The joys of office broscience - misguided food/nutrition advice
Options
Replies
-
eboniivoried wrote: »My cube neighbor mentioned eliminating all carbs from her diet. I tried explaining that it's an important macronutrient and that carbs are not the devil. I cannot be too harsh on her though; I subscribed to the same philosophy as her at one point in my life.
Lots of people eliminate carbs; that doesn't qualify as "broscience".0 -
My friend and coworker who knows I am losing weight came over to share a book with me. He is cutting all wheat out of his diet because wheat is insulin spiking poison.
I said I am concerned about insulin impact of lots of carbs because I have a PCOS with insulin resistance. However, sugar and vegetables and fruits. ..ultimately all those have carbs similar to wheat (they all break down into glucose) so eating healthy protein and a moderate level of carbs is part of my diet but no foods are off limits. Ultimately this is COCO with a focus on healthy foods only because they make my body feel better.
His response. "But dieting is hard and a lot of people fail because of wheat. This is a lot easier because you just have to eliminate one thing and you don't diet at all."
*sigh* I swear this is an otherwise very intelligent man.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Lots of people eliminate carbs; that doesn't qualify as "broscience".
As my mother would say, "If your friends jumped off the High Level bridge, would you do it too?" Just because it's popular right now does not mean it's good science. Or even good. We have three macro-nutrients and many, many micro-nutrients. I won't find many people who would argue over the necessity of a micro-nutrient, say, Vitamin D. So why do people think that the answer to their diet woes is to eliminate an entire macro-nutrient?
Besides, chances are they'll get it wrong. They'll cut breads and pastas but keep eating yams and fruit. And wonder why their carb numbers are still so high.
When I was diabetic, a well-meaning bunkmate at a women's retreat brought me a big bag of "sugar free" candies. I took one look at the nutrition label and rejected them. First ingredient? Glucose. Her nose was seriously out of joint. Oh well. I wasn't going to flake out on a sugar high just so she wouldn't be offended in her ignorance.0 -
This thread is great!
I have a coworker who once tried to convince me that an ice cream sundae is nutritionally equivalent to a banana. According to her, the banana is full of sugar anyways and too much potassium is bad for you so she avoids it. She also has high blood pressure and eats greasy salty takeout food every day for lunch. And veggies hurt her stomach.
I get up and walk away when she starts talking about food.0 -
MarciBkonTrk wrote: »Here are my two favorites!
1. Dark urine is not a sign of dehydration, it's a sign that your kidneys are working to reabsorb the water your body needs! Huh? So why is it when a doctor thinks you are dehydrated one of the first things checked is the color of your urine.
2. Blending fruits and veggies into a smoothie destroys the fiber and nutrients mainly because of the heat generated during the blending process kills the nutrient and the act of blending kills the fiber. That must be one high-powered blender!!!
Fiber can be killed? !0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Lots of people eliminate carbs; that doesn't qualify as "broscience".
As my mother would say, "If your friends jumped off the High Level bridge, would you do it too?" Just because it's popular right now does not mean it's good science. Or even good. We have three macro-nutrients and many, many micro-nutrients. I won't find many people who would argue over the necessity of a micro-nutrient, say, Vitamin D.
As far as I know no-one has ever been diagnosed with "carbohydrate deficiency".
So why do people think that the answer to their diet woes is to eliminate an entire macro-nutrient?
Because lots of people have discovered that a ketogenic lifestyle makes them feel better, perhaps?
Besides, chances are they'll get it wrong. They'll cut breads and pastas but keep eating yams and fruit. And wonder why their carb numbers are still so high.
That's like saying calorie counting is no good because people don't measure and weigh properly.
0 -
Totally off topic, but I instantly knew you were from Edmonton from the bolded comment lolChrysalid2014 wrote: »Lots of people eliminate carbs; that doesn't qualify as "broscience".
As my mother would say, "If your friends jumped off the High Level bridge, would you do it too?" Just because it's popular right now does not mean it's good science. Or even good. We have three macro-nutrients and many, many micro-nutrients. I won't find many people who would argue over the necessity of a micro-nutrient, say, Vitamin D. So why do people think that the answer to their diet woes is to eliminate an entire macro-nutrient?
Besides, chances are they'll get it wrong. They'll cut breads and pastas but keep eating yams and fruit. And wonder why their carb numbers are still so high.
When I was diabetic, a well-meaning bunkmate at a women's retreat brought me a big bag of "sugar free" candies. I took one look at the nutrition label and rejected them. First ingredient? Glucose. Her nose was seriously out of joint. Oh well. I wasn't going to flake out on a sugar high just so she wouldn't be offended in her ignorance.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Something that has always boggled my mind, can someone explain the concept behind ordering a large Big Mac value meal and a diet coke?
She told me it was to save on cals...
I did the equivalent to that (pizza and diet coke, say--never liked Big Macs), because I like diet coke more than coke and can't see wasting calories on a soda. Spending calories on a pizza, that I can see.
THIS. I just like diet coke. A regular coke isn't a treat for me. A burger and fries *is* a treat so I will have that occasionally. (Though not McDonald's, I don't crave that).
0 -
KatieJane83 wrote: »
AGREED!
Jaw literally dropped.
Please continue to share your broscience stories. They are providing excellent entertainment! I'm still shocked by the story about the girl who doesn't eat meat because muscle weighs more than fat. That still has to be the winner!
Yeah, agreed on the muscle in meat story as the winner so far. I find myself hoping that the poster actually made it up, just so I don't lose all faith in the human species, but it's probably true.
I often use the phrase "That's awesome!" In these situations. Most people are unaware the word can also mean overwhelming fear, and that level of stupid is definitely scary.0 -
Not at the office, but at the kid's athletic fields - parents (who otherwise seem diligent, loving, and intelligent) insisting that their 4yr to 7yr old child NEEDS a large (32oz) Gatorade during practice instead of plain water or they'll lose all their sodium and potassium. Note - this is a half hour practice in 60 to 70 degree weather - no one, not even I as an obese soccer coach was breaking any kind of sweat at all. (And of course, Gatorade has NO calories, and is fully beneficial - no way it could contribute to childhood obesity *sigh*)
FTR - my real objection to Gatorade on the field was it was so sticky when it spilled in my soccer bag
0 -
Totally off topic, but I instantly knew you were from Edmonton from the bolded comment lolChrysalid2014 wrote: »Lots of people eliminate carbs; that doesn't qualify as "broscience".
As my mother would say, "If your friends jumped off the High Level bridge, would you do it too?" Just because it's popular right now does not mean it's good science. Or even good. We have three macro-nutrients and many, many micro-nutrients. I won't find many people who would argue over the necessity of a micro-nutrient, say, Vitamin D. So why do people think that the answer to their diet woes is to eliminate an entire macro-nutrient?
Besides, chances are they'll get it wrong. They'll cut breads and pastas but keep eating yams and fruit. And wonder why their carb numbers are still so high.
When I was diabetic, a well-meaning bunkmate at a women's retreat brought me a big bag of "sugar free" candies. I took one look at the nutrition label and rejected them. First ingredient? Glucose. Her nose was seriously out of joint. Oh well. I wasn't going to flake out on a sugar high just so she wouldn't be offended in her ignorance.
Ha, me too!0 -
BrianKMcFalls wrote: »KatieJane83 wrote: »
AGREED!
Jaw literally dropped.
Please continue to share your broscience stories. They are providing excellent entertainment! I'm still shocked by the story about the girl who doesn't eat meat because muscle weighs more than fat. That still has to be the winner!
Yeah, agreed on the muscle in meat story as the winner so far. I find myself hoping that the poster actually made it up, just so I don't lose all faith in the human species, but it's probably true.
I often use the phrase "That's awesome!" In these situations. Most people are unaware the word can also mean overwhelming fear, and that level of stupid is definitely scary.
This just made me think of a quote from my favorite author OF ALL TIME Terry Pratchett (RIP ). So, because I'm a huge nerd and bookworm I'll just share it here for no very good reason, lol.
“Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.”
Sorry, now back to your regularly scheduled programming!0 -
Not at work but in the gym sauna. Had a naked lady sit beside me and proceed to tell me that I wasn't really overweight, my body was just full of yeast and if I just cut out yeast and did some kind of cleanse I would be miraculously trim and fit! Ya, ok, I don't need anyone's junk in my face while they spout crap at me while I'm trying to relax.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »As far as I know no-one has ever been diagnosed with "carbohydrate deficiency".
So Ketosis is a good thing now? Why do you think carbohydrates are listed as a macronutrient?
@BinkyBonk , @pinklotus_56 , LOL. Inside joke. Drove through the High Level Bridge last week. It's looking a little worse for wear. Surely it's due for repainting? Basic black, of course.0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »As far as I know no-one has ever been diagnosed with "carbohydrate deficiency".
So Ketosis is a good thing now? Why do you think carbohydrates are listed as a macronutrient?
@BinkyBonk , @pinklotus_56 , LOL. Inside joke. Drove through the High Level Bridge last week. It's looking a little worse for wear. Surely it's due for repainting? Basic black, of course.
Why are you so threatened by other people being successful differently than you? Yes, ketosis is a good thing. That's why it's been medically prescribed for over 100 years. It's why millions of diabetics have managed to go medication free, why epileptics have stopped having seizures, and why millions of more can control their inflammation without medication. It's why millions of women with PCOS have finally been able to lose weight and even get pregnant. Unless you think there's some magic fairy dust that makes it only work with people who have one of many unrelated medical condtions, and if someone without one tries it, the carbs have magically transformed into a CICO defying substance, why do you care if it works for other people? Nobody has ever said your weight loss is invalid or that you must do it too.0 -
upgradeddiddy wrote: »upgradeddiddy wrote: »upgradeddiddy wrote: »
Don't blame IIFYM on stupid people. 34g of fat, 47g of carbs and 24 g or protein doesn't fit nobody's macros haha
I suggest you go ask some of the IIFYM proponents around here who brag about how they always make room for McDonald's, ice cream, cheesecake, and anything else they want.
I will say this, yes you can portion control ice cream and etc to meet your daily requirement and yes it allows you to not completely give up the foods you love but come on! 34 g of fat! Even if you followed 40-40-30 carbs/protein/fat, most have already blown through a third if not half of their daily fat intake on the Big Mac alone while only getting maybe a tenth of protein and maybe, MAYBE a quarter of carbs. You would have to eat nothing but pure rice and the leanest of meat for the rest of the day to meet your macros after a Big Mac.
Don't get me wrong, my weekends are full of cheat meals and I do my best to follow IIFYM, but I also know that if I plan to down a pizza and some wine, I better be only drinking protein shakes, lean beef and spinach or else that's day is a fail for IIFYM. Same goes for this Big Mac and diet cola discussion.
Get butt hurt all you want but Big Macs are typically too big for IIFYM, just call it what it is, a cheat day
Sorry to latch on your response JPW, not directed at you. More so at everyone else who loves disgusting Big Macs. And FYI, I usually eat 20% fat on at 2500 calrorie diet which is 500 calories of fat a day, which equates to 56 g of fat a day. Even if I did the basic 30% for maintenance I would only be allotted 83 g.
Instead of a Big Mac 34 g in one sitting if rather have some 10 oz herbed seasoned chicken, triple the protein and less than half the fat or even better...get off my lazy *kitten* and cook a REAL burger for similar stats of the chicken.
#realiifym
I think you may have misinterpreted the Y in IIFYM.
If I wanted to fit a Big Mac into my daily intake -- and I certainly could -- I would be doing it such that it fits my macros, not yours. It would still be "real" IIFYM, whatever that is; it wouldn't be a "cheat meal" or a "cheat day" or whatever you would like to call it.
(And I don't even like Big Macs. I'm a Jalapeno Double kind of guy, on the rare occasion I go to McD's.)
More power to ya, I just provided my stats to prove my point, the math behind and show that it Big Macs don't typically fit (I'm a bigger dude too, 6'2" 232 lbs. Also Jalapeño doubles are awesome and are a better substitute for a Big Mac, similar protein, 11 less g of fat and 12 less g of carbs). My main point is, a Big Mac barely fits or if it does you have more sacrifices for the rest of your meals to make up for it. There are far better cheat options than a Big Mac that give you more bang for macros.
OK, to be honest, I cannot figure this out. I could have a Big Mac and still hit my macros with no problem. No cheat involved. And I'm a 40 yr old 5' 2" woman. I guess you must have a really significant deficit going on or something.
I do agree that if I want a higher cal/fat meal, a Big Mac is about the last thing I'd choose. Much tastier options out there. There's a fried chicken sandwich that a local place makes, for example. Probably half again as many calories as a Big Mac. I mean the things are ginormous with at least 10 oz of chicken breast fried perfectly crispy plus the mayo, the buttered and toasted rolls (and lettuce and tomato). But oh, so, worth it.
0 -
KatieJane83 wrote: »BrianKMcFalls wrote: »KatieJane83 wrote: »
AGREED!
Jaw literally dropped.
Please continue to share your broscience stories. They are providing excellent entertainment! I'm still shocked by the story about the girl who doesn't eat meat because muscle weighs more than fat. That still has to be the winner!
Yeah, agreed on the muscle in meat story as the winner so far. I find myself hoping that the poster actually made it up, just so I don't lose all faith in the human species, but it's probably true.
I often use the phrase "That's awesome!" In these situations. Most people are unaware the word can also mean overwhelming fear, and that level of stupid is definitely scary.
This just made me think of a quote from my favorite author OF ALL TIME Terry Pratchett (RIP ). So, because I'm a huge nerd and bookworm I'll just share it here for no very good reason, lol.
“Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
No one ever said elves are nice.
Elves are bad.”
Sorry, now back to your regularly scheduled programming!
Terry Pratchett made the world a sillier, more relatable place.
0 -
Why are you so threatened by other people being successful differently than you?
Because it is a risky dietary practice and I don't advocate risky. Even if it is popular. I'm not threatened by it any more than I am threatened by people who engage in other risky behaviours like bungee jumping, driving too fast, or recreational drug use. It's bro science.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »eboniivoried wrote: »My cube neighbor mentioned eliminating all carbs from her diet. I tried explaining that it's an important macronutrient and that carbs are not the devil. I cannot be too harsh on her though; I subscribed to the same philosophy as her at one point in my life.
Lots of people eliminate carbs; that doesn't qualify as "broscience".
So question... we have three macros (carbs, protein, fat). If "lots of people eliminate carbs" does that mean eliminating protein wouldn't qualify as "Broscience" either? What about fat?
I am ABSOLUTELY NOT arguing with you! I eat carbs because I'm a runner, love my macros, and think they provide essential fuel when balanced correctly. However, I do know people who eat low-carb diets (never met anyone who has eliminated carbs completely...) and it seems to work for them. I am more curious as your opinion of macros in general and if they are interchangeable as "non-broscience"0 -
shrinkingletters wrote: »Here, I made an astrology dietary restrictions for y'all:
Aries: Can only eat food they've won in a street fight.
Taurus: Can only eat animal proteins from animals that do not exceed 35mph at full speed.
Gemini: Can only eat food scavenged from self-help group craft tables.
Cancer: Can only eat food from neglected cans and boxes in the back of the very top shelf in the kitchen.
Leo: Can only eat foods that can be arranged into a self-portrait.
Virgo: Can only eat foods that can slide easily through the chute under the door.
Libra: Can only eat foods that compliment their accessories.
Scorpio: Can only eat foods that can hold their own in a staring match.
Sagittarius: Can only eat foods from countries they cannot pronounce.
Capricorn: Can only eat foods that their employer agrees to write off as a tax deduction.
Aquarius: Can only eat foods that make it through their teleportation device without fusing to a nasty housefly.
Pisces: Can only eat foods that remind them of that time their mother forgot to pick them up from soccer practice.
This is hilarious - I wish I were a Leo! Haha!!
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 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
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions