My Pizza Day Experiment - A Comparison
Replies
-
guys i'm not talking about pizza as a food, which, just like ANYTHING ELSE has millions of variations that range from dominos and pizza hut bad to whole wheat or cauliflower crust with veggies galore - which are obviously much more nutritious. that's NOT what I'm talking about
frankly, this isn't even about PIZZA itself, simply testing the idea that you can get proper micro nutrition from fast foods. the pizza was just the easiest and cheapest way to go about doing that.
Which nutrients were missing in the end btw?
Probably some Vitamin K and other random nutrients that no one thinks about but him.
To OP:
I really have nothing valid to add but that.
You also might want to vary your fast food choices and see if it comes out the same.
Any good researcher knows that you can't only do one study and draw a conclusion on a topic.
i'm... not a researcher. it was just a one day thing that i did on a whim. lol
and ... um... you should look into that pesky vitamin K. it... ya know... might actually be really important. but what do i know? i'm not a researcher.
ok, using your methodology...
tomorrow, i will drink water with lemon in it. that's 100% clean, right?
the day after, i will drink nothing but Arby's milkshakes made with real ice cream. that's decidedly not clean and considered "unhealthy" by your standards.
on tuesday, i will check and see which day's intake gave me the most Vitamin B12 and Calcium. i will determine which intake is preferable solely on this simple comparison.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.
You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.
Selective call to authority there!
"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."
Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.
so... are they or are they not?0 -
I think it's safe to say this thread was an epic failure. The person you made this post for probably hasn't even seen it...
Lol! Spoke too soon:). But appreciated:)0 -
guys i'm not talking about pizza as a food, which, just like ANYTHING ELSE has millions of variations that range from dominos and pizza hut bad to whole wheat or cauliflower crust with veggies galore - which are obviously much more nutritious. that's NOT what I'm talking about
frankly, this isn't even about PIZZA itself, simply testing the idea that you can get proper micro nutrition from fast foods. the pizza was just the easiest and cheapest way to go about doing that.
Which nutrients were missing in the end btw?
Probably some Vitamin K and other random nutrients that no one thinks about but him.
To OP:
I really have nothing valid to add but that.
You also might want to vary your fast food choices and see if it comes out the same.
Any good researcher knows that you can't only do one study and draw a conclusion on a topic.
i'm... not a researcher. it was just a one day thing that i did on a whim. lol
and ... um... you should look into that pesky vitamin K. it... ya know... might actually be really important. but what do i know? i'm not a researcher.
ok, using your methodology...
tomorrow, i will drink water with lemon in it. that's 100% clean, right?
the day after, i will drink nothing but Arby's milkshakes made with real ice cream. that's decidedly not clean and considered "unhealthy" by your standards.
on tuesday, i will check and see which day's intake gave me the most Vitamin B12 and Calcium. i will determine which intake is preferable solely on this simple comparison.
see except I kept the calories and macros consistent. guess i'm a better researcher than you!0 -
"f 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."
I love this quote. It literally says that if you're hitting your macro goals you are automatically eating a lot of "clean foods."
Therefore, if you are hitting your macro goals, you really don't have to worry about anything else.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
Thanks Sarah for posting the whole quote!
what does he say in the whole quote that undermines my point?
i personally just didn't feel like using that big of a quote since it didn't pertain at all to the discussion at hand.0 -
Well isn't this precious.
0 -
"f 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."
I love this quote. It literally says that if you're hitting your macro goals you are automatically eating a lot of "clean foods."
Therefore, if you are hitting your macro goals, you really don't have to worry about anything else.
we already know we both interpret that sentence two different ways.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
Thanks Sarah for posting the whole quote!
what does he say in the whole quote that undermines my point?
i personally just didn't feel like using that big of a quote since it didn't pertain at all to the discussion at hand.
He says that if you're hitting good macro goals, then you are eating a lot of clean foods.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
Thanks Sarah for posting the whole quote!
what does he say in the whole quote that undermines my point?
i personally just didn't feel like using that big of a quote since it didn't pertain at all to the discussion at hand.
Context - it is always about context, especially when you make an appeal to authority.0 -
I think it's safe to say this thread was an epic failure. The person you made this post for probably hasn't even seen it...
We should invite him. Because then it would be a party.
Good idea. I'll bring the pizza and beer :drinker:
I have Fin du Monde and Maudite, but bring on the pizza!0 -
guys i'm not talking about pizza as a food, which, just like ANYTHING ELSE has millions of variations that range from dominos and pizza hut bad to whole wheat or cauliflower crust with veggies galore - which are obviously much more nutritious. that's NOT what I'm talking about
frankly, this isn't even about PIZZA itself, simply testing the idea that you can get proper micro nutrition from fast foods. the pizza was just the easiest and cheapest way to go about doing that.
Which nutrients were missing in the end btw?
Probably some Vitamin K and other random nutrients that no one thinks about but him.
To OP:
I really have nothing valid to add but that.
You also might want to vary your fast food choices and see if it comes out the same.
Any good researcher knows that you can't only do one study and draw a conclusion on a topic.
i'm... not a researcher. it was just a one day thing that i did on a whim. lol
and ... um... you should look into that pesky vitamin K. it... ya know... might actually be really important. but what do i know? i'm not a researcher.
ok, using your methodology...
tomorrow, i will drink water with lemon in it. that's 100% clean, right?
the day after, i will drink nothing but Arby's milkshakes made with real ice cream. that's decidedly not clean and considered "unhealthy" by your standards.
on tuesday, i will check and see which day's intake gave me the most Vitamin B12 and Calcium. i will determine which intake is preferable solely on this simple comparison.
see except I kept the calories and macros consistent. guess i'm a better researcher than you!
since these are drinks, shouldn't the standard be hydration? i will drink sufficient quantities of both to meet that silly 64 oz per day requirement.0 -
I think it's safe to say this thread was an epic failure. The person you made this post for probably hasn't even seen it...
We should invite him. Because then it would be a party.
Good idea. I'll bring the pizza and beer :drinker:
I have Fin du Monde and Maudite, but bring on the pizza!
Oooooo.
Hi. I'm Jon. How are you?
0 -
"f 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."
I love this quote. It literally says that if you're hitting your macro goals you are automatically eating a lot of "clean foods."
Therefore, if you are hitting your macro goals, you really don't have to worry about anything else.
This is very true. I have noticed that even though I indulge in a treat now and then, in order to meet my macros I have to eat foods that might be considered " clean" 0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.
You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.
Selective call to authority there!
"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."
Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.
so... are they or are they not?
Why don't you ask Layne? IMO - if they are not at least paying some attention to micros than no, they are not applying IIFYM in the context that it evolved.0 -
You are allowing one sector of extremists to define an entire group of people.
and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.
You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.
Selective call to authority there!
"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."
Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.
so... are they or are they not?
That's akin to saying all Germans are Nazi's, all Muslims are terrorists, all Mexicans are members of the Zeta.... You get the point.
That's just ridiculous. In every group of people, there are extremists who take an ideal too far. IIFYM is no different. Yet you choose to pretend that ALL IIFYMers eat nothing but junk and use IIFYM as an excuse to eat nothing but junk. Quite frankly, both you AND jonnythan's incessant arguing has grown tiresome and it just makes both of you look like children in a schoolyard who don't know how to share the sandbox.
You want to eat clean. He doesn't. What he does has zero effect on your success, and what you do has zero effect on him. It'd be one thing if you two could agree to respectfully disagree, yet you both go after each other, time and time again.
Kids, it's time to grow the hell up.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
Thanks Sarah for posting the whole quote!
what does he say in the whole quote that undermines my point?
i personally just didn't feel like using that big of a quote since it didn't pertain at all to the discussion at hand.
He says that if you're hitting good macro goals, then you are eating a lot of clean foods.
let me explain this to you.
he says "Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time"
when he says "clean" foods, he's referring to what I view as clean. not what you view as clean. he's making a reference to the people like me who he thinks are obsessive, etc.
then, when he says "If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default"
again he uses the same word "clean". is he meaning something different this time? is he now referring to fast food as "clean"? because earlier in the quote he was referring to whole foods as clean. Why do you think he's changed it? Is it because you're inserting your own personal bias to make it apply to you when it absolutely doesn't?
but yeah, interpret it however you want.0 -
guys i'm not talking about pizza as a food, which, just like ANYTHING ELSE has millions of variations that range from dominos and pizza hut bad to whole wheat or cauliflower crust with veggies galore - which are obviously much more nutritious. that's NOT what I'm talking about
frankly, this isn't even about PIZZA itself, simply testing the idea that you can get proper micro nutrition from fast foods. the pizza was just the easiest and cheapest way to go about doing that.
Which nutrients were missing in the end btw?
Probably some Vitamin K and other random nutrients that no one thinks about but him.
To OP:
I really have nothing valid to add but that.
You also might want to vary your fast food choices and see if it comes out the same.
Any good researcher knows that you can't only do one study and draw a conclusion on a topic.
i'm... not a researcher. it was just a one day thing that i did on a whim. lol
and ... um... you should look into that pesky vitamin K. it... ya know... might actually be really important. but what do i know? i'm not a researcher.
ok, using your methodology...
tomorrow, i will drink water with lemon in it. that's 100% clean, right?
the day after, i will drink nothing but Arby's milkshakes made with real ice cream. that's decidedly not clean and considered "unhealthy" by your standards.
on tuesday, i will check and see which day's intake gave me the most Vitamin B12 and Calcium. i will determine which intake is preferable solely on this simple comparison.
see except I kept the calories and macros consistent. guess i'm a better researcher than you!
You ate 3,000 something calories on Friday and 2,000 on Saturday.. So you only kept the macro's consistent.
If you ate the same amount of calories on both days, then you could say that you kept calories and macro's consistant.
Nice try and thanks for playing.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.
You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.
Selective call to authority there!
"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."
Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.
so... are they or are they not?
Why don't you ask Layne? IMO - if they are not at least paying some attention to micros than no, they are not applying IIFYM in the context that it evolved.
whoops, you're all starting to disagree with each other. you feel micronutrition is important, while others posting on this very page disagree.
thus. my whole. point. in posting. this.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
Thanks Sarah for posting the whole quote!
what does he say in the whole quote that undermines my point?
i personally just didn't feel like using that big of a quote since it didn't pertain at all to the discussion at hand.
He says that if you're hitting good macro goals, then you are eating a lot of clean foods.
let me explain this to you.
he says "Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time"
when he says "clean" foods, he's referring to what I view as clean. not what you view as clean. he's making a reference to the people like me who he thinks are obsessive, etc.
then, when he says "If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default"
again he uses the same word "clean". is he meaning something different this time? is he now referring to fast food as "clean"? because earlier in the quote he was referring to whole foods as clean. Why do you think he's changed it? Is it because you're inserting your own personal bias to make it apply to you when it absolutely doesn't?
but yeah, interpret it however you want.
I bolded the important part.
He literally says that if you're hitting good macro goals then you are eating a lot of clean food. I hit my macro goals. You don't think I hit a lot of clean food. Therefore, the only possible explanation is that Layne's definition of clean is not the same as yours.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.
You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.
Selective call to authority there!
"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."
Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.
so... are they or are they not?
Why don't you ask Layne? IMO - if they are not at least paying some attention to micros than no, they are not applying IIFYM in the context that it evolved.
whoops, you're all starting to disagree with each other. you feel micronutrition is important, while others posting on this very page disagree.
thus. my whole. point. in posting. this.
I dunno. Seems to me that the only thing you proved here was that "pizza and nothing but pizza" is not a good diet plan :laugh:0 -
guys i'm not talking about pizza as a food, which, just like ANYTHING ELSE has millions of variations that range from dominos and pizza hut bad to whole wheat or cauliflower crust with veggies galore - which are obviously much more nutritious. that's NOT what I'm talking about
frankly, this isn't even about PIZZA itself, simply testing the idea that you can get proper micro nutrition from fast foods. the pizza was just the easiest and cheapest way to go about doing that.
Which nutrients were missing in the end btw?
potassium, fiber, sodium was way high, vit C is arguable, and the iron is from fortification, thus not very bioavailable.
and listen, i did this based on the MFP database, which is obviously not entirely accurate, but if I used the same inaccurate database for both days, the margin of error should balance out, no?
1) what will the sodium do?
2) Potassium - that was already discussed and concluded it was fine
3) Vit C - it was already discussed that the micros listed were wrong
4) fiber - agreed a tad on the low side - but then again you did make a sh!tty choice for a pizza
Again, I ask, after taking into account that your original numbers were wrong - what was missing?0 -
guys i'm not talking about pizza as a food, which, just like ANYTHING ELSE has millions of variations that range from dominos and pizza hut bad to whole wheat or cauliflower crust with veggies galore - which are obviously much more nutritious. that's NOT what I'm talking about
frankly, this isn't even about PIZZA itself, simply testing the idea that you can get proper micro nutrition from fast foods. the pizza was just the easiest and cheapest way to go about doing that.
Which nutrients were missing in the end btw?
Probably some Vitamin K and other random nutrients that no one thinks about but him.
To OP:
I really have nothing valid to add but that.
You also might want to vary your fast food choices and see if it comes out the same.
Any good researcher knows that you can't only do one study and draw a conclusion on a topic.
i'm... not a researcher. it was just a one day thing that i did on a whim. lol
and ... um... you should look into that pesky vitamin K. it... ya know... might actually be really important. but what do i know? i'm not a researcher.
ok, using your methodology...
tomorrow, i will drink water with lemon in it. that's 100% clean, right?
the day after, i will drink nothing but Arby's milkshakes made with real ice cream. that's decidedly not clean and considered "unhealthy" by your standards.
on tuesday, i will check and see which day's intake gave me the most Vitamin B12 and Calcium. i will determine which intake is preferable solely on this simple comparison.
see except I kept the calories and macros consistent. guess i'm a better researcher than you!
You ate 3,000 something calories on Friday and 2,000 on Saturday.. So you only kept the macro's consistent.
If you ate the same amount of calories on both days, then you could say that you kept calories and macro's consistant.
Nice try and thanks for playing.
this is awkward... those aren't the days i was comparing in the original post... yikes.
might wanna work on that reading comprehension.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.
You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.
Selective call to authority there!
"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."
Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.
so... are they or are they not?
Why don't you ask Layne? IMO - if they are not at least paying some attention to micros than no, they are not applying IIFYM in the context that it evolved.
whoops, you're all starting to disagree with each other. you feel micronutrition is important, while others posting on this very page disagree.
thus. my whole. point. in posting. this.
OMG - you are frigging ridiculous. I am done here.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
Thanks Sarah for posting the whole quote!
what does he say in the whole quote that undermines my point?
i personally just didn't feel like using that big of a quote since it didn't pertain at all to the discussion at hand.
He says that if you're hitting good macro goals, then you are eating a lot of clean foods.
let me explain this to you.
he says "Most people who origionally promoted targeting macronutrient intakes instead of obsessing about food choices actually eat ‘clean’ foods 95% of the time"
when he says "clean" foods, he's referring to what I view as clean. not what you view as clean. he's making a reference to the people like me who he thinks are obsessive, etc.
then, when he says "If you are following a macronutrient intake that is friendly for body composition you will be eating a lot of ‘clean’ foods by default"
again he uses the same word "clean". is he meaning something different this time? is he now referring to fast food as "clean"? because earlier in the quote he was referring to whole foods as clean. Why do you think he's changed it? Is it because you're inserting your own personal bias to make it apply to you when it absolutely doesn't?
but yeah, interpret it however you want.
I bolded the important part.
He literally says that if you're hitting good macro goals then you are eating a lot of clean food. I hit my macro goals. You don't think I hit a lot of clean food. Therefore, the only possible explanation is that Layne's definition of clean is not the same as yours.
you didn't answer the question. why does he use the word "clean" to mean different things each time he uses it?0 -
I want pizza
! 0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.
You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.
Selective call to authority there!
"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."
Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.
so... are they or are they not?
Why don't you ask Layne? IMO - if they are not at least paying some attention to micros than no, they are not applying IIFYM in the context that it evolved.
whoops, you're all starting to disagree with each other. you feel micronutrition is important, while others posting on this very page disagree.
thus. my whole. point. in posting. this.
OMG - you are frigging ridiculous. I am done here.
peace out!0 -
I dunno. Seems to me that the only thing you proved here was that "pizza and nothing but pizza" is not a good diet plan :laugh:
johnnythan - one quick question before I stop wasting my time on this idiocy...do you think micronutrients unimportant?0 -
you didn't answer the question. why does he use the word "clean" to mean different things each time he uses it?
I don't think he does. You're the one who made the "he uses clean to mean whole foods" assumption. He never uses the term whole foods. He says if you're hitting your macros you're eating clean food.
Let me repeat that:
The quote, which you paste over and over, literally says if you're hitting your macros you're eating clean food.0 -
Since when did people who follow IIFYM fill their whole ENTIRE day with junk foods?
From Layne Norton -
"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."
The whole quote from Layne Norton
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.
and he's free to feel however he wants about "clean eating" - however, everything he said there about IIFYM, I agree with.
You *still* do not get it. Those people are NOT hitting their macros and therefore are not applying IIFYM.
Selective call to authority there!
"Now that said, I do believe that many IIFYMers actually go too far in one direction."
Layne refers to them as IIFYMers.
so... are they or are they not?
Why don't you ask Layne? IMO - if they are not at least paying some attention to micros than no, they are not applying IIFYM in the context that it evolved.
whoops, you're all starting to disagree with each other. you feel micronutrition is important, while others posting on this very page disagree.
thus. my whole. point. in posting. this.
OMG - you are frigging ridiculous. I am done here.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions