The joys of office broscience - misguided food/nutrition advice

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.

Alatariel75 wrote: »

I know I've posted this before, but I don't think it was this thread. I used to work with a girl who cut out carbs and couldn't work out why she wasn't losing weight. She wasn't eating any rice, potato, pasta, bread, grains, crackers etc etc... she was complaining about this while eating a bag of jelly beans. I asked about the jelly beans, she said one of the reasons she was attracted to the low carb diet was being able to snack on them as much as she liked...

... you should have seen the look on her face when I gently explained that sugar was a carb. She had no idea.

sandryc79 wrote: »

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? !

KatieJane83 wrote: »

I just had to sit and suffer through overhearing a coworker go on, ad nauseam through my cubicle wall, how eating carbs after dinner will mean they don't get digested but get immediately turned into evil evil adipose! Apparently everything else if fine, just not doze evil carbz.



The evens that I can't = all of them

Sorry, just had to spread my misery. Anyone have any other overheard gems to share?

lemurcat12 wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Francl27 wrote: »

This thread used to be fun. Now we're arguing with some guy who doesn't even know how IIFYM works.

Quick: who has a co-worker who has said something stupid about food lately?

(Mine are being generally sensible, darn them!)

I don't have any. I did see someone recommend this on fb today: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1899171592?ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&qid=1430278934&sr=1-1&keywords=kristen leigh bell&pldnSite=1

Okay, is this where I fess up to how I have actually purchased an odorless (to humans) stress reducing scent thing for one of my cats, who also happens to be a stress eater. From PetCo, though. It wasn't due to the eating, but a brief and relatively mild stint with psychogenic alopecia (only just learned the name for it).

(Don't judge!)

(Or do, fair game in this thread.)

;-)

upgradeddiddy wrote: »

stealthq wrote: »

upgradeddiddy wrote: »

kampshoff wrote: »

upgradeddiddy wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

upgradeddiddy wrote: »

JPW1990 wrote: »

giusa 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

140 calories. Sounds like the cornerstone of IIFYM.

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.

Until someone gives shows me numbers where a Big Mac can fit in your macros (where fat is between 20-30%) and still hit both carbs and protein then arguing with me is really pointless. I have already given everyone my diet numbers (2500 calories on average 40-40-20) and although I could make it fit (need two protein shakes, very lean beef and spinach to do it, like I said in my 2nd post which led to my secondary point of why do all that sacrifice for a Big Mac?) I just don't see it fitting. Till then my point is closed

(Why everyone is defending a Big Mac is beyond me. And added was still off 5 g based on my original argument but still, just don't see it)

lemurcat12 wrote: »

So not to be argumentative, but I think it's interesting that people seem to be thinking that we should EAT our sign (i.e., Pisces eats fish, Taurus eats beef). As a Sagittarius, I'm not really into this idea (although I guess it goes back to how as a Type B I should be drinking the kumis), but my initial assumption was that we would eat as our sign would eat.

Not that that helps me a lot! ;-)

How can I get a conclusive answer on this very important question?