Supersize Me: The Result Of Eating A McDonald's Diet.

[pellius]

So freezing doesn't preserve the shelf life of a McDouble cheese burger. I usually buy 10 or 12 at a time, eat about two, and then put the rest in the freezer and heat it up in a microwave as the needed. Should I just keep them at room temp or put them in fridge or what. TA? Anybody? And I always thought salt was a preservative and what they used in the old days before refrigeration.

BTW, what's so bad about McDonald's. Their ground beef and chicken is just as good as what you buy in the store. Why is Mcdonald's cheeseburger any worse than if you made one yourself other than you'd probably use more meat?

[goomba420]

suckmymuscle is a very strange individual. do not confuse his great grammar and sentence structure with intelligence

[Coach is Back!]

So at what point do you nutrition geniuses think about what foods get broken down and absorbed differently than others that has direct effect in body composition and fat burning?

I'll start throwing a few hints out and hopefully (except TA because he knows it all..lol) some people will get it......eventually.

[pellius]

So at what point do you nutrition geniuses think about what foods get broken down and absorbed differently than others that has direct effect in body composition and fat burning?

I'll start throwing a few hints out and hopefully (except TA because he knows it all..lol) some people will get it......eventually.

Of course different foods will be processed differently. Eat a cup of sugar and a cup of oatmeal they will both be converted to glucose and used for energy but with oatmeal it will take longer because of the fiber. You will get more of a sustained release energy graph than if you ate pure sugar which will spike rather quickly but also drop quickly as well. Also, it will require less energy to process sucrose than it will oats.

Calories in versus Calories out will determine if you lose, gain or stay the same weight. But the calorie going in is not the same as the calorie going out.

Having said that McDonald's is the greatest thing to happen to the fast food industry. Fast, clean and a consistent product at the best value. Not a week goes by when I don't stop through their drive through several times. Never get tired of the Big Mac and their shakes. And the best fries in the business.

[suckmymuscle]

suckmymuscle is a very strange individual. do not confuse his great grammar and sentence structure with intelligence

  Well, at least I have great grammar and write with great sentence structure. I guess I'll have to live with just that.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Coach is Back!]

Of course different foods will be processed differently. Eat a cup of sugar and a cup of oatmeal they will both be converted to glucose and used for energy but with oatmeal it will take longer because of the fiber. You will get more of a sustained release energy graph than if you ate pure sugar which will spike rather quickly but also drop quickly as well. Also, it will require less energy to process sucrose than it will oats.

Calories in versus Calories out will determine if you lose, gain or stay the same weight. But the calorie going in is not the same as the calorie going out.

Having said that McDonald's is the greatest thing to happen to the fast food industry. Fast, clean and a consistent product at the best value. Not a week goes by when I don't stop through their drive through several times. Never get tired of the Big Mac and their shakes. And the best fries in the business.

Very good!

[G_Thang]

But I guarantee you that this dude didnt even exercise...

There is a woman who is on a McDonald's diet and she looks incredible...

People just have to utilize those calories:

mc donald's every day = russian or black = genetically phucked up hearts = cardiac arrest at the end of the cycle 

[Coach is Back!]

Hey TA, I couldn't find the part where they said how much HRT and t-3 and clen he was on. Can you?

TA...speak on this.

[pellius]

mc donald's every day = russian or black = genetically phucked up hearts = cardiac arrest at the end of the cycle  

Seriously, why? I eat at McDonalds about five times per week. And have been doing so for decades. I usually get two McDoubles, fries and a shake or a Big Mac, one McDouble, fries and a shake. I'm single digit body fat, cholesterol is actually a bit on the low side and blood pressure is also a bit on the low side.

I'm eating ground beef, bread, potatoes, and milk/dairy. I go there because they are fast, convenient, great value, and I love it. I don't see the problem.

When someone calls a food "dirty" or "junk" as oppose to when some says, "I'm eating clean now." What do they mean? I always took it to me food high in fat and sugar with a lot of chemicals. I guess McDonalds is high on the fat side but fat in and of itself is not unhealthy. It's just calorie dense. That's a good thing if you live in a third world country. But as long as you are not at a huge caloric surplus I don't see why it's bad.

[badlad]

Interesting thing about Macs for me is that generally, on the rare occasion I do consume Macdonalds, I will usually 'pig out' on it because it is a rarity and I like to 'enjoy' it when I do. However with Macs I only feel sick afterward as a direct result of overeating. With KFC, Wendys or Burger King - doesn't matter if I consume only a single burger - I actually am almost sick from it. Pretty much think I have some kind of allergic reaction to the last three but not Macdonalds.
And lastly, although I certainly don't endorse fast food as a staple I certainly don't begrudge anybody who eats it and as far as fast food goes - one things I'll say for Macdonalds, whether you think it is crap or not, its consistently crap (or not). Other fast food chains, at least to me, you seem to have a reasonable burger one day and the next, the same burger from the same outlet is shite. Also, I've had food poisoning from KFC and Burger King but never from Macdonalds.

[pellius]

Another thing about TA is that he seems to focus solely on macronutrients whose primary purpose is to provide the body with energy. He seems to totally disregard the micronutrients. The nutrients that nourish the body.

If all you care about is weight per se, not body composition nor health. Then, yes, you can gain or lose weight eating just ice cream and croissants watching only your caloric intake and caloric expenditure.

TA is still young and I believe does work out seriously and consistently and I really think he eats a lot healthier then he lets on. Some people think it's something to brag about that they can eat junk and still stay in good shape. People in the bodybuilding world always like to portray themselves as genetically gifted. That with little effort they can become superman. "I'm natural and eat just soup and bread once a day but just look at me." It's kind of strange because in other sports it a badge of honor and something to really be proud of when you have overcome physical limitations to succeed in your sport. Helio Gracie promoted his version of Jiu-Jitsu by recalling how weak and sickly he was when he was young so he had to develop and modify traditional Jiu-Jitsu to compensate for his physical limitations. That's something to be proud of.
 

[RadOncDoc]

 Sure, if you eat less calories than you spend you will lose body mass(either fat or muscle depending on many factors), but this is not what this is about. I agree that, for bodyweight loss, all that matters are calories, but what you eat, irrespective of calories, matters a lot when it comes to body composition and health. You put two guys on a weight loss diet, both eating 1,800 calories a day, but one getting the 1,800 calories from McDonald's whilst the other getting the 1,800 calories from chicken breasts and brown rice, and the latter will lose more fat and less muscle than the other. You put two guys on the same number or calories a day, say, 3,000, but one getting all of them from McDonald's whilst the other from tuna, chicken breasts and brown rice and oatmeal, and the latter will have much better health markers than the former.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

I really think you're oversimplyfing a very, very complex issue. Take your argument that eating brown rice and chicken breasts will preserve more lean muscle than a McDonald's diet. I'd say that may or may not be true. At the very least, I can definitely say that there is no consensus in the medical literature on this issue. The only randomized evidence I've ever seen was a study layme norton posted on BB.com several years ago which enrolled maybe 15 people and compared a high protein/high fat ketogenic diet with a normal diet and found that there was more lean muscle preservation in those on the keto diet. But again, that diet had fat. That's the only randomized evidence I've ever seen. I mean, if you're eating only chicken and brown rice, where are you getting your essential fatty acids from? Where are you getting the cholesterol you need to synthesize testosterone? If you're not getting fats and cholesterol (and you're a natrual bber), your testosterone levels may drop which can shift the balance of fat/muscle loss towards a greater percentage of muscle loss. By contrast, a diet consisting say of a McDonalds double hamburger (which actually have a very good ratio of fats/carbs/protein) may give you just the right ratio of nutrients for losing weight but maintaining test levels. I actually remember Bob Chic writing that McDonalds hamburgers were a great dieting food, and I'd totally agree with that.

[suckmymuscle]

I really think you're oversimplyfing a very, very complex issue. Take your argument that eating brown rice and chicken breasts will preserve more lean muscle than a McDonald's diet. I'd say that may or may not be true. At the very least, I can definitely say that there is no consensus in the medical literature on this issue. The only randomized evidence I've ever seen was a study layme norton posted on BB.com several years ago which enrolled maybe 15 people and compared a high protein/high fat ketogenic diet with a normal diet and found that there was more lean muscle preservation in those on the keto diet. But again, that diet had fat. That's the only randomized evidence I've ever seen. I mean, if you're eating only chicken and brown rice, where are you getting your essential fatty acids from? Where are you getting the cholesterol you need to synthesize testosterone? If you're not getting fats and cholesterol (and you're a natrual bber), your testosterone levels may drop which can shift the balance of fat/muscle loss towards a greater percentage of muscle loss. By contrast, a diet consisting say of a McDonalds double hamburger (which actually have a very good ratio of fats/carbs/protein) may give you just the right ratio of nutrients for losing weight but maintaining test levels. I actually remember Bob Chic writing that McDonalds hamburgers were a great dieting food, and I'd totally agree with that.

  I used "chicken and brown rice" as an example, since that is a typical staple of a cutting bodybuilding diet. The bottom line is that "Adonis" claims that calories are all that matters for fat loss or muscle gains. He is wrong. Calories are all that matters for body mass gain or loss. What you eat is just as important in determining the proportions of fat and muscle you gain and lose. And calories are certainly no what matters when it comes to health. You put two guys on two different diets with the same number of calories, one a Big Mac and french fries diet and the other a chicken breast and brown rice diet, and the latter will have better health than the former.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[The True Adonis]

 I used "chicken and brown rice" as an example, since that is a typical staple of a cutting bodybuilding diet. The bottom line is that "Adonis" claims that calories are all that matters for fat loss or muscle gains. He is wrong. Calories are all that matters for body mass gain or loss. What you eat is just as important in determining the proportions of fat and muscle you gain and lose. And calories are certainly no what matters when it comes to health. You put two guys on two different diets with the same number of calories, one a Big Mac and french fries diet and the other a chicken breast and brown rice diet, and the latter will have better health than the former.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

How many times do I have to write this:

A Calorie is a Calorie, but a Macro Nutrient is not a Macro Nutrient nor is a Micro Nutrient a Micro Nutrient. 

I hope this helps.

[The True Adonis]

 I used "chicken and brown rice" as an example, since that is a typical staple of a cutting bodybuilding diet. The bottom line is that "Adonis" claims that calories are all that matters for fat loss or muscle gains. He is wrong. Calories are all that matters for body mass gain or loss. What you eat is just as important in determining the proportions of fat and muscle you gain and lose. And calories are certainly no what matters when it comes to health. You put two guys on two different diets with the same number of calories, one a Big Mac and french fries diet and the other a chicken breast and brown rice diet, and the latter will have better health than the former.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Big Mac and Fries will be healthier as it provides more Nutrients and Fats and Micro Nutrients than Chicken Breast and Rice.  Big Mac also has less Cholesterol than a Chicken Breast.

[suckmymuscle]

Big Mac and Fries will be healthier as it provides more Nutrients and Fats and Micro Nutrients than Chicken Breast and Rice.44

  No, it won't. Saturated fats are not necessary at all. Most of the essential fats are either omega-6(linoleic) and omega-3(alpha-linolenic
) as well as monounsaturated fats like oleic and palmitoleic acid which are just as deficient in a Big Mac and fries diet as well as a diet of nothing but skinless chicken breasts and brown rice. As for micronutrients, both a Big Mac and fries on the one hand and a chicken breast and brown rice diet on the other are deficient, but of course I don't advocate a chicken breast and brown rice diet. I advocate a diet of lean proteins, vegetables, low sugar fruits and whole grain starches which is much better than the typical McDonald's menu. The diet menu at McDonald's is better than the regular but still far inferior to the diet I advocate.
I used that as example due to it's low fat and low sugar content. Even though both diets would be deficient in vitamins/minerals, my diet will be much better for the cardiovascular system.  

Big Mac also has less Cholesterol than a Chicken Breast.

  No, it doesen't since I am talking about skinless chicken breasts and what is really harmful in a Big Mac is not the cholesterol but the saturated fats in it which raise blood cholesterol a lot more than eating cholesterol does.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[The True Adonis]

 No, it won't. Saturated fats are not necessary at all. Most of the essential fats are either omega-6(linoleic) and omega-3(alpha-linolenic
) as well as monounsaturated fats like oleic and palmitoleic acid which are just as deficient in a Big Mac and fries diet as well as a diet of nothing but skinless chicken breasts and brown rice. As for micronutrients, both a Big Mac and fries on the one hand and a chicken breast and brown rice diet on the other are deficient, but of course I don't advocate a chicken breast and brown rice diet. I advocate a diet of lean proteins, vegetables, low sugar fruits and whole grain starches which is much better than the typical McDonald's menu. The diet menu at McDonald's is better than the regular but still far inferior to the diet I advocate.
I used that as example due to it's low fat and low sugar content. Even though both diets would be deficient in vitamins/minerals, my diet will be much better for the cardiovascular system.  

  No, it doesen't since I am talking about skinless chicken breasts and what is really harmful in a Big Mac is not the cholesterol but the saturated fats in it which raise blood cholesterol a lot more than eating cholesterol does.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  Translation: I, "Adonis", got owned and have nothing to answer. Thanks for conceding defeat.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[The True Adonis]

  Translation: I, "Adonis", got owned and have nothing to answer. Thanks for conceding defeat.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Nope. You are too dumb to realize that a Big Mac has less Cholesterol than a Skinless Chicken Breast so I figure there is no reason to continue since you are so willfully ignorant.

[Coach is Back!]

Nope. You are too dumb to realize that a Big Mac has less Cholesterol than a Skinless Chicken Breast so I figure there is no reason to continue since you are so willfully ignorant.

TA...what do you think about "Chazz" being on HRT (more than the average) t-3 and clen?

[suckmymuscle]

Nope. You are too dumb to realize that a Big Mac has less Cholesterol than a Skinless Chicken Breast so I figure there is no reason to continue since you are so willfully ignorant.

  Suppose it's true, idiot. Cholesterol is irrelevant as far as cardiovascular health. What raises blood cholesterol are saturated fats, exactly the kind found on Big Macs. Where have I even mentioned cholesterol as the reason why skinless chicken breasts are healthier for the cardiovascular system than Big Macs? You can't even follow a debate and you call me dumb? Lmao...go back to fourth grade English class and improve your reading comprehension. Adonis, the fact that you call me, who's intelligence vastly surpasses yours, dumb, is further evidence that you are a dumbass.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[suckmymuscle]

  And it turns out Adonis is not even right about his irrelevant fact. Puting aside the fact that ingested cholesterol has almost no bearing on blood cholesterol levels - what matters are saturated fats -, Adonis cannot even get his facts straight. Here is the cholesterol content for a Big Mac:

  Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 11.00000 sandwich (258.0 g) 
 
Amount Per Serving
Calories 704704Calories from Fat 393393
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 43.7g43.767%67
Saturated Fat 17.7g17.788%88
Polyunsaturated Fat 4.7g4.7
Monounsaturated Fat 17.4g17.4
Cholesterol 142mg14247%47 Sodium 1148mg114848%48
Total Carbohydrates 39.7g39.713%13
Protein 38.0g38.0

  And here is the cholesterol content for 2 ounces of skinless chicken breast:

  Serving Size 22.00000 oz (56.0 g) 
 
Amount Per Serving
Calories 5050Calories from Fat 99
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 1.0g1.02%2
Saturated Fat 0.5g0.52%2
Cholesterol 20mg207%7 Sodium 470mg47020%20
Total Carbohydrates 1.0g1.00%0
Protein 9.0g9.0

  Now, the typical serving of skinless chicken breast is about 12 ounces. So you multiply the figure by 6. You get 120 miligrams of cholesterol for 12 ounces of skinless chicken breast, which is still less than what a Big Mac has. Considered yourself owned, Amoron. You bring up completely irrelevant shit to win the argument and you still lose anyway.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
 

[The True Adonis]

 And it turns out Adonis is not even right about his irrelevant fact. Puting aside the fact that ingested cholesterol has almost no bearing on blood cholesterol levels - what matters are saturated fats -, Adonis cannot even get his facts straight. Here is the cholesterol content for a Big Mac:

  Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 11.00000 sandwich (258.0 g)  
 
Amount Per Serving
Calories 704704Calories from Fat 393393
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 43.7g43.767%67
Saturated Fat 17.7g17.788%88
Polyunsaturated Fat 4.7g4.7
Monounsaturated Fat 17.4g17.4
Cholesterol 142mg14247%47 Sodium 1148mg114848%48
Total Carbohydrates 39.7g39.713%13
Protein 38.0g38.0

  And here is the cholesterol content for 2 ounces of skinless chicken breast:

  Serving Size 22.00000 oz (56.0 g)  
 
Amount Per Serving
Calories 5050Calories from Fat 99
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 1.0g1.02%2
Saturated Fat 0.5g0.52%2
Cholesterol 20mg207%7 Sodium 470mg47020%20
Total Carbohydrates 1.0g1.00%0
Protein 9.0g9.0

  Now, the typical serving of skinless chicken breast is about 12 ounces. So you multiply the figure by 6. You get 120 miligrams of cholesterol for 12 ounces of skinless chicken breast, which is still less than what a Big Mac has. Considered yourself owned, Amoron. You bring up completely irrelevant shit to win the argument and you still lose anyway.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
 

You really are a moron.  I hope this helps. (I doubt that it will)



http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-sandwiches-burgers-burger-big-mac_f-ZmlkPTEwMTAyOA.html
Big Mac
Cholesterol   75mg   25%


http://www.calorieking.com/foods/calories-in-chicken-broilers-or-fryers-breast-raw-meat-only-without-skin_f-ZmlkPTY4Mjc1.html
6 Ounces Chicken Breast
Cholesterol   99mg   33%

[Coach is Back!]

TA...what do you think about "Chazz" being on HRT (more than the average) t-3 and clen?

Bump for TA avoiding this question like the plague.

[The True Adonis]

  And it turns out Adonis is not even right about his irrelevant fact. Puting aside the fact that ingested cholesterol has almost no bearing on blood cholesterol levels - what matters are saturated fats -, Adonis cannot even get his facts straight. Here is the cholesterol content for a Big Mac:

  Nutrition Facts
Serving Size 11.00000 sandwich (258.0 g) 
 
Amount Per Serving
Calories 704704Calories from Fat 393393
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 43.7g43.767%67
Saturated Fat 17.7g17.788%88
Polyunsaturated Fat 4.7g4.7
Monounsaturated Fat 17.4g17.4
Cholesterol 142mg14247%47 Sodium 1148mg114848%48
Total Carbohydrates 39.7g39.713%13
Protein 38.0g38.0

  And here is the cholesterol content for 2 ounces of skinless chicken breast:

  Serving Size 22.00000 oz (56.0 g) 
 
Amount Per Serving
Calories 5050Calories from Fat 99
% Daily Value*
Total Fat 1.0g1.02%2
Saturated Fat 0.5g0.52%2
Cholesterol 20mg207%7 Sodium 470mg47020%20
Total Carbohydrates 1.0g1.00%0
Protein 9.0g9.0

  Now, the typical serving of skinless chicken breast is about 12 ounces. So you multiply the figure by 6. You get 120 miligrams of cholesterol for 12 ounces of skinless chicken breast, which is still less than what a Big Mac has. Considered yourself owned, Amoron. You bring up completely irrelevant shit to win the argument and you still lose anyway.

SUCKMYMUSCLE
 

That is not even the Nutrition Data for a Big Mac.  You totally owned yourself you pathetic moron.  The longer this goes on, the worse its getting for you.