an obvious question that unravels the "adonis principles" in one fell swoop is why a traditional bodybuilder diet is bad. if calorie sources are irrelevant, then it doesn't make a difference.
adonis often claims that a "bodybuilder diet" made him fat. but the problem is that according to his own principles all he did wrong was eat too many calories, the structure of the diet was irrelevant. the "bodybuilder diet" had nothing to do with it, the caloric intake did. he would have gotten fat on the same caloric level from any source, as long as we believe that a calorie is a calorie and a 40/30/30 diet yields the same effect on the body as a 50/15/35 or anything else.
he keeps trying to claim that high protein diets and whatever else are bad, but then turns around and says macronutrient ratios are pointless. well what if i don't particularly like the taste of sugar or bread? i'm much happier eating chicken and eggs than cake and pop tarts. given the ability to make my own diet based purely on taste i'd probably take in the same amount of carbs as i do protein over the course of the day.
there's also the inherent hypocrisy in the fact that he keeps pointing out RDA recommendations, since those ARE macronutrient ratio outlines. the RDA prescribes a specific amount of fat, carbs, and protein to be taken in on a given day. but if adonis's "principles" are to be believed, we can deviate wildly from the RDA's guidelines as long as our caloric intake remains the same.
so here's the question, adam: how can high protein, low carb diets be bad if macronutrient ratios mean nothing?
