cwsreddy Member

lol it's ridiculous to show that your body processes different types of macros differently? that's all he's saying. he's not suggesting anyone actually do that. c'mon now.

:drinker:

it's not. lol

I'll make you a deal. You show me yours, I'll show you mine. :flowerforyou: :love:

kk good, because the truth is actually that your body treats added sugars differently from fruit sugars in that added and white sugars create a heightened insulin response in the body whereas fruit sugars do not because of the pectin/fiber the sugar is bonded with. thus, white/added/refined sugars are "worse" than fruit…

study please. prove it.

the real question is: are you primarily interested in how you look, or in your health? if it's a look thing, then it doesn't matter what you eat. if it's a health thing, then your macro and micro-nutrition become paramount.

there are quite a few "standard" settings bud.

100% on board with all of that. Great post.

don't worry, we really did agree. you're just disagreeing with their manipulations of what I said. lol. also happens often with me. :tongue:

nope. i dont.

who die at 45. yeah... not a great argument.

also don't look now, but Husky, Sara and Coach all just found common ground. :flowerforyou:

fixed. :tongue:

staaaaaahp! look at the date of the first post plz.

Yep. Good stuff. And I think - to bring this back full circle - this is where my hang up comes in with IIFYM. I don't actually have ANY problem with IIFYM as the gurus like McDonald and Norton lay it out. They're dead on. As are Sara and many others on this board. I just wish that the EMPHASIS of IIFYM was more on the…

so then why is nothing valid in your eyes unless it's supported by a scientific study if you think nutritional science is so flawed? ok but this is getting really really gritty and semantic-y, and not even remotely related to the topic. we can move on and let this go if you wish. :tongue:

you say it doesn't make sense, then expound upon my statement showing it makes perfect sense... lolwut?

ohhhh yeah. no we're talking about today. Johnny thinks I said it today. we're all familiar with that fateful thread

some great points. but as to nutrients, bioavailability says otherwise. our body does care where we get nutrients from.

quote?

Many agree (former) that nutritional science is not up to par Many don't (latter) think there's a problem with currently accepted nutritional science

I didn't. I - in fact - said the opposite. I said that I'm NOT elite but would like to be.

And you're welcomed to that opinion. I don't believe that available, universally accepted, nutritional science is up to par at this point, and many doctors and scientists agree. Many don't. You subscribe to the latter, and me the former. Simple as that.

why are you so sensitive to that word?

They really weren't. have my views evolved? yep. but I started out working with people who weren't looking to become elite, and my clients at the time lost anywhere from 30-100+ pounds and did so in a sustainable fashion. Have I eased up a bit? sure. Was I ever as whacked out as you guys like to pretend? I don't think so.…

agreed. only brought it up pre-emptively because I knew johnny was gonna swoop in with the "Michael Phelps!" line of crap - which he did. :tongue:

I do. I challenge you to find a single thing I've said that isn't applicable to the intended audience

also was not talking to sara. plz read more closely.

see above.