How to measure calories of Haagen Dazs ice cream?
Options
Replies
-
Oh FFS.Have you tried to do an internet search? Google is a pretty good choice.
I did it and I think this is what you are looking for....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765
There. The link you keep wanting but can't seem to search for at all.
Bad science. Not on the researches behalf, but on yours.0 -
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
I need to see the full paper.
When you do, please do check out who Helm thanks in the acknowledgement.
I am asking you to link me...
Jeeze, these trolls want you to do ALL the work for them. Ever heard of pubmed? I'd think you would have since you know so much about science. *rolly eyes gif*
Edited because dam wall of quotes...:grumble:0 -
*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*
Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.
Am I understanding this correctly?
And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.
In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.
Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.
The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.
So in both instances the LBM method fails.
You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.0 -
That's not what i said...I think it's highly arrogant. Taking someone elses work, knocking it off and passing it as her own? That "meet your protein needs, then your fat." yada yada yada is from Lyle Mcdonald...
It's called plagiarism.
Where do I say 'meet your protein needs then your fat'?
Also, the concept of macros is not unique to Lyle...at all. If you think that you need to accuse a whole bunch of people in the nutrition field.
I am not going to say bad reading comprehension, which you have a tendency to say to people for the reasons listed previously.
How do you set up macros or calorie intake for someone?
Oh my lawdy....you clarified AFTER you posted your accusation.
Also, why don't you actually address my comment rather than casting accusations at me...for once.
Bolded implies you don't do that. So I am asking what do you do then? Since you imply you don't do that.
And I am asking you where you saw this. You were the one that made that assertion. Back up your claim rather than making false accusations like you have been the whole way through this thread.
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/819055-setting-your-calorie-and-macro-targets1g of protein per lb of LBM as a minimum target
0.35g of fat per lb of total body weight as a minimum target
The balance can fall where you wish, taking into account performance, satiety and adherence.
BTW that's bad science, most research on protein intake is based on total body weight, not LBM. So this method is highly flawed and filled with bad science.
The reason most research is based on total body weight is that it is an easier method of measurement. It does not make it intrinsically better science. One of the better equations for TDEE is based on LBM (despite the fact that most research on TDEE has been done on body weight) but I hope you aren't about to suggest that TDEE work on LBM is bad science.
How is LBM based protein macro setting "bad science" - please cite at least one scientific article that states this.
This is going to be fun.
You want me to cite one research paper that tells you what bad science is or isn't? That doesn't make sense.
The reason it's bad science because there is no evidence to support protein based on LBM.
So I guess that's a "can't do it" - you gave no reference that states LBM based is incorrect of poorer quality calculation in terms of protein need calculation.
Here is some evidence to support protein based recommendation of LBMs.
A Systematic Review of Dietary Protein During Caloric Restriction in Resistance Trained Lean Athletes: A Case for Higher Intakes. Helms ER, Zinn C, Rowlands DS, Brown SR.
This system review focuses it's analysis on FFM and LBM recommendations.
Now feel free to post an article that states the this LBM method is incorrect or refuted.
I need to see the full paper.
When you do, please do check out who Helm thanks in the acknowledgement.
I am asking you to link me...
Oh FFS.Have you tried to do an internet search? Google is a pretty good choice.
I did it and I think this is what you are looking for....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765
There. The link you keep wanting but can't seem to search for at all.
That's just the abstract. He can't figure out how to get the whole paper. :bigsmile:0 -
Oh FFS.Have you tried to do an internet search? Google is a pretty good choice.
I did it and I think this is what you are looking for....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765
There. The link you keep wanting but can't seem to search for at all.
Bad science. Not on the researches behalf, but on yours.
Wait what? You wanted to see the paper, I searched for you and it's bad science on my behalf. You make no sense.0 -
Oh FFS.Have you tried to do an internet search? Google is a pretty good choice.
I did it and I think this is what you are looking for....
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24092765
There. The link you keep wanting but can't seem to search for at all.
Bad science. Not on the researches behalf, but on yours.
So, you got the whole paper? What issues specifically do you have with the 'researches'?0 -
The researches is for when you can't find your ice cream.0
-
Again...I guess googling and such is hard work. Better?
http://static.squarespace.com/static/5248a8c6e4b0a4c7037edb93/t/52598d7ae4b0c103e9732601/1381600634668/Helms_ijsnem_2013_0054-in press.pdf0 -
*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*
Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.
Am I understanding this correctly?
And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.
In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.
Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.
The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.
So in both instances the LBM method fails.
You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.
Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.0 -
*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*
Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.
Am I understanding this correctly?
And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.
In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.
Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.
The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.
So in both instances the LBM method fails.
You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.
Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.
Public bulletin board means everyone reads and comments brah. Even when it isn't convenient.0 -
Says LBM method is bad because inaccurate results from the less costly methods. Then says .5-1g/lb of bodyweight is better, despite having such a wide variance.
Lololol.
Only one person that I know could make that logical error.0 -
holy shiz what's going on in here? tagging to (maybe) read later0
-
Says LBM method is bad because inaccurate results from the less costly methods. Then says .5-1g/lb of bodyweight is better, despite having such a wide variance.
Lololol.
Only one person that I know could make that logical error.
I'm starting to think so too.0 -
Says LBM method is bad because inaccurate results from the less costly methods. Then says .5-1g/lb of bodyweight is better, despite having such a wide variance.
Lololol.
Only one person that I know could make that logical error.
What's the problem, a scale cost 20 dollars, dexa few hundred.0 -
So what is your complaint?*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*
Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.
Am I understanding this correctly?
And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.
In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.
Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.
The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.
So in both instances the LBM method fails.
You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.
Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.
Public bulletin board means everyone reads and comments brah. Even when it isn't convenient.0 -
Read the paper, it went off nitrogen balance, it got collective studies and made a conclusion...
That's pretty bad. I wouldn't even try to pass that as a valid reference. -1 point for helms on this one.0 -
*whips out Vitriol Protection Shield*
Isn't protein intake based on LBM because basing it on current (over)weight isn't really productive. For example if I weighed 245 and wanted to get down to 179 (yes, i said it) there would be no point in eating grams of protein based on 245 pounds.
Am I understanding this correctly?
And, you know, I'm just going to say this out of sheer compulsion. A varied vocabulary is not a sign of arrogance. Deeming people arrogant based on vocabulary sure the **** is. I used a four letter word for general comprehension. Fornication for those not offended by diversity of language.
In my bad science, no nothing opinion, basically, yes, that is correct. Studies generally have not used LBM as the methods for measuring BF% are pretty inaccurate and the more accurate ones were generally cost prohibitive. Quoting g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb to use when giving generic advice that is not catered to the individuals circumstances. You have the same issue with fats as well (a point missed by a certain someone), which is why we note that the rules of thumb are not applicable for very lean or significantly overweight people.
Once again bad logic.
g per LBM is a decent rule of thumb. Getting accurate reading for LBM is too costly. So the general population has no real measure of LBM, so their protein intakes are inaccurate.
The rules for protein intake are 0.5-1.5g per pound. So obese people can use these recommendations. A 600lbs peron can eat 300g of protein a day. This would have a better thermogenic effect than the theoretical LBM method.
So in both instances the LBM method fails.
You know whats sad? Let's say you were correct. I don't believe you are but... I had no idea and this is why I asked for clarification. You've been such an *kitten* from the get go anything you say is without merit. Instead of a potentially interesting discourse you've just blathered on in a crass and offensive manner. The human equivalent of a deflating, spit filled balloon.
Lets get this right... I said nothing to you and yet, you sit here and insult me. I was pointing out where the flaws where in what sara said. Okay, I see what's giong on. What I wrote, wasn't directed to you in anyway. I was just clearing up sara's flaws on the topic to help and support the community better.
What you aren't understanding is that I've read the whole thread. This is not help and support. You are not clearing up anything . What you are engaging in is posturing, baiting and general douche baggery. The fact that you are more then likely a sock completes the unsavory package. I don't know the history of conflict, really much if anything about this board. My opinions are based on your conduct alone.0 -
Says LBM method is bad because inaccurate results from the less costly methods. Then says .5-1g/lb of bodyweight is better, despite having such a wide variance.
Lololol.
Only one person that I know could make that logical error.
What's the problem, a scale cost 20 dollars, dexa few hundred.
Hydrostatic costs less than a hundred.0 -
Read the paper, it went off nitrogen balance, it got collective studies and made a conclusion...
That's pretty bad. I wouldn't even try to pass that as a valid reference. -1 point for helms on this one.
0 -
I thought this was an ice cream thread...what happened?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions