear their sugary and fatty foods as a badge of honor....
nice ticker.
He didn't say fast food is OK in small amounts. He said that high sugar/fat foods are OK in small amounts if you're still hitting your macro goals. Fast food and high sugar/fat food are not the same thing.
Furthermore, he also didn't say he sees IIFYM-ers who wear sugary and fatty foods as a badge of honor. He said he sees IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can as a badge of honor.
The problem with your posts is that you are equating "fast food" to "high sugar/fat food." That's simply not true.
You eat much more fat than I do, despite the fact that I eat so much fast food. You had 230 grams of fat yesterday. I had 51. That means that you had 4.5 times as much fat yesterday than I did, despite the fact that you only had about 1.9 times the calorie intake.
Similar deal with sugar, it seems. Yesterday you had 91g of sugar. I had 67. You consume much more fat than I do, and usually consume more sugar as well. It should be obvious by now that "fast food" and "high sugar/fat" food are not synonymous, yes?
I eat fast food 5+ times a week. I do not eat "as much sugary, high fat food as I can." I hit appropriate macronutrient goals. Nothing Norton said in any of the quotes posted here is in any way a criticism of what I eat.
1) your ticker is a badge of honor showing off sugary/fatty foods
2) i eat twice as many calories daily as you, and we have different nutritional goals/requirements
3) ever gram of fat came from good fats - can you say the same?0 -
My personal belief? Sure, I agree.this is just a hypothesis on my part, but don't you think it's better for the body if it doesn't have to work as hard to maintain homeostasis?
However there is no scientific evidence that currently justifies that belief.
Here's an anecdotal example:
I'm a Type II diabetic with severe pancreatic β-cell impairment. I produce very little insulin on my own, and either must eat a very-low-carb ketogenic diet or I must inject insulin. (I choose the diet to better control glucose and restrict hypos.)
There are people who say I did this to myself. That my old diet, which was high in refined carbohydrate (though no higher than average), caused me to burn my pancreas out.
Yet there are millions upon millions who eat a very similar diet to what I did who never have a health complication. So what caused my pancreatic β-cell function issues? Was it my diet? Or was it genetics? Or environmental factors? Or aliens?
Even if I'd eaten cleaner, ate no "refined" carbohydrate or sugar, I'm quite sure "healthy" carbohydrates such as whole-grains, sweet potato, fruit, etc., would have had the same impact on my pancreas as the refined ones, because when it comes to overall glycemic impact - a gram of digestible carbohydrate is a gram of digestible carbohydrate, regardless of it's source.
except that diabetes is directly correlated with being overweight or obese. had you been eating a "cleaner" diet, it would have been much more difficult to become overweight in the first place, and thus you would have been - by default - taxing your pancreas less.
is something like diabetes the result of only one factor? of course not. but that doesn't mean that particular factor wasn't heavily involved.0 -
When I talked about getting toxicity tests, I wasn't directing them at you specifically. You brought it upon yourself to insinuate that your diet could have made you toxic. Whether you were being sarcastic or an *kitten* is none of my concern, I was merely suggesting an area of further inquiry for you, that's all.
You said:
"If you eat McDonalds five days a week, your insides will be a ****show no matter what you might think. Your body will be acidic instead of alkaline, and you may as well buy yourself a casket now"
"the poster who mentioned that they ate at McDonalds 5 days a week, several times a day, that while their physical appearance has changed (they restricted calories and lost weight), the inside of their body is literally toxic"
I eat McD's and Taco Bell 5+ times a week, so you are literally talking to me.
You literally said my body is "acidic" and that the inside of my body "is literally toxic."
So, please. Tell me what toxins I have, and what you mean by "acidic."
It means your pH is probably quite low. Which is likely on a diet like yours, whixh , makes you more vulnerable to illness. PS ive got a great Layne Norton quote that rips diets like yours to shreds. And he's one of your IIFYM gurus!
Edit: will post when at a computer
Last blood test pH was 7.41.
I don't think I've ever referenced Layne Norton as a "guru," or any other similar word. I don't think I've ever referenced Norton on this forum at all, so be careful who you decide my "gurus" are.
Anyway, I wonder if this is the quote you're talking about:
"I think you need to hit a certain amount of protein/carb/fat/fiber intake. if you do that, the food sources you choose are quite insignificant."
Or this one:
"Can you tell I think the labels ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ are asinine? Many coaches will try to sell you on the fact that their are ‘magic foods’ but they are basically full of crap and use that as a ploy to rope people in to buying their services."
haha this convinced me to get up out of bed to answer you. well done!
here buddy:
"I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. 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/
SUGA SUGA SNAP!
Uh..... I don't see him "slamming" my diet. He said "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."
I do hit the protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake he recommends by eating McDonald's every day. He didn't say you can't do it "if you eat fast food every day." He said you can't do it "if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods." Turns out you can eat at McD's and Taco Bell without it being nothing but "high sugar/fat foods."
Again: I hit Norton's recommended protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake (more or less; I think my macros may be slightly different than his specific recommendations) while eating all this fast food. His criticism is of guys who don't maintain proper protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake.
As he says in this quote and many other quotes, it's ok "if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."
dude... you're reading what you want to read. he said the foods are ok in SMALL AMOUNTS if you are still hitting your macro goals and that 95% of foods should be clean whole foods. re-read if you need proof.
even funnier - he said he sees IIFYM-ers who wear their sugary and fatty foods as a badge of honor....
nice ticker.
He didn't say fast food is OK in small amounts. He said that high sugar/fat foods are OK in small amounts if you're still hitting your macro goals. Fast food and high sugar/fat food are not the same thing.
Furthermore, he also didn't say he sees IIFYM-ers who wear sugary and fatty foods as a badge of honor. He said he sees IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can as a badge of honor.
The problem with your posts is that you are equating "fast food" to "high sugar/fat food." That's simply not true.
You eat much more fat than I do, despite the fact that I eat so much fast food. You had 230 grams of fat yesterday. I had 51. That means that you had 4.5 times as much fat yesterday than I did, despite the fact that you only had about 1.9 times the calorie intake.
Similar deal with sugar, it seems. Yesterday you had 91g of sugar. I had 67. You consume much more fat than I do, and usually consume more sugar as well. It should be obvious by now that "fast food" and "high sugar/fat" food are not synonymous, yes?
I eat fast food 5+ times a week. I do not eat "as much sugary, high fat food as I can." I hit appropriate macronutrient goals. Nothing Norton said in any of the quotes posted here is in any way a criticism of what I eat.
1) your ticker is a badge of honor showing off sugary/fatty foods
2) i eat twice as many calories daily as you, and we have different nutritional goals/requirements
3) ever gram of fat came from good fats - can you say the same?
No, it's not. It's a badge of honor showing you can enjoy fast food and ice cream in the context of a healthy diet by simply making sure you hit your macronutrient goals, which is exactly what people like Layne Norton recommend.
Look, Layne Norton absolutely did not say that eating "fast food" is OK "in small amounts." He didn't mention fast food at all. He mentioned high sugar/fat food is OK in small amounts because that's the only way to hit your macro goals. Guess what? I eat high sugar/fat foods in small amounts! Smaller than you do, in fact.
Nothing Norton says in the quote is a criticism of my "fast food 5+ times a week" diet. Fast food and high sugar/fat food are very different things.0 -
When I talked about getting toxicity tests, I wasn't directing them at you specifically. You brought it upon yourself to insinuate that your diet could have made you toxic. Whether you were being sarcastic or an *kitten* is none of my concern, I was merely suggesting an area of further inquiry for you, that's all.
You said:
"If you eat McDonalds five days a week, your insides will be a ****show no matter what you might think. Your body will be acidic instead of alkaline, and you may as well buy yourself a casket now"
"the poster who mentioned that they ate at McDonalds 5 days a week, several times a day, that while their physical appearance has changed (they restricted calories and lost weight), the inside of their body is literally toxic"
I eat McD's and Taco Bell 5+ times a week, so you are literally talking to me.
You literally said my body is "acidic" and that the inside of my body "is literally toxic."
So, please. Tell me what toxins I have, and what you mean by "acidic."
It means your pH is probably quite low. Which is likely on a diet like yours, whixh , makes you more vulnerable to illness. PS ive got a great Layne Norton quote that rips diets like yours to shreds. And he's one of your IIFYM gurus!
Edit: will post when at a computer
Last blood test pH was 7.41.
I don't think I've ever referenced Layne Norton as a "guru," or any other similar word. I don't think I've ever referenced Norton on this forum at all, so be careful who you decide my "gurus" are.
Anyway, I wonder if this is the quote you're talking about:
"I think you need to hit a certain amount of protein/carb/fat/fiber intake. if you do that, the food sources you choose are quite insignificant."
Or this one:
"Can you tell I think the labels ‘clean’ and ‘dirty’ are asinine? Many coaches will try to sell you on the fact that their are ‘magic foods’ but they are basically full of crap and use that as a ploy to rope people in to buying their services."
haha this convinced me to get up out of bed to answer you. well done!
here buddy:
"I find the whole idea of ‘clean eating’ pretentious. What exactly defines a food as ‘clean’? Do you spray windex on it? Rub soap on it? I find it a bit preposterous. I’ve been in debates with people promoting ‘clean eating’ but when I ask for a specific scientific definition of what makes a food ‘clean’ they are silent. I think the restrictive diets where you can only eat a half dozen or so foods are not only unhealthy because they don’t give you a diverse intake of nutrients but I believe they promote eating disorders and binging. I see people who ‘eat clean’ during most of the week and then binge on cheesecake, ice cream, and donuts because it’s a ‘cheat’ meal. Oh yea… that is way healthier than eating ‘unclean’ foods in moderation to a hit a specific macronutrient target. *rolleyes* Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers (I find it funny that something myself and others been promoting for years gets an acronym attached to it and is now this ‘new’ way of eating LOL) actually go too far in one direction. 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/
SUGA SUGA SNAP!
Uh..... I don't see him "slamming" my diet. He said "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."
I do hit the protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake he recommends by eating McDonald's every day. He didn't say you can't do it "if you eat fast food every day." He said you can't do it "if all you eat are high sugar/fat foods." Turns out you can eat at McD's and Taco Bell without it being nothing but "high sugar/fat foods."
Again: I hit Norton's recommended protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake (more or less; I think my macros may be slightly different than his specific recommendations) while eating all this fast food. His criticism is of guys who don't maintain proper protein, carb, fat, and fiber intake.
As he says in this quote and many other quotes, it's ok "if you are still hitting your goal macronutrient intake."
dude... you're reading what you want to read. he said the foods are ok in SMALL AMOUNTS if you are still hitting your macro goals and that 95% of foods should be clean whole foods. re-read if you need proof.
even funnier - he said he sees IIFYM-ers who wear their sugary and fatty foods as a badge of honor....
nice ticker.
He didn't say fast food is OK in small amounts. He said that high sugar/fat foods are OK in small amounts if you're still hitting your macro goals. Fast food and high sugar/fat food are not the same thing.
Furthermore, he also didn't say he sees IIFYM-ers who wear sugary and fatty foods as a badge of honor. He said he sees IIFYM followers who eat as much sugary, high fat foods as they can as a badge of honor.
The problem with your posts is that you are equating "fast food" to "high sugar/fat food." That's simply not true.
You eat much more fat than I do, despite the fact that I eat so much fast food. You had 230 grams of fat yesterday. I had 51. That means that you had 4.5 times as much fat yesterday than I did, despite the fact that you only had about 1.9 times the calorie intake.
Similar deal with sugar, it seems. Yesterday you had 91g of sugar. I had 67. You consume much more fat than I do, and usually consume more sugar as well. It should be obvious by now that "fast food" and "high sugar/fat" food are not synonymous, yes?
I eat fast food 5+ times a week. I do not eat "as much sugary, high fat food as I can." I hit appropriate macronutrient goals. Nothing Norton said in any of the quotes posted here is in any way a criticism of what I eat.
1) your ticker is a badge of honor showing off sugary/fatty foods
2) i eat twice as many calories daily as you, and we have different nutritional goals/requirements
3) ever gram of fat came from good fats - can you say the same?
No, it's not. It's a badge of honor showing you can enjoy fast food and ice cream in the context of a healthy diet by simply making sure you hit your macronutrient goals, which is exactly what people like Layne Norton recommend.
Look, Layne Norton absolutely did not say that eating "fast food" is OK "in small amounts." He didn't mention fast food at all. He mentioned high sugar/fat food is OK in small amounts because that's the only way to hit your macro goals. Guess what? I eat high sugar/fat foods in small amounts! Smaller than you do, in fact.
Nothing Norton says in the quote is a criticism of my "fast food 5+ times a week" diet. Fast food and high sugar/fat food are very different things.
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?0 -
Again, correlation does NOT equal causation.except that diabetes is directly correlated with being overweight or obese. had you been eating a "cleaner" diet, it would have been much more difficult to become overweight in the first place, and thus you would have been - by default - taxing your pancreas less.
is something like diabetes the result of only one factor? of course not. but that doesn't mean that particular factor wasn't heavily involved.
Type I diabetes is, in point of fact, directly correlated with being SLENDER. As such, do you suggest to people that aren't fat that they should get fat to stave off Type I diabetes?
Your argument is non-sensical.
As for why I got overweight - it had nothing to do with the my diet being clean or not, it was entirely about calories. Period.
As for "cleaner" food taxing my pancreas less... Carbohydrates cause an increase in blood glucose which cause an increase in insulin release which can cause a pancreas to work hard ... regardless of if they're "clean" or not. It doesn't matter the source of the carbohydrate.0 -
Again, correlation does NOT equal causation.except that diabetes is directly correlated with being overweight or obese. had you been eating a "cleaner" diet, it would have been much more difficult to become overweight in the first place, and thus you would have been - by default - taxing your pancreas less.
is something like diabetes the result of only one factor? of course not. but that doesn't mean that particular factor wasn't heavily involved.
Type I diabetes is, in point of fact, directly correlated with being SLENDER. As such, do you suggest to people that aren't fat that they should get fat to stave off Type I diabetes?
Your argument is non-sensical.
As for why I got overweight - it had nothing to do with the my diet being clean or not, it was entirely about calories. Period. Carbohydrates cause an increase in blood glucose which cause an increase in insulin release which can cause a pancreas to work hard ... regardless of if they're "clean" or not. It doesn't matter the source of the carbohydrate.
um. we were talking about Type 2 diabetes... why are you changing the subject?
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. 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
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.
Aging: Increasing age is a significant risk factor for type 2 diabetes. The risk of developing type 2 diabetes begins to rise significantly at about age 45 years, and rises considerably after age 65 years.
(obviously you know all that, but my point is diet probably - PROBABLY - plays a significant role)0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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.0 -
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?0 -
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:)0 -
try to avoid mcds, but there grilled chicken salads are lush, yummy!!!!!
add small fries, to fill me up abit more
0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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. =(0 -
just posting again to reiterateMost 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/0 -
SUBWAY0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions