Adarq.org
Performance Area => Nutrition & Supplementation => Topic started by: adarqui on November 09, 2010, 05:39:19 am
-
lol nasty.. apparently it was 2/3rds junk per day, i'd like to see his food log
http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Junk-food-diet-that-works/hjFsIDa5e0a69-f5UMBJBw.cspx
-
heh. a friend on facebook linked that. you gotta have so much discipline to eat so little junk food though... that's way too much temptation to have around at the house.
-
Calories in, Calories out
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/1/4/129071301276270929.jpg)
-
heh. a friend on facebook linked that. you gotta have so much discipline to eat so little junk food though... that's way too much temptation to have around at the house.
i dno, most americans can eat like that easily... you underestimate the unhealthyness of the USA. :)
-
my post on another forum:
awesome, a professor who was 33% fat got down to 24% eating far less than maintenance kcal consisting of junk, who cares Smile
a calorie is not just a calorie, a gram of carb (especially sugar) has a very different effect on the body than a gram of protein. Hormonally, junk is not something we should be consuming if we want to get strong, shredded, and actually put on mass. Sure he lost some body fat, but we're athletes, not fat f**k professors who have alot of bodyfat to lose.. Junk food diets typically don't do well with performance athletes, it leaves them less alert & less motivated to compete. I guarantee you that, these stupid studies would be alot different if you look at someone trying to go from 15% BF to 6% bodyfat. A caloric deficit wouldn't mean (expletive), the body would try to keep fat (which would happen easily due to all the sugars/sat fat you're eating), and you'd actually lose lean mass.. so sure, your BMI would go down, but you'd lose mass and become relatively fatter.
I hate that stupid study Smile
peace
-
heh. a friend on facebook linked that. you gotta have so much discipline to eat so little junk food though... that's way too much temptation to have around at the house.
i dno, most americans can eat like that easily... you underestimate the unhealthyness of the USA. :)
uhh, experienced it first hand. i was at 190lbs (2007-8) thanks to all the cheap and easily available junk food at the super market and fast food places. the system definitely works against you. i remember reading about (poorer) families eating dollar menu because it is cheap and convenient. at least in taiwan (and most asian countries) one you can decently healthy cheap fast foods.
-
crazy, at 5 11 190 u were 30% body fat uhh thats my BW now and im not close to 30%, i hope. Different body types i guess.
-
heh. a friend on facebook linked that. you gotta have so much discipline to eat so little junk food though... that's way too much temptation to have around at the house.
i dno, most americans can eat like that easily... you underestimate the unhealthyness of the USA. :)
uhh, experienced it first hand. i was at 190lbs (2007-8) thanks to all the cheap and easily available junk food at the super market and fast food places. the system definitely works against you. i remember reading about (poorer) families eating dollar menu because it is cheap and convenient. at least in taiwan (and most asian countries) one you can decently healthy cheap fast foods.
when i was crazy poor like 8-9 months ago, i dollar menu'd, worst i ever felt in my life.
hehehe
-
crazy, at 5 11 190 u were 30% body fat uhh thats my BW now and im not close to 30%, i hope. Different body types i guess.
i don't have a lot of muscles so yah it was a lot of fat. i've never gained muscles easily... we'll see how this whey isolate will help me. just received it today and tried it. taste is decent when mixed with some chocolate powder.
adarq: I ate lot of wendy's dollar menu then. nuggets + fries + salad... i hope their nuggets were not those nasty looking pink paste used in McD's nuggets. the texture of wendy's seems like decent chicken meat at least. but i'm afraid to know what it really is...
-
crazy, at 5 11 190 u were 30% body fat uhh thats my BW now and im not close to 30%, i hope. Different body types i guess.
i don't have a lot of muscles so yah it was a lot of fat. i've never gained muscles easily... we'll see how this whey isolate will help me. just received it today and tried it. taste is decent when mixed with some chocolate powder.
adarq: I ate lot of wendy's dollar menu then. nuggets + fries + salad... i hope their nuggets were not those nasty looking pink paste used in McD's nuggets. the texture of wendy's seems like decent chicken meat at least. but i'm afraid to know what it really is...
wendy's has always seemed to be higher quality, from what i've seen over the years.. regardless i wouldn't eat at any of those traditional fast food places.. the new "fast food" places that are healthy, such as chipotle, those are real good..
http://chipotle.com
:)
-
my post on another forum:
awesome, a professor who was 33% fat got down to 24% eating far less than maintenance kcal consisting of junk, who cares Smile
a calorie is not just a calorie, a gram of carb (especially sugar) has a very different effect on the body than a gram of protein. Hormonally, junk is not something we should be consuming if we want to get strong, shredded, and actually put on mass. Sure he lost some body fat, but we're athletes, not fat f**k professors who have alot of bodyfat to lose.. Junk food diets typically don't do well with performance athletes, it leaves them less alert & less motivated to compete. I guarantee you that, these stupid studies would be alot different if you look at someone trying to go from 15% BF to 6% bodyfat. A caloric deficit wouldn't mean (expletive), the body would try to keep fat (which would happen easily due to all the sugars/sat fat you're eating), and you'd actually lose lean mass.. so sure, your BMI would go down, but you'd lose mass and become relatively fatter.
I hate that stupid study Smile
peace
Yes and no. Caloric deficit always matters if you're trying to lose weight. If you're trying to get from 15% to 6%, you still have to be in a deficit. It just becomes that much more important to get enough protein and keep lifting, for maintenance of muscle mass. Obviously, I'm not saying a junk food diet + protein is optimal for anyone at any time. I'm just saying that if you want to lose weight, caloric deficit matters.
-
my post on another forum:
awesome, a professor who was 33% fat got down to 24% eating far less than maintenance kcal consisting of junk, who cares Smile
a calorie is not just a calorie, a gram of carb (especially sugar) has a very different effect on the body than a gram of protein. Hormonally, junk is not something we should be consuming if we want to get strong, shredded, and actually put on mass. Sure he lost some body fat, but we're athletes, not fat f**k professors who have alot of bodyfat to lose.. Junk food diets typically don't do well with performance athletes, it leaves them less alert & less motivated to compete. I guarantee you that, these stupid studies would be alot different if you look at someone trying to go from 15% BF to 6% bodyfat. A caloric deficit wouldn't mean (expletive), the body would try to keep fat (which would happen easily due to all the sugars/sat fat you're eating), and you'd actually lose lean mass.. so sure, your BMI would go down, but you'd lose mass and become relatively fatter.
I hate that stupid study Smile
peace
Yes and no. Caloric deficit always matters if you're trying to lose weight. If you're trying to get from 15% to 6%, you still have to be in a deficit. It just becomes that much more important to get enough protein and keep lifting, for maintenance of muscle mass. Obviously, I'm not saying a junk food diet + protein is optimal for anyone at any time. I'm just saying that if you want to lose weight, caloric deficit matters.
sure it does, my point is simply that, a diet high in junk food is not going to be high in protein if caloric deficit is achieved, the percentages just can't happen with high fat/high carb junk food being a majority of the diet.. so physique/strength is going to suffer greatly.
pc
-
let's take a 200lb guy, 20% bf, trying to lose weight.
6 twinkies = 900 cal, 162g carbs, 27g fat, 6g protein
7 protein shakes = 840 cal, 14g carbs, 14g fat, 161g protein
total = 1740 cal, 176g carbs, 49g fat, 167g protein
-
let's take a 200lb guy, 20% bf, trying to lose weight.
6 twinkies = 900 cal, 162g carbs, 27g fat, 6g protein
7 protein shakes = 840 cal, 14g carbs, 14g fat, 161g protein
total = 1740 cal, 176g carbs, 49g fat, 167g protein
i thought he did 2/3rds junk.
;/
-
let's take a 200lb guy, 20% bf, trying to lose weight.
6 twinkies = 900 cal, 162g carbs, 27g fat, 6g protein
7 protein shakes = 840 cal, 14g carbs, 14g fat, 161g protein
total = 1740 cal, 176g carbs, 49g fat, 167g protein
i thought he did 2/3rds junk.
;/
8 focus foods: 1840 calories, 192g carbs, 56g fat, 176g protein
Oh wait you said 2/3 junk, not 100%.
-
let's take a 200lb guy, 20% bf, trying to lose weight.
6 twinkies = 900 cal, 162g carbs, 27g fat, 6g protein
7 protein shakes = 840 cal, 14g carbs, 14g fat, 161g protein
total = 1740 cal, 176g carbs, 49g fat, 167g protein
i thought he did 2/3rds junk.
;/
8 focus foods: 1840 calories, 192g carbs, 56g fat, 176g protein
Oh wait you said 2/3 junk, not 100%.
lol'd.. wasn't expecting that when you linked it on live-chat.
-
He said "majority." 900>840, therefore a majority of calories from junk food.
QED, bitches.
-
He said "majority." 900>840, therefore a majority of calories from junk food.
QED, bitches.
Good
-
He said "majority." 900>840, therefore a majority of calories from junk food.
QED, bitches.
i know i heard/saw 2/3rd somewhere, probably on cnn.. don't worry, i'll find it, and when i do, murkeD.
-
MURKED.
(http://i53.tinypic.com/244a343.png)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html?hpt=T2
MURKED.
-
Yeah darq but YOU said "majority."
-
Yeah darq but YOU said "majority."
MUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDD..