Fast food?
Replies
-
RockstarWilson wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »
But watching a video is easier than actually reading and comprehending...Wheelhouse15 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »ExRelaySprinter wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »because I like the way mcdonalds tastes. and Wendy's and popeyes and taco bell and dominos and qdoba
I do plenty of cooking on my own but I like the taste of fast food too
and mcgriddles: happy syrupy bacon goodness
Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwich w/ Cheese is amazing. I'll work that into my budget any time I have the chance!
Oh dear and sweet popeyes
I.effing. 
. U
Also, for what it's worth, since we're talking about nutrition, it's not like my chicken sandwich from Wendy's has no nutritional value. The way I get it (no mayo, add cheese), it has 550 calories with 35g of protein, 21g of fat, and 58g of carbs. The calories are high, but that's why I eat them on days when I've worked hard. To say you don't get any nutrients from fast food is to show a clear misunderstanding of how this all works.
I agree with this^^.
There are certain Burgers that have a good amount of Protein in them.
Plus, there are days when you just want a day off from cooking from scratch.
There's no harm in eating fast food occasionally.
Any protein value in a meal that is less than 30g is a value of empty calories. You may as well be drinking beer. Your body can't use less than that amount for protein synthesis to reverse the catabolic state you are in by lunchtime. Check out Dr. Layman's research on protein and carbs. It is quite fascinating.
Dr. Layman is Professor Emeritus at Illinois University. He has his own nutrition lab out there, and focuses on metabolism of protein and carbohydrates.
Check out this site, scroll down about halfway to the video of his speech. If you have the time, it is about one hour, but it is definitely educational regarding weight loss and lean mass.http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/daily-protein-requirement.html
If you go watch, watch all the way through, otherwise, you won't have full context.
Actually, the research is probably fine but the conclusion by the web site is absolutely incorrect. Leucine is the amino that is used in the synthesis of skeletal muscles, this is well known. The idea in the paper is that you need 4.5g of leucine rich food to optimize protein synthesis. What he actually says in his paper, which is only an overview of some other research, is that you should space out your protein intake, 90g+, evenly over 3 meals for reasons of saiety and sufficiency and to maximize protein synthesis in muscles, which is probably a minimal amount of difference in reality.
The silly statement on the keto website you link (re: <30g of protein is converted to carbs) is not found in the research paper nor would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from it. You can find the full text here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2666737/ What it really said was that you need over 30g of protein that is rich in leucine to maximize skeletal muscle synthesis, which is a completely different conclusion.
The video has a visual aid that demonstrates the trials he has completed, explains what people who do not have a PhD in Nutrition Science might not understand, and gives an increased amount of related statistics.
Also notice that I asked you to watch the hourlong video that relates to Dr. Layman, whose views on protein intake are in contrast to the author's claims. I said nothing about analyzing the original article.
Dr. Layman does say that you should eat more than 30 g protein at each meal (up to a certain amount) to make leucine readily available. He says that if you eat less than 30 grams of protein at each meal, muscle protein synthesis does not occur (there is a threshold), some of the proteins get transported to organ function (I think-i have to review), but the rest get broken down and converted to glucose. If the glucose is not used, then it gets stored as fat.
Again you not correctly respresenting the conclusions presented in the paper, which make me think you have never read it. He said that <30g was SUBOPTIMAL not that there was no synthesis at all. Where are you getting these satements? Certainly not in the primary sources or even Dr Layman's paper itself.
The indications from his research in laboratory trials are that, sure, some will occur, but not for very long before you return to a catabolic state (I.e. your body starts breaking down muscle again).
I can't say it enough...watch the video.
Your above quote of the paper did not support any such statement that under 30g of protein at a single in take converts to carbs or fat. Not even close so you clearly do not understand that the paper does not even discuss deamniation or GNG which is the processes required to convert to carbs.
Also, it only speaks about repletion of leucine for muscle synthesis not overall protein utilization within the body, most of which have nothing to do with the topic presented. Do you realize part of the reason he makes this claim of 30g is due to the requirement to release insulin and IGF-1 to overcome the AMPK affect on downregulating mTORC-1? You can do this more effectively with carbs btw. Also, it helps with appitite control, which again has nothing to do with the idea that you are converting protein to carbs if you eat too little.
I will watch the video but you should really do some more research. I have no issue with the claim that 30g/meal is optimal, in fact I try for more than that each meal, but I take issue with extending that claim to something that is not shown by the data. Scientists are never allowed to push conclusions farther than warrented by the data and this is not supported by any of the current body of knowledge that I am aware of, which states that the amino acid pool must be overfilled before GNG will occur. It will take a large amount of evidence for that to be overturned because that's the way science works.0 -
Define it any way you like.
If you can't explain why it is "junk" and "garbage," I am not sure why you would insist that we call it "junk" because that is what it really is.
Having your own personal definition that isn't supported by any facts is okay, I guess. But why must others join you? Why am I lying to myself if I disagree with your personal definition of "clean eating"?
At day's end we are the fruit of our own philosophy.
0 -
Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Define it any way you like.
If you can't explain why it is "junk" and "garbage," I am not sure why you would insist that we call it "junk" because that is what it really is.
Having your own personal definition that isn't supported by any facts is okay, I guess. But why must others join you? Why am I lying to myself if I disagree with your personal definition of "clean eating"?
At day's end we are the fruit of our own philosophy.
I can accept that. I think I'm doing ok by that yard stick.0 -
Indeed you are!Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Define it any way you like.
If you can't explain why it is "junk" and "garbage," I am not sure why you would insist that we call it "junk" because that is what it really is.
Having your own personal definition that isn't supported by any facts is okay, I guess. But why must others join you? Why am I lying to myself if I disagree with your personal definition of "clean eating"?
At day's end we are the fruit of our own philosophy.
I can accept that. I think I'm doing ok by that yard stick.
Great progress and inspiring results trump the best debate points.
0 -
Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Indeed you are!Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Define it any way you like.
If you can't explain why it is "junk" and "garbage," I am not sure why you would insist that we call it "junk" because that is what it really is.
Having your own personal definition that isn't supported by any facts is okay, I guess. But why must others join you? Why am I lying to myself if I disagree with your personal definition of "clean eating"?
At day's end we are the fruit of our own philosophy.
I can accept that. I think I'm doing ok by that yard stick.
Great progress and inspiring results trump the best debate points.
Thanks, you seem to be doing well also. Keep up the good work.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It all started when I was born in a wagon in this traveling show...janejellyroll wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
No, if you're cool with it, so am I.tincanonastring wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »First, let's call fast food what it really is: junk!
It's mostly empty calories from highly processed foods that are just unhealthy.
I go to KFC, McD, Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut...or wherever...you name it...
...and it's never to eat healthy. It's a fabulous treat and an enjoyable experience where I celebrate life like a marathon runner enjoying a cheap cigar and a beer after a solid training session.
A beer and a cigar has no purpose toward physical health and overall wellness, but sometimes life is just to be lived.
If you eat fast food garbage, go in and enjoy, but go in with eyes wide open.
Don't ever lie to yourself and call that junk healthy.
Could you check out the calories and macro/micro breakdowns I gave for my "junk" fast food sandwich and tell me why it's "just unhealthy" "garbage?"
Your health goals are your own, so eat and enjoy.
It helps me to call the stuff junk, because it falls outside my definition of "clean eating" -->> lean meats, fish, fresh fruits and veggies, nuts, whole grained, home baked stuff, beans, raw, whole dairy and whole eggs.
That's the ideal I strive toward without turning that into a religion you must join.
Again, enjoy your sandwich, and if I am ever in your town, I'll put you to shame at Taco Bell!
If you can't explain why it is "junk" and "garbage," I am not sure why you would insist that we call it "junk" because that is what it really is.
Having your own personal definition that isn't supported by any facts is okay, I guess. But why must others join you? Why am I lying to myself if I disagree with your personal definition of "clean eating"?
My take on it with this particular poster is as follows. He has stated a few times over that before he lost weight that he would eat a ridiculous diet and "cry himself to sleep" over his food choices. So it sounds like he has a really dysfunctional destructive relationship with food, so to make food bad or evil or junk is what he uses as a coping mechanism in order to not have him go back to those ways of eating. It doesn't make it true....but it seems to be what works for him.
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Indeed you are!Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
Define it any way you like.
If you can't explain why it is "junk" and "garbage," I am not sure why you would insist that we call it "junk" because that is what it really is.
Having your own personal definition that isn't supported by any facts is okay, I guess. But why must others join you? Why am I lying to myself if I disagree with your personal definition of "clean eating"?
At day's end we are the fruit of our own philosophy.
I can accept that. I think I'm doing ok by that yard stick.
Great progress and inspiring results trump the best debate points.
Thanks, you seem to be doing well also. Keep up the good work.
0 -
Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
It all started when I was born in a wagon in this traveling show...janejellyroll wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
No, if you're cool with it, so am I.tincanonastring wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »First, let's call fast food what it really is: junk!
It's mostly empty calories from highly processed foods that are just unhealthy.
I go to KFC, McD, Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut...or wherever...you name it...
...and it's never to eat healthy. It's a fabulous treat and an enjoyable experience where I celebrate life like a marathon runner enjoying a cheap cigar and a beer after a solid training session.
A beer and a cigar has no purpose toward physical health and overall wellness, but sometimes life is just to be lived.
If you eat fast food garbage, go in and enjoy, but go in with eyes wide open.
Don't ever lie to yourself and call that junk healthy.
Could you check out the calories and macro/micro breakdowns I gave for my "junk" fast food sandwich and tell me why it's "just unhealthy" "garbage?"
Your health goals are your own, so eat and enjoy.
It helps me to call the stuff junk, because it falls outside my definition of "clean eating" -->> lean meats, fish, fresh fruits and veggies, nuts, whole grained, home baked stuff, beans, raw, whole dairy and whole eggs.
That's the ideal I strive toward without turning that into a religion you must join.
Again, enjoy your sandwich, and if I am ever in your town, I'll put you to shame at Taco Bell!
If you can't explain why it is "junk" and "garbage," I am not sure why you would insist that we call it "junk" because that is what it really is.
Having your own personal definition that isn't supported by any facts is okay, I guess. But why must others join you? Why am I lying to myself if I disagree with your personal definition of "clean eating"?
My take on it with this particular poster is as follows. He has stated a few times over that before he lost weight that he would eat a ridiculous diet and "cry himself to sleep" over his food choices. So it sounds like he has a really dysfunctional destructive relationship with food, so to make food bad or evil or junk is what he uses as a coping mechanism in order to not have him go back to those ways of eating. It doesn't make it true....but it seems to be what works for him.
I'll never look at Cher the same way!
0 -
What a train wreck....0
-
Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
It all started when I was born in a wagon in this traveling show...janejellyroll wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
No, if you're cool with it, so am I.tincanonastring wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »First, let's call fast food what it really is: junk!
It's mostly empty calories from highly processed foods that are just unhealthy.
I go to KFC, McD, Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut...or wherever...you name it...
...and it's never to eat healthy. It's a fabulous treat and an enjoyable experience where I celebrate life like a marathon runner enjoying a cheap cigar and a beer after a solid training session.
A beer and a cigar has no purpose toward physical health and overall wellness, but sometimes life is just to be lived.
If you eat fast food garbage, go in and enjoy, but go in with eyes wide open.
Don't ever lie to yourself and call that junk healthy.
Could you check out the calories and macro/micro breakdowns I gave for my "junk" fast food sandwich and tell me why it's "just unhealthy" "garbage?"
Your health goals are your own, so eat and enjoy.
It helps me to call the stuff junk, because it falls outside my definition of "clean eating" -->> lean meats, fish, fresh fruits and veggies, nuts, whole grained, home baked stuff, beans, raw, whole dairy and whole eggs.
That's the ideal I strive toward without turning that into a religion you must join.
Again, enjoy your sandwich, and if I am ever in your town, I'll put you to shame at Taco Bell!
If you can't explain why it is "junk" and "garbage," I am not sure why you would insist that we call it "junk" because that is what it really is.
Having your own personal definition that isn't supported by any facts is okay, I guess. But why must others join you? Why am I lying to myself if I disagree with your personal definition of "clean eating"?
My take on it with this particular poster is as follows. He has stated a few times over that before he lost weight that he would eat a ridiculous diet and "cry himself to sleep" over his food choices. So it sounds like he has a really dysfunctional destructive relationship with food, so to make food bad or evil or junk is what he uses as a coping mechanism in order to not have him go back to those ways of eating. It doesn't make it true....but it seems to be what works for him.
0 -
Blueseraphchaos wrote: »What a train wreck....
Did...did you know you have cat legs growing out of your arm? You might want to ask someone about that...0 -
At McDonald's: For breakfast, I get their egg white delights. I dont like eggs so I get it without but the on this sandwich, they use egg whites not the other rubbery things.
Other foods, their southwest salad is really decent. The amount of lettuce you get is not much but the ones I've gotten haven't been wilted. Plus there's corn and black beans on it. I always ask for the fat free Italian vinegrette....50 calories for the packet and way yummier than the heavy dressing that comes with it. But can't go wrong with a cheeseburger and a small fries for when you have the urge for some junk food. Not a lot of calories and satisfies the fast food beast.0 -
Oh dude, so sorry...Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
It all started when I was born in a wagon in this traveling show...janejellyroll wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »
No, if you're cool with it, so am I.tincanonastring wrote: »Pinnacle_IAO wrote: »First, let's call fast food what it really is: junk!
It's mostly empty calories from highly processed foods that are just unhealthy.
I go to KFC, McD, Burger King, Taco Bell, Pizza Hut...or wherever...you name it...
...and it's never to eat healthy. It's a fabulous treat and an enjoyable experience where I celebrate life like a marathon runner enjoying a cheap cigar and a beer after a solid training session.
A beer and a cigar has no purpose toward physical health and overall wellness, but sometimes life is just to be lived.
If you eat fast food garbage, go in and enjoy, but go in with eyes wide open.
Don't ever lie to yourself and call that junk healthy.
Could you check out the calories and macro/micro breakdowns I gave for my "junk" fast food sandwich and tell me why it's "just unhealthy" "garbage?"
Your health goals are your own, so eat and enjoy.
It helps me to call the stuff junk, because it falls outside my definition of "clean eating" -->> lean meats, fish, fresh fruits and veggies, nuts, whole grained, home baked stuff, beans, raw, whole dairy and whole eggs.
That's the ideal I strive toward without turning that into a religion you must join.
Again, enjoy your sandwich, and if I am ever in your town, I'll put you to shame at Taco Bell!
If you can't explain why it is "junk" and "garbage," I am not sure why you would insist that we call it "junk" because that is what it really is.
Having your own personal definition that isn't supported by any facts is okay, I guess. But why must others join you? Why am I lying to myself if I disagree with your personal definition of "clean eating"?
My take on it with this particular poster is as follows. He has stated a few times over that before he lost weight that he would eat a ridiculous diet and "cry himself to sleep" over his food choices. So it sounds like he has a really dysfunctional destructive relationship with food, so to make food bad or evil or junk is what he uses as a coping mechanism in order to not have him go back to those ways of eating. It doesn't make it true....but it seems to be what works for him.
I'll never look at Cher the same way!
0 -
There's a huge gulf of language between "optimal synthesis activiation" and "fails to stop catabolic state and might as well just be carbs and fats". Heck, there are plenty of amino acids (the signalling one, leucine being one of them) that aren't glucogenic and can't even be converted to glucose (carbs). That's right, they literally can't even.RockstarWilson wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »RockstarWilson wrote: »ExRelaySprinter wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »tincanonastring wrote: »because I like the way mcdonalds tastes. and Wendy's and popeyes and taco bell and dominos and qdoba
I do plenty of cooking on my own but I like the taste of fast food too
and mcgriddles: happy syrupy bacon goodness
Wendy's Spicy Chicken Sandwich w/ Cheese is amazing. I'll work that into my budget any time I have the chance!
Oh dear and sweet popeyes I.effing. . U
Also, for what it's worth, since we're talking about nutrition, it's not like my chicken sandwich from Wendy's has no nutritional value. The way I get it (no mayo, add cheese), it has 550 calories with 35g of protein, 21g of fat, and 58g of carbs. The calories are high, but that's why I eat them on days when I've worked hard. To say you don't get any nutrients from fast food is to show a clear misunderstanding of how this all works.
I agree with this^^.
There are certain Burgers that have a good amount of Protein in them.
Plus, there are days when you just want a day off from cooking from scratch.
There's no harm in eating fast food occasionally.
Any protein value in a meal that is less than 30g is a value of empty calories. You may as well be drinking beer. Your body can't use less than that amount for protein synthesis to reverse the catabolic state you are in by lunchtime. Check out Dr. Layman's research on protein and carbs. It is quite fascinating.
Dr. Layman is Professor Emeritus at Illinois University. He has his own nutrition lab out there, and focuses on metabolism of protein and carbohydrates.
Check out this site, scroll down about halfway to the video of his speech. If you have the time, it is about one hour, but it is definitely educational regarding weight loss and lean mass.http://www.ketogenic-diet-resource.com/daily-protein-requirement.html
If you go watch, watch all the way through, otherwise, you won't have full context.
Actually, the research is probably fine but the conclusion by the web site is absolutely incorrect. Leucine is the amino that is used in the synthesis of skeletal muscles, this is well known. The idea in the paper is that you need 4.5g of leucine rich food to optimize protein synthesis. What he actually says in his paper, which is only an overview of some other research, is that you should space out your protein intake, 90g+, evenly over 3 meals for reasons of saiety and sufficiency and to maximize protein synthesis in muscles, which is probably a minimal amount of difference in reality.
The silly statement on the keto website you link (re: <30g of protein is converted to carbs) is not found in the research paper nor would be a reasonable conclusion to draw from it. You can find the full text here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2666737/ What it really said was that you need over 30g of protein that is rich in leucine to maximize skeletal muscle synthesis, which is a completely different conclusion.
Hence why the author of the article lists research in contrast to his claims, and why I told you to watch the video. I said nothing about the actual article.
But once again, someone thinks a website is "silly" because they don't agree with everything on it. Go figure.
Yep it's silly and unsupported by any primary sources, but you are indoctrinated so have fun with it. Again, nothing in that source paper that he published backs this claim or even makes this claim -- that was only an assumption by the blogger and went far beyond the support of the data. Read the paper and show me where anywhere it says that <30g of protein at one time is converted to carbs.
The NCBI article on Dr. Layman's research is from 2009. I have read it, and he does state in the paper that having less than 30 grams at a meal doesn't contribute to synthesis, as dictated by leucine:
" Adults require a minimum of 15 g of EAA or at least 30 g of total protein to fully stimulate skeletal muscle protein synthesis [21,25]. This response appears to be determined by the EAA leucine which serves as a critical signal for triggering initiation of muscle protein synthesis. Leucine has been well characterized as a unique regulator of the insulin-mTOR signal pathway controlling synthesis of muscle proteins "
This was his hypothesis after looking at multiple data.
The video is from 2013, after he was able to run both animal and human trials. HIS research, as you will observe in the video (yes, there is reading to do in the video) backs up the hypothesis he made in 2009. He was able to measure synthesis happening at various intake levels, establishing a curve of how much will occur after each meal, and how long between meals before the body returns to a catabolic state.
Here's a hint at reading research in biology particularly the chemistry going on it: reactions in living organisms are not light switches that turn off or on based on hitting a threshold; reactions are more like dimmer switches with less or more.
If you take a look at Layne Norton's research, 30g or more specifically, 3.2-4.4g of leucine, is when you get maximum protein synthesis. That means that eating MORE in one sitting isn't likely to drive any extra synthesis, and you might be better off having that protein at a different time/meal. So 30g isn't when the dimmer switch turns on, it is when the dimmer switch is at maximum. You're better off waiting for it to slide back down before you try pushing it to anything brighter again.
0 -
tincanonastring wrote: »Blueseraphchaos wrote: »What a train wreck....
Did...did you know you have cat legs growing out of your arm? You might want to ask someone about that...
you are totally not the only one to notice that. man, i thought i hid it well.
no one will tell me how to fix it except to try that it works! crap.
i just want him to be able to live his own life.
if my stomach weren't in revolt right now from something, i'd totally go to taco bell right up the road...reading all this stuff is making me want food. except i don't feel well. LOL0 -
Mcdonalds gives me horrible migraines, so I try not to eat there unless I absolutely have to. When I do, I normally get the southwest salad with no chicken or dressing, some apple slices, a yogurt parfait, and water. I feel that that's about as food as I can do there for lunch/dinner. Breakfast has more options, though. Their oatmeal isn't too bad, and you can order it without the sugar if you're trying to limit the added sugars in your diet. The parfait and apple slices are still offered then, too. In the winter, they have cuties mandarin oranges. They also let you order a la carte for breakfast, which is the way to go in my opinion. I don't care for their biscuits or english muffins, so I usually order scrambled eggs and some sort of side item for breakfast. Usually either the parfait or oatmeal. Their regular coffee is also pretty good, for a fast food restaurant. Just as good as the black coffee that you get at Starbucks, as far as I'm concerned. Most of their dessert items aren't too bad, either. Sure, the milkshakes and Mcflurries are dismal in the nutrition department, but their cookies, ice cream cones, and pies can easily be fit into most anyoneMs day. The holiday pie in particular is a guilty pleasure of mine. 290 calories of hot, pudding-y, sugar-cookie-encased deliciousness.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions