i think the guide is good for a normal person who is not looking to be a bodybuilder/powerlifter…that normal person needs to be heavilly concerned with portion control though…thats the key issue in the obesity epidemic…not food choices…
Now as far as a bodybuiling goes…
it is well established that someone looking to gain muscle needs to eat larger amounts of protein to build muscle, so the guide sucks for that purpose…
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]BrianW wrote:
Postscript: I don’t see eggs listed and think they would be a good addition under milk/dairy.[/quote]
They are not dairy nor milk so why would you put them in the category?
We should just put a T-Nation slice on the chart, which covers the entire thing.[/quote]
Because they are generally listed under dairy or dairy products, although I realise they are not strictly so.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I’m kind of in agreement with dnlcdstn, I don’t really see any point to your recent posts bricknyce, just seems like your trying to start arguments but only care to hear your side.
I love the fact that people have different opinions, views, and beliefs, that’s what makes us human, but lately it seems like your (bricknyce) just posting to rile people up on the same issue. Everyone is aware of where you stand now, either bring something new to the table to discuss, or hold off.
Just my thoughts, not meant to be a personal attack.[/quote]
He does the same thing on the T Replacement forum(i.e. stirs up shit) If you looked like the Situations’ little brother you might spend your day doing the same thing.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]EvanX wrote:
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Actually, if we were to break this down, we’d probably get a macronutrient spread looking something like:
50-65% CHO
15-25% P
20-25% F
That’s actually the breakdown of how MANY athletes eat, and they seem to be doing just fine! You know, like world records in some cases. [/quote]
Yes, athletes who train for hours a day. Why would the average person be eating so many carbs if they are just going to sit around all day?
[/quote]
Please see the left hand side of the chart. [/quote]
You mean where is says daily physical activity? Who the hell cares. The average person probably considers walking to and from the kitchen daily exericse.
My question was why would the average person need so many carbs? The average american most likely does not exercise at the very least 3x a week to need that many.
[quote]Virgil Hilts wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
I’m kind of in agreement with dnlcdstn, I don’t really see any point to your recent posts bricknyce, just seems like your trying to start arguments but only care to hear your side.
I love the fact that people have different opinions, views, and beliefs, that’s what makes us human, but lately it seems like your (bricknyce) just posting to rile people up on the same issue. Everyone is aware of where you stand now, either bring something new to the table to discuss, or hold off.
Just my thoughts, not meant to be a personal attack.[/quote]
He does the same thing on the T Replacement forum(i.e. stirs up shit) If you looked like the Situations’ little brother you might spend your day doing the same thing.[/quote]
Please provide a post in which I stir shit up in the T Replacement forum. Actually, I’ve pointed people in the right direction there.
Cephalic: I’m good. How are you?
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Cephalic: I’m good. How are you? [/quote]
Busy, busy… Getting married and other such disasters.
I hear women tend to turn into harpies a few weeks after the vows have been spoken, but I guess that’s like getting lung cancer from smoking… Stuff that only happens to Other People, huh?
You’re so lucky we don’t have the same level of geekdom going on here vs, say, 4chan or whatever it’s called.
Else you’d have an army of pissed-off 14 year olds busily hacking your bank accounts and trying to turn your screen into a remote-controlled bomb… Just to get back at you for pissing them off in their forum.
The Internet is serious business.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
less carbs more fat since these people aren’t on the active side.[/quote]
Why?
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
that kind of carb-load?
[/quote]
50% of total calories, which are recommended to be 2000 per day for the average person, comes out to be about 250g of carbs from grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and dairy.
That’s a “carb load”?
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
I am NOT stirring conversation up in being a rabble rouser as I have been accused of before.
Aside from the trendy “evilz of teh dairee and grainz” topic, I’d like some people to possibly provide criticism of this diagram. [/quote]
I actually think this pyramid is fine if ppl actually follow it. There is actually nothing wrong with grains. They contain nutrients too. Anyway, it is quite easy to susitute ur carb source with starches (sweet potatos, yam etc. The only thing I disagree with is the relatively high proportion of dairy compared to meat. I am assuming when ppl see the word dairy, they mostly refer to milk. Drinking milk at the time when our parents are kids working on the farm and when the milk cows are clean and hygiene would be good, but definitely not now (have u seen “fresh milk” make from milk powder? ) so I would rather have meat taking up more the pyramid and maybe leser dairy.
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
that kind of carb-load?
[/quote]
50% of total calories, which are recommended to be 2000 per day for the average person, comes out to be about 250g of carbs from grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and dairy.
That’s a “carb load”?[/quote]
? I meant that as in “amount of carbs”. Didn’t think of the bb/diet related meaning when I wrote that.
Why get in 50% of your calories from carbs? Simple convenience? Why is it necessary, or better than a more even spread such as 33/33/34 (+/-) ?
Will it hurt the average person to shift their diets a little to include more fat and protein?
I don’t really understand why we are discussing “average” non bodybuilding, non-powerlifting, non-fighting /whatever people here though.
Not like they usually care about their diet much, most just seem to eat whatever, whenever they feel like it or get the chance. There is little structure there…
And hell, you can even call yourself a “bodybuilder” and eat like that and most likely make fairly shitty progress, but strictly speaking you can do it and you can even make SOME progress that way… The body adapts to a lot of things, at least to a degree, after all. Just because it doesn’t kill you outright doesn’t mean it’s optimal, or even just mildly positive, especially as you get older.
Where is this discussion supposed to lead, anyway?
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
less carbs more fat since these people aren’t on the active side.[/quote]
Why?[/quote]
Why not?
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
[quote]Stronghold wrote:
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
that kind of carb-load?
[/quote]
50% of total calories, which are recommended to be 2000 per day for the average person, comes out to be about 250g of carbs from grains, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and dairy.
That’s a “carb load”?[/quote]
Why get in 50% of your calories from carbs? Simple convenience?
Will it hurt the average person to shift their diets a little to include more fat and protein?
Is a 33/33/34 spread bad or something?
I don’t really understand why we are discussing “average” non bodybuilding, non-powerlifting, non-fighting /whatever people here though.
Not like they usually care about their diet much, most just seem to eat whatever, whenever they feel like it or get the chance. There is little structure there…
And hell, you can even call yourself a “bodybuilder” and eat like that and most likely make fairly shitty progress, but strictly speaking you can do it and you can even make SOME progress that way… The body adapts to a lot of things, at least to a degree, after all. Just because it doesn’t kill you outright doesn’t mean it’s optimal, or even just mildly positive, especially as you get older.
Where is this discussion supposed to lead, anyway?
[/quote]
Why not get 50% of your calories from carbs? For the average person with no specific body composition goals, then exactly what is the danger in consuming your calories from a cheaper, more satisfying, and more varied (taste wise) source assuming total calories are not excessive?
If the average person has no specific body composition goals, then what is the point in demanding a high protein intake for them? So they can eat more like bodybuilders do? Because many in this past time have an emotionally driven desire for everyone to conform to their morally superior eating habits?
Brick made this thread because there are individuals on this site who fall into the group of people I mentioned above who spend much of their time talking shit about a profession they know nothing about and peddling all manner of absurd pseudo-scientific broisms. He’s just proving a point.
As a bodybuilder, you could eat like that and make VERY good progress, assuming you aren’t one of those people who posts on the internet who is a 6’5" 320 lb muai thai fighting top level amateur non competitive bodybuilder with 2.8% bodyfat, an 800 lb beltless squat, and a laser guided rocket arm who accomplished ALL of that by only consuming carbs from 3 licks of an aged prune post workout. The reality is that REAL bodybuilders rarely abide by what is peddled on the message boards. I’ve trained around and hung out with guys who put 99.999% of the people posting advice here to absolute shame and NONE of them comply with the “conventional wisdom” of bodybuilding message boards. Low carb off seasons? No. Post workout shakes? No. Post cycle therapy? No. Super high protein intakes (2+g/lb)? No. Avoiding carbs? No. Too much volume? Never. For example, a lean 200 lb individual might reasonably need 4000 calories to maintain with a high training load. 25% of 4000 calories comes out to 250g of protein, which is a reasonable consumption, especially since carbohydrates are protein sparing. Now, if are theoretical bodybuilder is trying to put on weight, he might up his caloric intake to 5,000 per day. That would, at a 25% protein intake have him eating around 315g of protein, or over 1.5x g/lb. I’m sure (from posts of his that I have seen) if you were to break down Professor X’s intake during the years which he was growing most, it would mimic this pretty closely in terms of macronutrient breakdown.
Now, as to the vague implication that this diet would somehow have negative health implications for an ACTIVE individual (which is a DEFINITIVE part of the table that was presented, no getting around that with sedentary examples), that just doesn’t hold water. This diet (when set at the 2,000 calorie intake and including daily physical activity) is geared towards the maintenance of a lower bodyweight, cardiovascular health, and improved quality of life. All of these things invariably improve health and longevity. The idea that you HAVE TO eat like a pre-contest bodybuilder in order to live a long and healthy life is absolute bullshit.
[quote]Cephalic_Carnage wrote:
Why not?
[/quote]
Why don’t we start with “less calories” and then once people learn to listen to vague guidelines, you can get specific. The “less carbs for non training” statement lies on the assumption that 1000 calories from carbohydrate is somehow more fattening than 1000 calories from fat, which it is not.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
This diet won’t make 95% of the population obese. It just isn’t optimal.[/quote]
Correct.
I’m simply asking others how this is to blame for making us a bunch of physically degenerated sloths. [/quote]
I can agree with therajraj there. Well, as long as the amount of calories is adjusted to the individual. Eat too much and you’ll get fat no matter what your diet looks like, no?
Still, you can pull that diet off several ways… Someone may get most of his veggie calories from potatoes for example rather than brocolli or whatever… Think food-choices can make a difference in bloodwork and to avoid clogged arteries? (just a question really…)
I just don’t think that this really matters overall… The people who would/should eat that way usually aren’t found on this site and probably don’t give a damn.
[quote]Bricknyce wrote:
Actually, if we were to break this down, we’d probably get a macronutrient spread looking something like:
50-65% CHO
15-25% P
20-25% F
That’s actually the breakdown of how MANY athletes eat, and they seem to be doing just fine! You know, like world records in some cases. [/quote]
If Michael Phelps or some endurance cyclist or runner eats a metric shit-ton worth of carbs a day (for example), while keeping his protein and fat intake low as far as percentages go…
Well, that hardly compares to joe average, does it? Who has vastly different genetics, a much slower metabolism etc and simply eats way less calories… Like 2000-3000 vs. 8000-10000 per day while weighing roughly the same as phelps?
Those Athletes just fill up the extra cals with convenient calorie sources /filler and due to the sheer amount of calories they eat, their protein intake for example may seem very low… Although it’s probably no lower (or in fact higher) than that of the average male of similar weight and age?
Hell, someone who isn’t Phelps may follow his diet and the same training regimen and end up diabetic and with arthritis/tendinitis all over or whatever…
I don’t think the pyramid applies to most on Tnation since we are not “average” people.
[quote]attydeb2005 wrote:
I don’t think the pyramid applies to most on Tnation since we are not “average” people.[/quote]
I forgot that, and was reminded of this fact over and over in my Sacrifice versus Reward Thread.
Add a bacon column… then it is a masterpiece.
[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
Add a bacon column… then it is a masterpiece.[/quote]
[quote]critietaeta wrote:
[quote]MilSpec105 wrote:
Add a bacon column… then it is a masterpiece.[/quote]
[/quote]
a food pyramid i can follow lol