Diet, Nutrition and SupplementationPost here for supplement reviews or nutritional advice. If you're trying to get "ripped abz" THIS is where you should be.
It is.. I guess over-processed would be closer.. No real nutritional value..
I would consider fruit juice "empty" calories, as in I'd rather those cals in the form of a pastrami on rye..
You get all the sugar, but none of the fiber of whole fruits..
Maple syrup is gooood, good stuff.. But good for you?
Honey at least is supposed to to be good for you, antioxidant-wise..
Same for wine..
But yeah, if you're a marathon runner, and you need rapidly digestible "empty" calories to fuel your calorie expenditure and hang onto at least some muscle mass, you gotta do what you gotta do, and "empty" wouldn't a good descriptor..
2800 calories of chicken, oatmeal, and olive oil
vs.
2800 calories of Big Macs
Little closer. And eithe way you get a free multivitamin to prevent scurvy.
It's definitely a tougher question. And I don't think there's any way to answer it definitively without a direct comparison of matched groups eating nothing but these foods for a period of time -- at least a month, I'd suppose.
But nobody's going to do that study, so that leaves us with our guesses.
My guess is that the chicken, oatmeal, and olive oil would be more satiating, and thus the person in question would tend to eat less of it. But now we're talking about ad libitum eating, vs. the original question of matched energy consumption.
If you talk about results in terms of weight and body comp, I don't see how there could be much difference if energy intake is equal, especially if the amount of chicken, oatmeal, and olive oil was manipulated to match the macros of the Big Macs.
I always wondered the same thing about the whole debate over a "calorie is a calorie" for dieting and deficits, etc. Have you ever read the article for the "downsize me" guy?
Granted, it's not like a controlled/scientific experiment or anything but it's still pretty interesting.
I've also had my own experiences with losing weight on eating some "not so healthy for you" type foods like pop tarts and gaining weight on a whole helluva lot of broccoli and salmon.
I always wondered the same thing about the whole debate over a "calorie is a calorie" for dieting and deficits, etc. Have you ever read the article for the "downsize me" guy?
Granted, it's not like a controlled/scientific experiment or anything but it's still pretty interesting.
I've also had my own experiences with losing weight on eating some "not so healthy for you" type foods like pop tarts and gaining weight on a whole helluva lot of broccoli and salmon.
I browsed through that ... the following part of the conclusion makes no sense.
"IMPORTANT TO NOTE: I am saying that exercise was the reason for my improvements and not the fact that I only ate McDonald’s food for 30 days. If you were to take exercise out of the equation, I would have gained 30 to 40 pounds of body fat, and I can not tell you how my cholesterol would have reacted; This is where education becomes very important."
I browsed through that ... the following part of the conclusion makes no sense.
"IMPORTANT TO NOTE: I am saying that exercise was the reason for my improvements and not the fact that I only ate McDonald’s food for 30 days. If you were to take exercise out of the equation, I would have gained 30 to 40 pounds of body fat, and I can not tell you how my cholesterol would have reacted; This is where education becomes very important."
He woud have gained 30 - 40 lbs ??????
His math is wrong. He didn't eat nearly as much as Spurlock, who did gain that much fat. He only ate like 3500-4000 a day, so there's no 3500 calorie surplus to put on a lb of weight a day, even if he was totally sedentary.
Despite this unfortunate statement, his experiment showed that the calorie exercise balance is important in managing body composition and health markers, though. He ate just the right amount of food to lose the fat he wanted to lose.
If you can find someone who's gotten fat on "clean eating" or paleo-style eating, I'd imagine their cholesterol, etc. would be bad.
I always have thought that "Supersize Me" actually proved the opposite of what the guys intent was.
I can't say that I remember the specifics, but I know by the end of it all his numbers were actually looking better. He tried to really minimize that in the original piece, but he did mention it.
If anything, it goes even farther to prove that 'a calorie is a calorie' when it comes to weight loss. Your body will recognize and sort the fuel it's provided as best it can.
**It is my personal and totally pointless opinion that one reason he lost weight and such, was that I think by the time it was nearing an end he was so sick of the food there, that he was really eating much less than he had been. He only promised to eat on the menu at least once, so that gave him quite a bit of 'wiggle room' to make some choices later on in the month. I think his calorie intake went way down the last two weeks.
__________________
***********************
If you weren't born drop dead gorgeous, be thankful for the opportunity to develop character first.
I always have thought that "Supersize Me" actually proved the opposite of what the guys intent was.
I can't say that I remember the specifics, but I know by the end of it all his numbers were actually looking better. He tried to really minimize that in the original piece, but he did mention it.
If anything, it goes even farther to prove that 'a calorie is a calorie' when it comes to weight loss. Your body will recognize and sort the fuel it's provided as best it can.
**It is my personal and totally pointless opinion that one reason he lost weight and such, was that I think by the time it was nearing an end he was so sick of the food there, that he was really eating much less than he had been. He only promised to eat on the menu at least once, so that gave him quite a bit of 'wiggle room' to make some choices later on in the month. I think his calorie intake went way down the last two weeks.
Yea in supersize me his body was being to become accustomed to the higher fat diet and extra weight and was being to normalize itself somewhat. The human body is quite adaptive in this way.
As for the Chaz Weaver 'Down size me' he lists his caloric intake daily and it doesn't go down the last two weeks.
I suspect he has a very fast metabolism because to have lost 8 pounds over 30 days and eat 3000-5000 calories a day even if you're working out 90 minutes daily is remarkable.
Then again he has already shown his math skills are suspect so .... who knows!
Kinda dumb in my opinion. It's kinda like a subdued Micheal Moore movie.
Much better and more entertaining documentarys are 'King of Kong' or 'This movie is not yet rated'. Also good but not a documentary although it kind of plays like one is 'Thank you for smoking'.
Linear Mode
