The "macro is all that matters" debate is fine if you want diabetes, clogged arteries and high blood pressure. I get that a gram of protein is a gram of protein (well, sort of... some have different amounts of aminos), but a gram of protein attached to 4 grams of saturated fat is different to 1 g lean. Likewise for sugar (dont care if sugar isn't bad for you if your fit and healthy, there is a strong link between refined sugar and diabetes although yes, usually in unhealthy people).
Yeh, fair point - shit example.Mate of course 1 gram of lean protein is different to 1 gram of protein plus 4 grams of fat, they are totaly different macros. How does this have anything to do with clogged arteries and diabetes????
Yeh, fair point - shit example.
What I meant -
MB was saying it doesnt matter what you eat. Same macros meal of Macca's vs let's say - lean chicken, brown rice and olive oil. There are good fats, bad fats, good carbs, bad carbs. In a body building context their effects may be negated to some degree by physical exercise, but obviously not for sedentary or elderly people. Yes each has their role, and what Dave said is right, OP is just trying to dispel myths. I was just trying to say to any idiot who reads it and thinks they can live on coke and maccas.
The "macro is all that matters" debate is fine if you want diabetes, clogged arteries and high blood pressure. I get that a gram of protein is a gram of protein (well, sort of... some have different amounts of aminos), but a gram of protein attached to 4 grams of saturated fat is different to 1 g lean. Likewise for sugar (dont care if sugar isn't bad for you if your fit and healthy, there is a strong link between refined sugar and diabetes although yes, usually in unhealthy people).
In the chocolate factories defence he has never made this topic about health but solely body comp. I am sure he does not advocate trans fat laden sugar filled food to his clients or us.
I have compiled a mix of biological, physiology information, articles and studies etc that will hopefully give everyone an understanding on the body's digestion processes, maconutrient functions and insulin responses and some other useful facts.
That in turn will clear up the myths of needing to eat 6 meals a day every 3 hours for metabolic function and 'keeping protein up', that identical macronutients/ calories from your typical 'clean' and 'dirty' are the SAME (Yes micronutrients - vitamins and minerals - content will vary but that is not the point of this) and that the GI of carbohydrates and the typical thoughts on their insulin response is of little meaning once a mix of multiple macronutrients is added.
Please note that how your body reacts in a 'fed' state (with food) compared to a 'fast' state (without food) is different. Many of the typically 'bodybuilding' and 'broscience' protocols, that as a few people tend to promote as being 'done for 20,30 or even 40 years and that is why it works' , are and have been based on either lack of understanding of the digestive system as well as focusing on studies that have been done after a fasting period and or a fasting period followed by exercise.
To expand on that more, when a Fast (usually 24 hours) is done, our metabolic rate actually INCREASES, see link to studies -
Enhanced thermogenic response to epinephrine after... [Am J Physiol. 1990] - PubMed result
Resting energy expenditure in short-term starvatio... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2000] - PubMed result
Our metabolic rate does not DROP until between the 60-92 hour mark. See link to study -
Leucine, glucose, and energy metabolism after 3 da... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1987] - PubMed result
As you will read, you should be able to see why due to the digestion process why we are continuously in a 'fed' state and how all the 'myths' simple hold no bearing and are of no relevance. Most times the only real application some of the typical 'bodybuilding' protocols are if you have completed a 'fast' and then going to train or have a number of back to back events in the same day.
Before moving on to the info, I must say that if you want to eat 6 times a day and every 3 hours, YOU CAN but YOU DON'T NEED TO. If you want to eat 'clean', YOU CAN but YOU DON'T NEED TO. If you want to go by the GI, YOU CAN but YOU DON'T NEEDED TO. This is merely for the understanding that for body composition, those sorts of minor details and protocols DO NOT determine what your BODY COMPOSITION is/ will be.
I find it funny that people think there is something magically bad about foods like Maccas.
Think about the typical burger. Bun, meat, lettuce and sauce. Nothing wrong with those foods.
There is nothing magically bad about something like a Maccas burger it's just that people tend to over eat calories at these places which makes them overweight then end up with health problems. Its not a problem of the food itself.
On a MACRONUTRIENT identical meal of Chicken and bread or a Macca's Happy Meal, there is no difference. If the fat content & breakdown is identical from the Chicken and Bread to the Happy Meal, there is no difference. The only Fat I personally would class as 'bad' is Trans Fat........Yeh, fair point - shit example.
What I meant -
MB was saying it doesnt matter what you eat. Same macros meal of Macca's vs let's say - lean chicken, brown rice and olive oil. There are good fats, bad fats, good carbs, bad carbs. In a body building context their effects may be negated to some degree by physical exercise, but obviously not for sedentary or elderly people. Yes each has their role, and what Dave said is right, OP is just trying to dispel myths. I was just trying to say to any idiot who reads it and thinks they can live on coke and maccas, they shouldnt.
Max, I could have absolutelty sworn you are a friend of mine named, Harry.
You both certainly come from the same school of thought here, with identical theories on exactly these subjects!
Do you know him?
It is fantastic that you have taken the time to put all of this together here, I'll have to get Harry over here to join in on the fun
On a MACRONUTRIENT identical meal of Chicken and bread or a Macca's Happy Meal, there is no difference. If the fat content & breakdown is identical from the Chicken and Bread to the Happy Meal, there is no difference. The only Fat I personally would class as 'bad' is Trans Fat........
The only difference in that meal is the MICRONUTIRENT content and how it is presented
Yeh ok, Gandalf doesn't work at Maccas, I'll give you that.
But, the bun for one is full of sugar. They pass the bun through a steam machine that caramalises the sugar content giving it that toasted look. The sauce is processed garbage. There is a tonne of salt on the chips, a large coke is a ridiculous amount of sugar. All of these things are addictive (mostly the sugar and salt).
People over eat MacDonald's (in Australia, mostly the lower socioeconomic members of society), because their marketing is so persuasive and their products are highly addictive. I am sure there is some link between education/iq and maccas consumption. It's almost as bad as pokies.
With all due respect TGTL, I think you have taken this way out of context.
One last sceniro, if I had met all my minimum MACRONUTIENT & MICRONUTRIENT requiremnts for body compoisition as well 'general health' and had 500 calories 'free' in my 'diet' would it be of much more benefit to have have 500 calories of Steak and Broccoli as compared to a Baskins & Robbins Chocolate PeanutButter sundae?
Answer - NO and of course I'm going the Ice-Cream 10 outta 10 times
Hmm... this is interesting.
What do you mean by no difference? I get that they are the same numbers... but are you saying that the amount of processing has no bearing on digestion and the other things that flow on from that?
So an extreme example would be - a glass of water with 50 grams of sugar in it vs the equivalent carbs in basmati rice. There is no difference in terms of the effect of body composition? The sugar is clearly processed faster, that's why kids go nuts on cordial from the energy rush.
Sorry if it seems I'm just nit picking, but I genuinely want to square this away in my head - but im not quite convinced yet.
Of course there is NO difference in body composition of 50 grams of carbs from either sugar or rice. Both end up as GLUCOSE in the bloodstream. You have missed the point on the entire Thread.
yes, but sugar takes less effort expressed as calories to assimilate. Complex carbs are complex because their structure is more complex and hence harder and slower to breakdown (and requiring more energy). You have said that this isn't true, and that TEF doesn't change for different sources of the same macro. I find this difficult to believe. At this point I'm simply arguing because I'm bored at work... so let's leave it for a while, I'll read lyles blog and get back to you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?