jonnythan Member

For me, the donut is generally the better choice because if I want a donut and eat an apple, after I finish the apple I'll still want a donut.

Oh, I see. So you think that Quest using "Cheat Clean" heavily in their marketing doesn't mean they are advertising the bars as "clean"? Also, as another poster noted, they have a "Cooking Clean with Quest" series. Do you still feel Quest "does not promote or even suggest the product is aimed at the clean eating community"?

I'm having trouble following you. If I click on the large "#CHEATCLEAN" at the top of the site, it brings me to an ordering page for the bars. What are you clicking on to get to this taste test?

What Youtube clip? And if you don't think they're suggesting their products are clean, what do you think they mean with the #CheatClean advertising campaign?

That's an interesting thought. Like "cheat on your clean diet by eating a Quest Bar." I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's interesting.

Literally the largest text at the top of the page is: COOKIES & CREAM THE ULTIMATE #CHEATCLEAN

Except that now, thanks to the silly GIFs and threadcrapping, I won't really get an answer to my question.

Then don't rise to the bait.

Another serious question: have you ever seen me start a troll thread? Almost 10,000 posts and I have never started an intentionally divisive, trolling thread. Not once, ever. I don't play games on the forum. I am curious what "clean eaters" think.

In not baiting. I honestly want to know what people think. Their current advertising campaign claims they are.

A number of flaws. He doesn't define "large amount of muscle mass." He maked the assertion that "these types of individuals," which he doesn't define, "don't have optimal health" with zero evidence. He defines "optimal health" as "slender and lean" for unknown reasons and offers zero evidence for the claim. He uses the…

Nm

All of my wut.

Or you could go to a more generalized recommendation that's supported by science, instead of a made-up one that gets close in some instances.

Also, your recommendation for this person would work out to be 5 grams per kg of FFM, which is 67% more than the maximum level actually recommended by scientific study. I understand that you're coming from a "more is better!" perspective, and that, as a very lean male, the difference between your FFM and total mass isn't…

Math isn't your strong suit, is it. I Let's take an example to make it more concrete. At a protein intake of 3 grams per kg of bodyweight, which is your recommendation, a 190-lb 40% body fat woman would require 259 grams of protein. The protein intake recommended by actual scientific evidence, which is 3 grams per kg of…

3.1 grams per kg of FFM. That's 1.4 grams of protein per lb of lean mass. Not body mass. Lean mass. Lean mass is not body mass. Maybe you should go pick that microphone back up.

Neither of those statements uses any numbers whatsoever, so they don't say anything at all about quantity of protein.

The abstract you posted in no way supports your recommendation. It explicitly states that there is no support for your recommendation. http://www.jissn.com/content/3/1/7 Utilizing regression analysis and adding a safety buffer of 2 SD units, the protein needs to acquire zero nitrogen balance was calculated to be 1.6–1.7…

OP has been running since 2011 and is currently training for a marathon. You have one trick, and it's the wrong trick for this thread.

Don't really care about them. It's your ultimate recommendation that I have the problem with. You present it as fact, but it is totally unsupported by any evidence.

This statement is unsupported by any evidence at all. Repeating it doesn't make it true.

When the only tool you understand is a hammer, every project is a bucket of nails, I guess. Tell me tennisdude. Have you ever run a marathon? What was your nutrition plan for this endurance event?

All of the people advising a sugar detox, or cutting out junk food, or whatever, for an endurance athlete are out of their gourd and should stop giving such terrible advice on the forums. Good freaking lord. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're giving advice based not on nutrition or performance but…

MFP's macro recommendations are pretty silly.

As far as I know, there's no place in the body to find plain water. We should be drinking blood, lymph, and cytoplasm! After all, the body is made primarily of that and not plain water.

The verdict is that the water in your coffee is treated the same way by your body as any other water you ingest. There are no magic ingredients in coffee, including caffeine, that dehydrate you to the point where that water doesn't count. So long story short: your body counts it as water, whether or not you log it on MFP.

It specifically says there isn't convincing evidence to support intakes as high as 2-3 g/kg daily. Your recommendation to get "close to 3g/kg" is unsupported by.. well, anything.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. It sounds like you're implying coffee cannot be logged both as calories AND water. Is that correct?

That's the exact opposite of the truth. Go spend some time in a hospital where they're recording in and out for patients.