- 05-14-2012, 08:39 AM
- 05-15-2012, 02:41 AM
Its mainly fat and its far from healthy, something a little better would be miracle whip.
- 05-15-2012, 11:40 AM
05-15-2012, 11:45 AM
05-15-2012, 01:01 PM
Being mainly fat does not mean that it is unhealthy.
I didn't say that. I said it was mainly fat (true) and it is unhealthy (also true) I don't know what you could even think of as being healthy being comprised mostly of fat besides healthy fats like omegas, arguably egg yolk, nuts, and some oils. But only those in moderation.
05-15-2012, 01:02 PM
The quote got messed up but you understand.
05-15-2012, 01:06 PM
egg yolks and olive oil for the most part if you make it yourself right?
nothing to bad about that
05-15-2012, 01:15 PM
M.Ed. Ex Phys
05-15-2012, 01:28 PM
How many calories do you intake daily? That's over 2000 calories just in fats. Do they comprise the majority of your diet? In the end it's down to personal preference and opinion I suppose. You must know high fat diets aren't right for everyone especially people on restricted calories, store bought mayo is over 100 calories for one tablespoon. And yes homemade would obviously be a much better choice, however you can pretty much make anything you want relatively healthy when it's homemade, just check out all the healthy recipes for cheesecake, brownies, pizza ect right here on AMOriginally Posted by Rodja
05-15-2012, 01:32 PM
05-15-2012, 01:39 PM
How does it not make sense? I'm not saying to cut them out entirely, but a gram of fat holds more calories than carbs and protein. And for beginners trying to lose weight it's going to be much easier for them to keep there calories in an acceptable range if fats aren't the majority of their macros. IE 2 tablespoons of Mayo on a sandwich at 100 calories a tablespoon could be near 10% of somebody's daily intake and that's a very small volume of food.Originally Posted by Rodja
05-15-2012, 01:47 PM
05-15-2012, 01:53 PM
Because FATS HAVE MORE CALORIES Ppl trying to lose weight for the first time are used to having more food, 100 calories of vegetables is a hell of a lot more food than 100 calories of fats.
05-15-2012, 01:56 PM
05-15-2012, 02:00 PM
Why does it have to be "easy" to lower? I never said anything about how easy any certain Marco was to lower. You simply don't eat foods high in that macro, how is that hard? How is any macro easier or harder to raise or lower? I don't understand what you mean.
05-15-2012, 02:05 PM
M.Ed. Ex Phys
05-15-2012, 02:10 PM
That's clearly me saying that the CALORIES are easier to lower with a lower intake of fats, not that fats are easier to lower than carbs or protein, that would just make no sense. But I'm done arguing it with you, I'm sure I can go find plenty of studies that are in favor of low fat diets. You are of course entitled to you're opinion and if that's what works for you then keep it up, but not everyone is the same and no one thing works for everyone.
Best regards, Penn.
05-15-2012, 06:37 PM
Not to add fuel to the fire but i'm going to tend to agree with Rodja. Although my own diet consists more of carbohydrate than fat, fats are not necessarily bad for you. Take for example Rodjas daily calorie intake of 4000kcals. If he meets this, irregardless of which macro is consumed more than another, then he will be meeting his specific energy goals while consuming less foods. Higher fat diets are especially useful when total calorie intake is hard to reach through the lower energy dense macros of CHO and protein.
Also, if Rogjas carbohydrate intake is low, then fat will get used for energy (by converting it into glucose). As for weight loss. It is entirely possible to lose weight while consuming a high fat diet as long as calories in is less than energy out. Irregardless of which macro the nutrient came from. But technically speaking it is easier to consume less if fats are kept low.
It all comes down to what works best for you personally.
05-16-2012, 03:09 PM
Don't see how this applies.
If a macro is 40fat/40protein/20carb and you are bulking at 4500 calories, it will be just as easy to drop to 3500 maintaining the same split.
Protein: 4 cal
Carb: 4 cal
Fat: 9 cal
Simple math will show that it is as hard to drop carb as it is to drop proteins and fats....
Say diet is 100% carbs. Maintenance at 4000. Therefore, 1000g of Carb
100% fat. Maintenance at 4000. 444g of fat.
You want to drop 900 calories from your diet now.
100% carbs: 3100 calories. 775g. 775/1000= 77.5% of what you used to eat.
100% fats: 3100 calories. 344g. 344/444= 77.5% of what you used to eat.
Please explain how it is easier to drop the 22.5% of fats than it is to drop the 22.5% of carb if you are maintaining the same macro? Or why would you want to drop fat more than carbs if they are vital to produce testosterone, whereas carbs can be, well, debatable in regards to their needs. Highest test, more weight loss.
Not following the logic. We are not talking about McDonalds fat here, we are talking about macronutrients.
Androhard + Andromass Log
05-16-2012, 08:07 PM
Don't forget that fats also help with natural test production. Consume more fat in your PCT fellas !
05-16-2012, 09:38 PM
This really wasnt even the argument. The posts got further and further misinterpreted as the thread continues. Just my take on everything.
Save sorrow for the souls in doubt
05-18-2012, 08:33 PM
I personally use Kraft Mayo with Olive Oil and see no problem with it. It's a total of 45 cals per serving with 4g fat all of which being unsaturated. Low cholesterol and sodium. Only 2g carbs with <1g coming from sugars. I don't really understand what is unhealthy about this? Would someone care to explain?
05-18-2012, 08:35 PM
05-18-2012, 08:41 PM
05-18-2012, 08:48 PM
05-18-2012, 09:04 PM
05-18-2012, 09:08 PM