A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
0

A question about calorie quantity v quality. Please only legit answers

by (15)
Updated about 12 hours ago
Created April 03, 2014 at 7:46 PM

John Cisna from Iowa, US, lost nearly 40lbs during an experiment that saw him eat every meal at his local McDonald's restaurant

A daring science teacher who survived on eating only McDonald's meals for 90 days has shed nearly 40lbs.John Cisna of Ankney, Iowa, ate three meals a day at his local store but made sure he conformed to strict nutritional requirements.Cisna and his students used online nutritional information to construct a daily diet plan that exceeded no more than 2000 calories a day and included 45 minutes of exercise.The unique experiment - reminiscent of the infamous 2004 documentary 'Super Size Me' - resulted in Cisna losing 37 pounds and saw his cholesterol drop considerably - from 249 to 170.However, the science teacher did not just limit himself to salads and water.Speaking to KCCI News, Cisna said: "I can eat any food at McDonald's that I want, as long as I'm smart with the rest of the day and what I balance it out with.""I had the Big Macs, the quarter pounders with cheese. I had sundaes, I had ice cream cones."As well as significantly improving his health, the experiment did not cost Cisna a dime.The owner of the local McDonald's restaurant was so intrigued about the results of his experiment that he gave the science teacher roughly 270 meals free of charge.A daring science teacher who survived on eating only McDonald's meals for 90 days has shed nearly 40lbs.

John Cisna of Ankney, Iowa, ate three meals a day at his local store but made sure he conformed to strict nutritional requirements.

Cisna and his students used online nutritional information to construct a daily diet plan that exceeded no more than 2000 calories a day and included 45 minutes of exercise.

The unique experiment - reminiscent of the infamous 2004 documentary 'Super Size Me' - resulted in Cisna losing 37 pounds and saw his cholesterol drop considerably - from 249 to 170.

However, the science teacher did not just limit himself to salads and water.

Speaking to KCCI News, Cisna said: "I can eat any food at McDonald's that I want, as long as I'm smart with the rest of the day and what I balance it out with."

"I had the Big Macs, the quarter pounders with cheese. I had sundaes, I had ice cream cones."

As well as significantly improving his health, the experiment did not cost Cisna a dime.

The owner of the local McDonald's restaurant was so intrigued about the results of his experiment that he gave the science teacher roughly 270 meals free of charge.

Why can this man lose almost 40 pounds despite eating such bad food?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-FBV3-pwDk

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/06/john-cisna-mcdonalds-diet_n_4545940.html

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57
1005 · April 05, 2014 at 6:23 PM

I already gave you 2 published medical journal articles that showed organic damage in animal studies with GMO's. It should be common sense to buy the products with fewer toxins added to the food, if you're concerned with your health.

Here's an article for gluten

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224837

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 05, 2014 at 1:00 PM

Show evidence gluten is unhealthy to someone not gluten intolerant, prove GMO's are unhealthy, you simply can not provide the data.

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
17101 · April 05, 2014 at 12:38 PM

No the McD diet isn't healthy. Look at the ingredients. See all those unpronounceable chemistry sounding things? You call those healthy? You call gluten/gliadin filled bread and breading healthy? You call overcooked CAFO beef and acrylamide fries fried in soy oil healthy? Mayo made with soy oil healthy? GMO corn healthy? Really???

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 04, 2014 at 1:38 PM

You can make your own macros, that site is just one calculator, thats not the rules, there are no set rules to iifym

just hit macros, micros, calories.

That is it, its just using basic maths and science.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 11:55 AM

He wants discussion on a counting program called IIFYM. McD's is not the real question. I wish he'd made that clear at the beginning.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 11:01 AM

One value of tools like IIFYM is to create set repeatable menus, which you learn to vary with time so that you continue to achieve your goals. It's useful for knowing what a banana a day represents so that you can replace it if you don't have a banana, for instance. But these models become burdensome if you use them to incessantly tweak your food. Other similar programs produce results in terms of a letter grade for how you ate in a day. This can lead to an obsession with the grade itself.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 10:44 AM

The embedded macro ranges for the IIFYM mode are along the lines of Med diet, perhaps forcing protein up to bodybuilder range. For conventional Paleo you need to force fat quite high, up to 1-2 g per lb body mass, in order to get the carbs to come down. I didn't try that, seeing that beyond .45 g/lb you have to know your own value and enter it. Have you run this out to see where it leads, ie the food rations you have to pick to make it fit a particular Paleo program?

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I have no particular objection to programs like this. I figured out how to lose weight while I was controlling blood sugar, by counting carbs, and once you live by that for a while macro counting like IIFYC is easy. My major objections to using on-line calculators are (1) presumed levels of activity (I prefer using RMR and adding activity to that based on measured activity, which varies from day to day) and (2) the illusion of macronutrient precision being overly beneficial (we eat to ranges, which vary seasonally and locally).

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 10:25 AM

manchester, I looked at the calculator again. It's a calorie counting tool, loaded with assumptions. I couldn't get it to run for ketosis because I couldn't make % add up to 100. It runs fine in IIFYM mode, and that's where the assumptions come in. It takes protein and fat in predetermined ranges of g per lb body mass, then forces carbs by difference to match TDEE. I didn't take it any farther than that, to allow it to pick specific foods based on vitamins and minerals, but I can see where it's headed.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 04, 2014 at 2:45 AM

Proven basic energy expenditure v input, protein requirements, vitamin needs for a human. It is all proven basic fact.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 04, 2014 at 2:41 AM

Did you put in your age height weight activity level and accurate body fat percentage and then calculate, then go to the macro selection and pick from the list of different macros?

Keto

Low carb

Bodybuilder (outdated)

iifym recommended (customisable)

zone

etc etc?

Again, iifym is not a diet. it is just using basic science to calculate needs for goals.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 2:31 AM

For the heck of it I ran the calculator. It came up with about the same RMR as Harris Benedict, then running out maintenance macro numbers it said I should be eating 300+ grams of carbs a day for my current level of activity. I eat a lot of carbs, but that's pretty extreme. In a pure Paleo sense that's a lot of sweet potatoes. Also very high protein, and low fat (about 20% of total calories).

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 2:17 AM

??? This?

http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/

Out of the clear blue we're trying to compare this guy to a bodybuilder program? If that's what "on track" means you need to write that into the question. I've never heard of it before....it's even more of a curiosity than losing weight eating McDonalds.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 04, 2014 at 1:50 AM

Where am I wrong? She has no CV. She has no research. She has no experience.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 04, 2014 at 1:19 AM

Really haha. Please do more reading.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46
41460 · April 03, 2014 at 11:59 PM

No, I don't.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 11:34 PM

what are her credentials? she has a pysc undergrad, she has never worked in the industry, she has never had an accepted journal article, she has no clinical experience, she hold no certificates....

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 11:27 PM

where is the science? I've been looking. where is the science behind IIFYM?

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 10:51 PM

I don't think you can prove it and I think most scientists would argue GMO's pose far more benefit than con from a scientific point of view, Cara Santa Marie for example gives a great argument against psuedoscience on the issue, I don't think anyone can diminish her credentials.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57
1005 · April 03, 2014 at 10:49 PM

You don't think randomly mutating genetics through sloppy mutagenic chemicals and radiation then eating that food is toward the lesser optimal side of the health spectrum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_breeding

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 10:38 PM

I actually agree :) but on the political/moral spectrum, not on the health spectrum.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57
1005 · April 03, 2014 at 10:36 PM

It's hard to be pro-GMO when the current lineup is used to add toxins to food or allow you to spray toxins on food while it grows.

There's potential to make some nutritiously modified foods (golden rice), but there's a hell of a lot more pesticides being added than carotenes.

When you look at what the modified plants do to the neighboring open-pollinated heirloom genetics without yield increases, or what happens to the poor suicidal farmer who can't afford to feed his family with copyrighted seed, it's hard to see benefit.

Open source GMO sounds dangerous as hell.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 10:25 PM

Thats fine, I hardly think the conspiracies of aspartame rotting your brain or chemicals in this or that killing you hold much weight. Neither incidentally does robb wolf, but he also says GMO's are not dangerous rather monsanto as a corporation is, he says there is not really much need to buy organic, he says scientifically valid things a lot of the paleo guys do not seem to be with him on.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57
1005 · April 03, 2014 at 10:14 PM

"The most impressive part was that he convinced the owner of the McDonald's to give him 90 days of meals for free."

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=159308781&page=1

I'm not seeing a log. It would be cool if he just typed it into cronometer as he went so we could see the micros / macros and all the weird ingredients (like how much Dimethylpolysiloxane did he eat?)

Dimethylpolysiloxane is a silicone used in caulks / sealants, a filler for breast implants, and a key ingredient in Silly Putty. You'll find that among other interesting things in fries / nuggs.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 10:11 PM

+1 for trying to argue against this guy, even if it's hopeless.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 10:07 PM

Stay on track, we are discussing IIFYM. It is about weight loss/gain and HEALTH.

You can not be healthy if you are nutrient deficient.

IIFYM is calories, micronutrients and macronutrients. You said IIFYM is a curiosity like subway and cabbage soup. But you know that is false.

IIFYM or if it fits your macros/micros is not able to be done on a crash diet

Because to get all the protein, vitamins finer etc you need to eat mostly fresh vitamin and protein rich food. Do you understand the topic?

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Someone posted the college groups meal log on bodybuilding.com awhile ago and there should be a few places to track it down online if you are really interested mate. I will have a scour on the internet for it, I will post it in here. And yeah thats what I mean he didn't just eat bigmacs all day, he had lots of greens, chicken etc etc. The supersize me documentary was the most meat vilifying pad of crap ever by two raw food vegans.

141c6b3d5e9506dd93881e3f9737f297
55 · April 03, 2014 at 10:03 PM

cont.

In the longer term he just needs to make sure his diet is not deficient in any nutrients and his health will continue to improve as his weight normalises. the key is is not to be deficient in any nutrients in the long term. some of those may be covered at the moment as he has probably got a fair bit stored away in his fat, bones and organs.

if he makes it down to a healthy weight (staying nutrient replete) his next decision will be, is he happy with normal or is he looking for optimal.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 03, 2014 at 10:03 PM

Not what? You can lose weight on any number of crash diets. If you do the Master Cleanse you only get one vitamin - C - from the lemon juice. They're all calorie deprivation techniques, even Paleo. Nutrients have nothing to do with weight loss.

141c6b3d5e9506dd93881e3f9737f297
55 · April 03, 2014 at 10:03 PM

not too clear what the question (or questions) is here & there is some weired formatting going on (at least in my browser)...

but anyways, from a brief look at above, nothing surprising here, the guy (guys?) was overweight & unhealthy, he ate less, lost some weight & got healthier. if he continues to eat below maint cals he will lose some more weight.

cont...

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:58 PM

Also congrats on your changing things around, its always great to hear when people change their life for the better.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:56 PM

I know people who approached diabetes from the opposite macronutrient stance and pretty muched reversed their diabetes. It was losing weight and getting nutrition in you that helped you, not paleo specifically for cutting out starch and carbs and eating paleo only foods.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 9:55 PM

@thhq I wish this was an answer so I could up-vote it. It is right on, I went through a very similar situation, so I completely empathize.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:54 PM

How would you get 100 grams of protein and 100% vitamin A, C, D, E, K, CALCIUM, B12 etc etc etc eating a crash diet?

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:53 PM

No it is not, stop saying this. IIFYM you have to hit all your vitamin and mineral RDA's, your protein %, you can't do that eating twinkles or cabbage soup.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 03, 2014 at 9:46 PM

When I was obese and diabetic I had to drastically reduce starchy and sugary carbs to control my blood sugar. Otherwise they would have killed me. There are a lot of people with metabolic syndrome that don't know that they have it. I only found out on a routine physical. Knowing that someone can lose weight eating McDonalds doesn't do anyone any good except for McDonalds and one N=1 guinea pig-man.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:42 PM

More than you ate before is not your maintenance level. Also low carb diets make you flush out water that other foods make you hold, so for example when I came off atkins, which I enjoyed I gained like 25 pounds in water weight in two days. Anyway the point is that low carb is fine, bread and pasta is fine. It is all fine asolong as you hit your calories and macros. Your macros are high fat and protein and low carb, which is great and a tasty way to eat. Good on you. But how is that against IIFYM?

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 9:38 PM

I decreased my body weight on a ketogenic diet despite eating 500 to 1000 calories more than I ate before. So my personal experience has shown me calories might matter, but so does the composition of the diet.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:37 PM

Mcdonalds and paleo are both healthy if you eat the right amount of calories and the right macros for your goal. No one is saying paleo is any more or less healthy than anything else. You clearly don't understand what IIFYM is. Lots of paleo people do IIFYM. Many other do IIFYM while eating brown rice and lots of veg and chicken with the occasional pop tart.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:34 PM

No one said low carb dieting is bad. What are you talking about. IIFYM is about eating less or more calories depending on goal of increasing or decreasing bodyweight.

You can have low carb macros.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 9:33 PM

That dairy and high fructose corn syrup are healthy and that McDonalds is healthier than Paleo. And do it with a clinical trial, you know, a scientific study where more than one person is the subject...

You have heard of controlled clinical trials, haven't you? lol

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:31 PM

The people on the paleo studies were eating less than their bodies burned, also, calorie control has been done so many time in clinical trials, IIFYM is calories in v out. This is so easy to understand

IIFYM is just science to calculate weight loss plus gain.

If my maintenance is 2500 kcal I eat less than that I lose weight. Macros are only fixed for goals of a specific nature. Fore example building muscle a ratio with a higher protein content and carbohydrate will allow me to build mass, but is only useful if at a calorie surplus, because you need to be at a surplus to gain mass.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 9:29 PM

I have a sedentary job as a software developer and eat about 3000 calories every day, mostly from fat. I rarely exercise and I am 5'10 and only 145 lbs. My total cholesterol is 150, HDL is 61 and LDL is 78. My triglycerides are 54.

That's me on a low-carb, high-fat, moderate protein, high-calorie paleo diet. If you plan to use anecdotal evidence, then you're not impressing me, my own experience is much more convincing to me than your story.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:23 PM

ok here is IIFYM.

Hit your macros - protein - fat - carbs

Hit your micros - vitamins - minerals - finer - etc

Hit your calories - calculate your maintenance - eat below or above depending on goals

So you can be paleo on IIFYM, vegetarian, you can eat anything that fits into your macros.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 03, 2014 at 9:23 PM

+1. It's all about health. Paleo is not the only way to deal with obesity, but it is an effective way. It will not win you any medals but that's not the point.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Prove what, that losing 40 pounds and lowering cholesterol is healthy?

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Thats what iifym is, jesus christ you can be paleo and do IIFYM. You merely count calories, macros, micronutrients. To lose weight you have to be at a deficit, to gain weight be at a surplus.

Grains and HFCS and veggie oils and other food sources are irrelevant.

You can't his your macros eating pot arts and whey everyday all day. To hit vitamin requirements, to hit protein requirements you need to eat nutritious food. What exactly are you arguing?

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Also, there are 7, peer reivewed, clinical trials utilizing a paleo protocol. There are none -- that I can find -- that look at macro magnitudes. So the onus is on the submitter.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 9:20 PM

I don't think he knows what he's talking about....

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 9:17 PM

you mean magnitudes not ratio right?

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 9:16 PM

Go ahead and prove that it is healthy, with a clinical trial. I'm waiting.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 9:16 PM

what do you mean when you say macros? I think you are using it wrong, but I'd like clarity.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 9:13 PM

I should edit that for metabolically unhealthy people, macros are a second-order effect.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 9:12 PM

agreed. The science is very clear. Caloric load is the first order effect for weight loss. And that is a causal relationship. Macros, micros, etc do not matter. However, weight loss is not the primary goal of people on this site.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:10 PM

Oooh it must sting not being able to show me how a diet with grains and dairy and HFCS that hits your macros and micros is unhealthy. It is kinda adorable in a way.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Correlation and causation, if you eat below your calorie maintenance level you lose weight, its not because of avoid "bad" foods and only eating "clean" foods. Hence every single study ever on fat loss.Are you actively trying to not understand that basic concept?

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 9:01 PM

You're so right, grains and fast food are super healthy. Go on now and get yourself a happy meal with some fries and a soda and go play with your toys. If you behave good, maybe your mom will let you go outside your basement and play with your friends.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Ok kid look, you come here with a controlled experiment and we'll listen to you. Until then go beat your meat to your new favorite McDonald's superhero somewhere else.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 8:54 PM

How did he lose weight eating junk? Easy, he simply ate less of it than he was eating before.

Heck, he would have been even better off if he would have fasted for a few days.

The only one who lacks proof in this entire argument is you. You have an N=1 pseudo-experiment from some guy who was featured on a news article and youtube, that's not proof, that's blind belief some random guy's word.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Cowardly silence. Always the mark of a cult.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:38 PM

So how did "unhealthy" food make him lose 40 pounds and lower his cholesterol? Prove something is "unhealthy" or you are saying things without proof. Simple.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 8:36 PM

Yeah, this ManchesterPaleo guy has been putting up some pretty annoying spam today about how eating McDonalds and junk food is healthy, I think everyone can safely agree this guy is a troll.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:35 PM

WRONG, He followed the online mcdonalds meal plans of a 2000kcal a day diet. He is not a bodybuilder so his macros were not specific, only his calories were and his micronutrients, making sure he hit the RD for v&m

You only have specific macros if you want specific goals, this man merely wanted weightless, which is a calorie affair, as shown by this and tonnes of other cases and basic science of energy in v energy out.

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329
30 · April 03, 2014 at 8:30 PM

We've disagreed before, but I'm definitely upvoting you out of negative because I'm in complete agreement here. This is an odd question.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 8:25 PM

You could lose weight without eating paleo foods. Actually, if all you ate was 200 calories a day of cookies, you would lose weight. Now it would not be "healthy" or sustainable for the majority of the population, which is a totally different matter altogether.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 8:23 PM

What was his macronutrient ratio? Was he low-carb? Low-protein? Low-calorie? Did he eat a "clean diet" of honey and maple syrup whole weat pancakes? What can you verify about his diet? Nothing. This guy could have made it all up. For some reason you are gullible enough to believe him, but it doesn't make you right or prove your point.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 8:20 PM

It's bad because it's far from optimal. The biomarkers could be even better and the weight loss could be more pronounced, in addition to resulting in better long term health. It is not just about weight loss, it is about optimal health. Sure some people could do fine on McDonalds every day and be skinny, just like some people can smoke cigarettes for 96 years and live to 122 as Jeanne Calment did (world's oldest living person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeanne_Calment) but it doesn't make it healthy for everyone else.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Also he never said he ate pure garbage before hand, he said he didn't restrict calories, your bias is laughable and you avoidance to answer to proof of scientific mechanisms aka energy expenditure v intake being the synthesis of weight loss.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:03 PM

If so why only eat paleo foods?

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:03 PM

So calories do matter for losing weight, not magical foods and restricting modern processed foods? Is that what this has shown?

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:02 PM

So why follow paleo if you can lose weight and reduce cholesterol eating junk food swell as salads etc? How is that junk food? What is junk food, why is "junk" food bad, if it improves your bio markers and makes you lose fat how can it be bad?

Total Views
1.9K

Recent Activity
A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39

Last Activity
207D AGO

Followers
5

Get Free Paleo Recipes Instantly

11 Answers

96440612cf0fcf366bf5ad8f776fca84
0
17101 · April 04, 2014 at 10:18 AM

Thanks for advertising McDonald's here. Obviously this is McD's way of getting their own Jared and doing image control disguised as news, and you fell for it. This isn't news, it's a spamvertorial, no different than the guy who lost weight on an all twinkies diet, or the guy who lost weight on an all potato diet.

Who gives a shit! You can lose weight on almost any diet. The point isn't weight loss, it's health, and weight loss is always questionable as what you'd really want is to lose the fat, not the lean body mass.

Losing weight isn't losing fat, and losing weight isn't necessarily a marker of health. You could lose a ton of weight by getting cancer, doesn't mean your health has improved.

Funny how you say "Please only legit answers" and then fight tooth in nail to say you've proven nonsense. You're obviously here just to troll. Funny how you included click-to-share-links in your message as if to drive traffic to that advertorial. Yes, I mean the bulletted list that starts with "1532 Shares"

"I can eat any food at McDonald's that I want, as long as I'm smart with the rest of the day and what I balance it out with." says it all. This fucker ate only one meal a day at McD's and he restricted the rest of the meals the rest of the day. Big whoop. Doesn't prove anything.

I hope McD's is paying you well, either that or you really are dumb.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 11:55 AM

He wants discussion on a counting program called IIFYM. McD's is not the real question. I wish he'd made that clear at the beginning.

Medium avatar
0
0 · April 04, 2014 at 1:34 AM

Who cares about effing macros, micros, calories, weight, cholesterol, blah.de.blah.de.blah.

McDonalds is CRAP because they pump their food with CAFO beef and meat fed gmo soy and grain and industrialized fillers and preservatives that probably cause cancer and wreck your body even if you can't see it happening in the mirror.

Even if I GAIN weight eating local meat from my farmer, local vegetables and dairy from my farmer, and you lose weight eating your sick animal, farmer exploited, environmentally unsustainable piece of shit chick' patty I still ultimately am gonna have more positive things going for me inside and outside of me than you are.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
0
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:59 PM

ok here is IIFYM.

Hit your macros - protein - fat - carbs

Hit your micros - vitamins - minerals - finer - etc

Hit your calories - calculate your maintenance - eat below or above depending on goals

So you can be paleo on IIFYM, vegetarian, you can eat anything that fits into your macros.

Cf08ad26759fdd206a2c9f9385080a57
0
1005 · April 03, 2014 at 9:58 PM

Looking at the mcdonalds menu, this doesn't sound bad:

Baby Green Romaine, Baby Red Romaine, Baby Red Leaf, Baby Green Leaf, Baby Red Swiss Chard, Baby Red Oak, Baby Green Oak, Lolla Rosa, Tango, Tatsoi, Arugula, Mizuna, Frisee, Radicchio, Carrots, Apples

Do they have his food log posted?

It doesn't seem too difficult to me to setup a weight loss plan if you just introduced a caloric deficit, ate a bunch of those plants, then threw some meat and a little starch on top and exercised for 45 minutes carrying his 280lbs of bodyweight. Check out what goes into their meats / starches and compare with grass-fed meats / organic starches and you'll see why we're on this diet instead.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 10:04 PM

Someone posted the college groups meal log on bodybuilding.com awhile ago and there should be a few places to track it down online if you are really interested mate. I will have a scour on the internet for it, I will post it in here. And yeah thats what I mean he didn't just eat bigmacs all day, he had lots of greens, chicken etc etc. The supersize me documentary was the most meat vilifying pad of crap ever by two raw food vegans.

Medium avatar
0
10184 · April 03, 2014 at 9:39 PM

It's simply a curiosity, like the Twinkie dieter and Jared at Subway. The media likes man-bites-dog stories like this because they make fat sedentary people feel good. If they feel good they'll eat more fast food.

Being healthy is about establishing healthy patterns of eating and activity. It's interesting to know that you can crash diet on McDonalds and don't have to eat cabbage soup for weeks. But in the end it's unsustainable.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 10:11 PM

+1 for trying to argue against this guy, even if it's hopeless.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:53 PM

No it is not, stop saying this. IIFYM you have to hit all your vitamin and mineral RDA's, your protein %, you can't do that eating twinkles or cabbage soup.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 10:34 AM

I have no particular objection to programs like this. I figured out how to lose weight while I was controlling blood sugar, by counting carbs, and once you live by that for a while macro counting like IIFYC is easy. My major objections to using on-line calculators are (1) presumed levels of activity (I prefer using RMR and adding activity to that based on measured activity, which varies from day to day) and (2) the illusion of macronutrient precision being overly beneficial (we eat to ranges, which vary seasonally and locally).

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 11:01 AM

One value of tools like IIFYM is to create set repeatable menus, which you learn to vary with time so that you continue to achieve your goals. It's useful for knowing what a banana a day represents so that you can replace it if you don't have a banana, for instance. But these models become burdensome if you use them to incessantly tweak your food. Other similar programs produce results in terms of a letter grade for how you ate in a day. This can lead to an obsession with the grade itself.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 10:44 AM

The embedded macro ranges for the IIFYM mode are along the lines of Med diet, perhaps forcing protein up to bodybuilder range. For conventional Paleo you need to force fat quite high, up to 1-2 g per lb body mass, in order to get the carbs to come down. I didn't try that, seeing that beyond .45 g/lb you have to know your own value and enter it. Have you run this out to see where it leads, ie the food rations you have to pick to make it fit a particular Paleo program?

Medium avatar
10184 · April 04, 2014 at 10:25 AM

manchester, I looked at the calculator again. It's a calorie counting tool, loaded with assumptions. I couldn't get it to run for ketosis because I couldn't make % add up to 100. It runs fine in IIFYM mode, and that's where the assumptions come in. It takes protein and fat in predetermined ranges of g per lb body mass, then forces carbs by difference to match TDEE. I didn't take it any farther than that, to allow it to pick specific foods based on vitamins and minerals, but I can see where it's headed.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
0
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 9:06 PM

Also, please remember that most people are not here trying to loose weight or look like a bodybuilder. More power to you -- but that's not a look I want.

We are here seeking optimal health. Weight is one component of that.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 03, 2014 at 9:23 PM

+1. It's all about health. Paleo is not the only way to deal with obesity, but it is an effective way. It will not win you any medals but that's not the point.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
0
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 9:04 PM

there are anecdotes all over the place. follow clinical trials. In every peer-reviewed clinical trial where a paleo protocol has been implemented, the group following the paleo protocol has lost more weight than any of the other diets except one where participants were required to maintain an isocaloric load across dietary protocols. In the other 6, the paleo group voluntarily consumed fewer calories than the other groups.

What does this mean? It means that calories-in/calories-out do matter. But, following a paleo protocol will result in an individual eating more nutrient dense, satiating foods and naturally eat fewer calories. Thus one can eat healthy without counting calories and eat lower calorie while remaining full. Eating a diet high in ice cream and grains will not provide you with the sufficient amount of micro-nutrients. Thus you need to eat more which could cause one to gain weight -- unless they are sufficiently active to allow them to over eat and maintain a balanced caloric load.

Medium avatar
10184 · April 03, 2014 at 9:46 PM

When I was obese and diabetic I had to drastically reduce starchy and sugary carbs to control my blood sugar. Otherwise they would have killed me. There are a lot of people with metabolic syndrome that don't know that they have it. I only found out on a routine physical. Knowing that someone can lose weight eating McDonalds doesn't do anyone any good except for McDonalds and one N=1 guinea pig-man.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:08 PM

Correlation and causation, if you eat below your calorie maintenance level you lose weight, its not because of avoid "bad" foods and only eating "clean" foods. Hence every single study ever on fat loss.Are you actively trying to not understand that basic concept?

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
0
15 · April 03, 2014 at 9:01 PM

@TheGastronomer

You are the one saying it is unhealthy, you need to provide evidence to back up your claims. My claim is this man and the other guy in the other thread lost weight and the older man lowered cholesterol by either eating whatever he wanted along as he hit his macros and in the older mans case, only eating at macdonalds for 90 days.

They both lost weight. They improved their body composition, that is evidence that calorie restriction and IIFYM works, now please prove otherwise or admit eating grains for these two men and ice-cream and fries cooked in veggie oil was healthy and their transformation shows that.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 9:20 PM

Also, there are 7, peer reivewed, clinical trials utilizing a paleo protocol. There are none -- that I can find -- that look at macro magnitudes. So the onus is on the submitter.

3ce6a0d24be025e2f2af534545bdd1d7
26182 · April 03, 2014 at 9:16 PM

what do you mean when you say macros? I think you are using it wrong, but I'd like clarity.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
0
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:56 PM

Hahaha The Gastronomer keeps editing his posts to change his replies and questions to avoid the awkward moment where he can't provide evidence that eating take away and grain is unhealthy.

You just tapped out.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
494 · April 03, 2014 at 9:01 PM

You're so right, grains and fast food are super healthy. Go on now and get yourself a happy meal with some fries and a soda and go play with your toys. If you behave good, maybe your mom will let you go outside your basement and play with your friends.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
0
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:10 PM

I keep hearing just following your macros and eating whatever source of food you want only works because if your young and active you can get fit on anything. This dude is old and walking is his exercise. He lost 40 pounds, eating only mcdonalds. So is it purely scientific calories in v out and micronutrient targets per day that loses fat, lowers cholesterol and improves bio markers?

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:46 PM

Cowardly silence. Always the mark of a cult.

Be157308a0438e382b88d9db4c12ab30
0
494 · April 03, 2014 at 7:59 PM

Once again this is not a controlled study. This is one guy who went on a diet where he restricted the amount of junk food he ate to only 2000 calories. If he was eating 3000 calories of pure garbage before he embarked on this "diet" and then reduced that by 1000 calories, of course he was going to lose weight and improve his health, because 1000 calories less of garbage is going to improve your health. This is not because of the magical healing properties of McDonalds. For all we know, that's probably the same crap he ate before, only that during his "diet" he simply ate less of it. Look man, if you're hear to troll, that's cool but at least provide some decent scientific data.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:03 PM

So calories do matter for losing weight, not magical foods and restricting modern processed foods? Is that what this has shown?

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:12 PM

Also he never said he ate pure garbage before hand, he said he didn't restrict calories, your bias is laughable and you avoidance to answer to proof of scientific mechanisms aka energy expenditure v intake being the synthesis of weight loss.

A6b302171ad297933107ec7e6abadf39
15 · April 03, 2014 at 8:02 PM

So why follow paleo if you can lose weight and reduce cholesterol eating junk food swell as salads etc? How is that junk food? What is junk food, why is "junk" food bad, if it improves your bio markers and makes you lose fat how can it be bad?

0ba891d22837788c4d5ccf3f33f60329
30 · April 03, 2014 at 8:30 PM

We've disagreed before, but I'm definitely upvoting you out of negative because I'm in complete agreement here. This is an odd question.

Answer Question

Login to Your PaleoHacks Account

Get Free Paleo Recipes