Is 200g protein enough?

Jiigzz said:
Just to be clear, those are arguments against high-fructose corn syrup which is synthetically manufactured for additional sweetning. One of those articles you posted doesn't state any negitive effects, just lists how glucose and frutcose convert to glycogen; well at least it attempts to in plain english. While HFCS is essentially bad for you, that does not imply that Crystalline Fructose is.

Because HFCS is essentially fructose/glucose mixed into one molecule.
Click to expand...


I am in no way trying to stretch the conversation into an argument. However, it is noteworthy to say that fructose makes up about 60% of HFCS. Hence, "high-fructose" corn syrup. Too much fruit is devastating to a serious bodybuilder. In fact, unless I was literally doing cardio at the moment, I wouldn't eat it period. And even then, maltodextrin and complex carbs in general run circles around fructose's ability to replenish muscle glycogen, since fructose actually doesn't fill muscle glycogen directly but in a rather round about way and at a very pitiful rate at that since a large portion of fructose converts to fatty acids and are put up into fat cells before being utilized later. With that said, marathon runners could eat all the fruit in the world without worrying about accumulating too much fat.

You can disagree. That is perfectly fine. But what I am saying here has plenty of data to support at least the notion that it might be correct.
 
Jiigzz said:
Just to be clear, those are arguments against high-fructose corn syrup which is synthetically manufactured for additional sweetning. One of those articles you posted doesn't state any negitive effects, just lists how glucose and frutcose convert to glycogen; well at least it attempts to in plain english. While HFCS is essentially bad for you, that does not imply that Crystalline Fructose is.

Because HFCS is essentially fructose/glucose mixed into one molecule.
Click to expand...

Also, I only recall one of those citings actually talking about HFCS. The rest were directly tackling fructose. Read closely.
 
EatMoar said:
Sounds like Wikipedia to me ;)
Click to expand...

It's from their own website however these are not unverifiable statements. They are an organization highly respected by other highly respected organizations. Of course each individual is entitled to his own opinion though, even if it is an obvious bias to support a personal argument as opposed to an objective mind. But that's ok.
 
Holly Jesus...for crying out loud, this is a forum of amateur bodybuilders, perhaps some pro's, but the bottom line of this whole thread and from years of reading about nutrition related to either anaerobic and aerobic sports, even though there are studies showing this or that about fructose, protein, complex carbs, simple carbs, high or low fat diets, one thing I realized: it's all a general idea of how things might work regarding macronutrients metabolism, and for bodybuilding purposes all it matters is how one's know how it's own body respond to a certain amount of macronutrients, regardless the studies made. Not saying science is worthless, it does matter for us to get a notion of what is reasonable to do, but it all boils down to selfconsciousness about one's body metabolism. I can give you the exemple of a friend of mine I know since he was 8 and I: he's 5'10'' weights about 180lbs and has around 7% of bf (that guy have been this lean for ever, even as a child you could see his abs, weird fella), and I'm 6'6'' currently weighting 220lbs and have around 16%bf (no abs in sight, the most I've ever had was 6 pack when I was skinny 175lb giant toothpick so it doesn't count). Nowdays we eat about the same number of meals, same macros and I still have a special care not to eat too many carbs (either simple or complex) and still he is leaner than me, plus he doesn't workout as much as I do. Acording to scientific studies this is almost impossible, since the net amount of calories needed to sustain a 220lbs body is always higher than a 180lbs one, even considering the differences in bf%, so he could never weight only that, still he does. Why so? It all depends on each other's metabolism, insulin sensitivity, protein sythesis and so on. So, you can all bring whatever studies you want, but if you really want a defenitive answer, go to your doctor get set of tests for all your metabolic processes of macronutrients, and then you'll find your real needs, untill then is only a matter of trial and error :)
 
Broly said:
Holly Jesus...for crying out loud, this is a forum of amateur bodybuilders, perhaps some pro's, but the bottom line of this whole thread and from years of reading about nutrition related to either anaerobic and aerobic sports, even though there are studies showing this or that about fructose, protein, complex carbs, simple carbs, high or low fat diets, one thing I realized: it's all a general idea of how things might work regarding macronutrients metabolism, and for bodybuilding purposes all it matters is how one's know how it's own body respond to a certain amount of macronutrients, regardless the studies made. Not saying science is worthless, it does matter for us to get a notion of what is reasonable to do, but it all boils down to selfconsciousness about one's body metabolism. I can give you the exemple of a friend of mine I know since he was 8 and I: he's 5'10'' weights about 180lbs and has around 7% of bf (that guy have been this lean for ever, even as a child you could see his abs, weird fella), and I'm 6'6'' currently weighting 220lbs and have around 16%bf (no abs in sight, the most I've ever had was 6 pack when I was skinny 175lb giant toothpick so it doesn't count). Nowdays we eat about the same number of meals, same macros and I still have a special care not to eat too many carbs (either simple or complex) and still he is leaner than me, plus he doesn't workout as much as I do. Acording to scientific studies this is almost impossible, since the net amount of calories needed to sustain a 220lbs body is always higher than a 180lbs one, even considering the differences in bf%, so he could never weight only that, still he does. Why so? It all depends on each other's metabolism, insulin sensitivity, protein sythesis and so on. So, you can all bring whatever studies you want, but if you really want a defenitive answer, go to your doctor get set of tests for all your metabolic processes of macronutrients, and then you'll find your real needs, untill then is only a matter of trial and error :)
Click to expand...

Ye s sir. It's your own body do what works for you following a modified guideline. That's why body building is a single person sport because you have to know your own body and what works for you may not work for someone else .
 
fueledpassion said:
I am in no way trying to stretch the conversation into an argument. However, it is noteworthy to say that fructose makes up about 60% of HFCS. Hence, "high-fructose" corn syrup. Too much fruit is devastating to a serious bodybuilder. In fact, unless I was literally doing cardio at the moment, I wouldn't eat it period. And even then, maltodextrin and complex carbs in general run circles around fructose's ability to replenish muscle glycogen, since fructose actually doesn't fill muscle glycogen directly but in a rather round about way and at a very pitiful rate at that since a large portion of fructose converts to fatty acids and are put up into fat cells before being utilized later. With that said, marathon runners could eat all the fruit in the world without worrying about accumulating too much fat.

You can disagree. That is perfectly fine. But what I am saying here has plenty of data to support at least the notion that it might be correct.
Click to expand...

fueledpassion said:
I am in no way trying to stretch the conversation into an argument. However, it is noteworthy to say that fructose makes up about 60% of HFCS. Hence, "high-fructose" corn syrup. Too much fruit is devastating to a serious bodybuilder. In fact, unless I was literally doing cardio at the moment, I wouldn't eat it period. And even then, maltodextrin and complex carbs in general run circles around fructose's ability to replenish muscle glycogen, since fructose actually doesn't fill muscle glycogen directly but in a rather round about way and at a very pitiful rate at that since a large portion of fructose converts to fatty acids and are put up into fat cells before being utilized later. With that said, marathon runners could eat all the fruit in the world without worrying about accumulating too much fat.

You can disagree. That is perfectly fine. But what I am saying here has plenty of data to support at least the notion that it might be correct.
Click to expand...

HFCS percentages vary dependant on how it is produced; it can be as low as 45% fructose with the rest from glucose. And in actual fact it isn't even technically a sugar, therefore the linkage between standard fructose and HFCS cannot be made as they are not one in the same. BUT, that doesn't mean I disagree that fructose can lead to increased adiposity because I also think it can, and it has been shown to. Which is why I would opt for low fructose fruits over high fructose.

I was just pointing out that one study showed HFCS as being bad (which I too agree with) and another was an article on what fructose is.

So just to be clear, I wasn't disagreeing, just pointing out the differences :)
 
Jiigzz said:
HFCS percentages vary dependant on how it is produced; it can be as low as 45% fructose with the rest from glucose. And in actual fact it isn't even technically a sugar, therefore the linkage between standard fructose and HFCS cannot be made as they are not one in the same. BUT, that doesn't mean I disagree that fructose can lead to increased adiposity because I also think it can, and it has been shown to. Which is why I would opt for low fructose fruits over high fructose.

I was just pointing out that one study showed HFCS as being bad (which I too agree with) and another was an article on what fructose is.

So just to be clear, I wasn't disagreeing, just pointing out the differences :)
Click to expand...

Which fruits do you generally recommend?
 
jimbuick said:
Which fruits do you generally recommend?
Click to expand...

If you are concerned with excessive fructose intakes, then any fruits with low a low fructose:glucose ratio are a viable option; Apricots, peaches and pineapples are a few. Generally speaking the ones to avoid are apples, pears, figs, grapes and maybe even bananas.

I like my bananas to much to drop them though.
 
Jiigzz said:
If you are concerned with excessive fructose intakes, then any fruits with low a low fructose:glucose ratio are a viable option; Apricots, peaches and pineapples are a few. Generally speaking the ones to avoid are apples, pears, figs, grapes and maybe even bananas.

I like my bananas to much to drop them though.
Click to expand...

I don't eat a lot of fruits as it is (I just don't like them)

So this conversation interests me to see which fruits I should steer clear of when I make myself eat them lol.

I'm a Berry guy personally.
 
jimbuick said:
I don't eat a lot of fruits as it is (I just don't like them)

So this conversation interests me to see which fruits I should steer clear of when I make myself eat them lol.

I'm a Berry guy personally.
Click to expand...

Berries are definitely a good option. I always have a handful of them a day (blueberries) + a banana
 
Optimal fructose intake is roughly around 25g but this changes once you add athletic activities. Then you have to adjust for time spent and intensity. Being active means you are going to be burning through liver glyocogen more than your average joe schmo. Depending on the athlete you can probably go upwards of 100g without it being deleterious to your health.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
JudoJosh said:
Optimal fructose intake is roughly around 25g but this changes once you add athletic activities. Then you have to adjust for time spent and intensity. Being active means you are going to be burning through liver glyocogen more than your average joe schmo. Depending on the athlete you can probably go upwards of 100g without it being deleterious to your health.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

In all honesty, rather than dropping fruit (because really it doesnt contain MUCH fructose, <10g), drop other fructose containing foods (products that use it as a sweetner) in replacement of fruit.

Perhaps this is the stance I should steer toward as fruit has a myriad of benefits that imo outweigh the negitives.
 
Now I'm not saying fructose is bad because this is not what I believe. Excessive fructose intake is when we see problems and as you arealdy points out fruits are fairly low of fructose so taking in the excessive amount of fructose all from fruit is going to be challenging.

Fruit averages like 3g-8g a serving. So if one eats 3 servings of fruit at the higher end or 8 servings of fruit from the lower end he would be at optimal intake.

Excessive fructose intake only really becomes much of a problem with the prevelance of HFCS in every damn thing.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
JudoJosh said:
Now I'm not saying fructose is bad because this is not what I believe. Excessive fructose intake is when we see problems and as you arealdy points out fruits are fairly low of fructose so taking in the excessive amount of fructose all from fruit is going to be challenging.

Fruit averages like 3g-8g a serving. So if one eats 3 servings of fruit at the higher end or 8 servings of fruit from the lower end he would be at optimal intake.

Excessive fructose intake only really becomes much of a problem with the prevelance of HFCS in every damn thing.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S(TM)II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Excess anything is bad for you, except knowledge :D
 
Jiigzz said:
HFCS percentages vary dependant on how it is produced; it can be as low as 45% fructose with the rest from glucose. And in actual fact it isn't even technically a sugar, therefore the linkage between standard fructose and HFCS cannot be made as they are not one in the same. BUT, that doesn't mean I disagree that fructose can lead to increased adiposity because I also think it can, and it has been shown to. Which is why I would opt for low fructose fruits over high fructose.

I was just pointing out that one study showed HFCS as being bad (which I too agree with) and another was an article on what fructose is.

So just to be clear, I wasn't disagreeing, just pointing out the differences :)
Click to expand...

Cool. Sometimes I get so tunnel-visioned about my preference to macro's & food preferences since it has worked so incredibly well for me. I forget that others start at different places. However, I don't like the idea of laying over belly up because "my genetics" are fighting against my will. I have permenantly altered my metabolism due to this diet and consistent cardio (couple of times per week).
 
Jiigzz said:
In all honesty, rather than dropping fruit (because really it doesnt contain MUCH fructose, <10g), drop other fructose containing foods (products that use it as a sweetner) in replacement of fruit.

Perhaps this is the stance I should steer toward as fruit has a myriad of benefits that imo outweigh the negitives.
Click to expand...

Something else to be noted, when it comes to fructose to glucose content in various fruits, is that not all fruits are equal in this manner. Some contain way more fructose than glucose and visa versa. I'd say be wary of fructose sweetened protein/energy bars, juices, & HFCS sweetened foods which pretty much includes everything processed + sweetened, lol. But that's just me.

And getting back into topic, protein requirements have nothing to do with fructose intake, as they are usually mutually exclusive (in most cases).
 
fueledpassion said:
Something else to be noted, when it comes to fructose to glucose content in various fruits, is that not all fruits are equal in this manner. Some contain way more fructose than glucose and visa versa. I'd say be wary of fructose sweetened protein/energy bars, juices, & HFCS sweetened foods which pretty much includes everything processed + sweetened, lol. But that's just me.

And getting back into topic, protein requirements have nothing to do with fructose intake, as they are usually mutually exclusive (in most cases).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I touched on that earlier in this thread I think (apricots being low fructose and apples being high). I'm definitely on par with you avoiding products sweetened in glucose; however I don't tend to eat alot of processed foods any way. I prefer primal eating (might start paleo soon).
 
I hate paleo, only bc I can't eat my oatmeal. I eat a diet very close to a paleo but, I do eat rice and oatmeal and that is a no no. Also a very good book is The Primal Blueprint.
 
Paleo only happens for me about 1 week out from my competition, lol. During maintenance and bulking, and due to my ectomorphic nature, oatmeal, whole grains, potatoes and rice must remain as 50% or more of my diet. Otherwise I just dont grow.
 
fueledpassion said:
Paleo only happens for me about 1 week out from my competition, lol. During maintenance and bulking, and due to my ectomorphic nature, oatmeal, whole grains, potatoes and rice must remain as 50% or more of my diet. Otherwise I just dont grow.
Click to expand...

I doubt you "need" oatmeal and whole grains to grow. I'm sure you can hit whatever carb amount you want with potatoes and rice. When I was keto I would hit 700g carbs on refeeds no problem. IMO white rice and potatoes still fall under the paleo guidelines ( minimal processed and non inflammatory)

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
JudoJosh said:
I doubt you "need" oatmeal and whole grains to grow. I'm sure you can hit whatever carb amount you want with potatoes and rice. When I was keto I would hit 700g carbs on refeeds no problem. IMO white rice and potatoes still fall under the paleo guidelines ( minimal processed and non inflammatory)

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S(TM)II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...

Holy carbohydrates batman! Nothing wrong with eating healthy carbs as opposed to starchy ones such as potatoes .
 
Glycogen supercompensation

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
EatMoar said:
Holy carbohydrates batman! Nothing wrong with eating healthy carbs as opposed to starchy ones such as potatoes .
Click to expand...

What exactly constitutes a 'healthy' carb? Wholegrains to me are not healthy. Potatoes on the other hand are; they are my primary source of vitamin C
 
For the record the above was a day at a sushi buffet, rice, potatoes and lots of fruit. All within the paleo guidelines in my book

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
 
JudoJosh said:
When I was keto I would hit 700g carbs on refeeds no problem. IMO white rice and potatoes still fall under the paleo guidelines ( minimal processed and non inflammatory)

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
I like to do refeeds like that too...but with protein on a brazillian buffet, during 2 and half hours eating as much red meat as my stomach can bear :D I belive I can hit 300gr of protein on that meal alone ;) (yup, around 1,5kg of all kinds of meat)
 
There is a Braziallian steakhouse is a nearby city to me and I have been DYING to go (all you can eat bacon wrapped sirloins!) but I havent found anyone to go with. Apparently the typical (non weight training) guy doesnt share my emphaticism for red meat as much as I hopped.
 
Jiigzz said:
What exactly constitutes a 'healthy' carb? Wholegrains to me are not healthy. Potatoes on the other hand are; they are my primary source of vitamin C
Click to expand...

boom! im to the point where rice and taters are a crucial carb staple, along with berrylicious cheesecake icecream
 
JudoJosh said:
There is a Braziallian steakhouse is a nearby city to me and I have been DYING to go (all you can eat bacon wrapped sirloins!) but I havent found anyone to go with. Apparently the typical (non weight training) guy doesnt share my emphaticism for red meat as much as I hopped.
Click to expand...

I have the habbit to go with a friend of mine at least once every month. Tell your weight lifting friends that's a pretty cheap way to get high dose of arachidonic acid on the body and that helps to bulk lol Hell, it's just plain delicious grilled red meat! They usually have picanha and grilled smoked ham with garlic...to go with add some "healthy carbs" like rice and black beans with farofa (the fiber part that is separated from flour). Then you have an healthy bulking buffet for any sort of refeed :D
 
I haz no weight lifting or science literate friends :( They are think they are gonna get heart diesae from the steak house
 
Glad to see others eating potatoes and rice as part of their carb requirement. Also, I love my tortillas, especially for my breakfast burritos. I love oatmeal, but I can destroy a burrito like nobody's business. It all tastes good and my body responds well to them. I did the mistake of cutting them out, having read this article and that article, till I got fed up and finally remembered what had worked for me in the past.
 
JudoJosh said:
I haz no weight lifting or science literate friends :( They are think they are gonna get heart diesae from the steak house
Click to expand...

Broscience with them :) What is inuit people stapple diet? Raw whale bluber and meat with some fish. They do get pretty old don't they? So there's no need to be afraid of a steak house :D
 
Perhaps, and you are right. But I don't like going with the whole grains and oatmeal. Granted, I actually do drop all breads come comp time. Oatmeal however, I usually eat it dry...
 
hvactech said:
whats "good carbs"
Click to expand...

Haha this. What is a good carb?

Coz almost anything can work IIFYM; YOLO

:D

I kid. But srs, a good carb is highly subjective.
 
Jiigzz said:
Haha this. What is a good carb?

Coz almost anything can work IIFYM; YOLO

:D

I kid. But srs, a good carb is highly subjective.
Click to expand...

A carb that has a nutrient partitioning that goes to muscle cells and liver glycogen is a good one. Granted, the portion and its ratio between the other macros within the meal has more to do with nutrient partitioning than the actual type of carb itself. In general, a carb loaded with fiber and micro-nutrients is a good one. Sweet potatoes and oatmeal would be my best examples.

Or in the case that you are cycling Tren - any carb, lol. Positive Nutrient partitioning is ridiculous on that stuff.
 
fueledpassion said:
A carb that has a nutrient partitioning that goes to muscle cells and liver glycogen is a good one. Granted, the portion and its ratio between the other macros within the meal has more to do with nutrient partitioning than the actual type of carb itself. In general, a carb loaded with fiber and micro-nutrients is a good one. Sweet potatoes and oatmeal would be my best examples.

Or in the case that you are cycling Tren - any carb, lol. Positive Nutrient partitioning is ridiculous on that stuff.
Click to expand...

It's still subjective and opinion based as you can argue various foods over each other; I for one do not touch Oatmeal and would instead opt for Creamed Rice with lactose free milk.
 
Jiigzz said:
It's still subjective and opinion based as you can argue various foods over each other; I for one do not touch Oatmeal and would instead opt for Creamed Rice with lactose free milk.
Click to expand...

I get ur drift. However, a few things I stated in there are very objective. Portion amount, fiber amount, % of daily nutrition in micro nutrients and ratio of carbs to protein in that exact meal are objective. Not to mention simple non measureable objective things like the sugar molecule structure and whether or not it is a simple or complex carb or whether it is unprocessed or refined. That too is objective. All of these things distinguish a good carb from a bad one in terms of muscle gain, energy and fat loss.
 
fueledpassion said:
I get ur drift. However, a few things I stated in there are very objective. Portion amount, fiber amount, % of daily nutrition in micro nutrients and ratio of carbs to protein in that exact meal are objective. Not to mention simple non measureable objective things like the sugar molecule structure and whether or not it is a simple or complex carb or whether it is unprocessed or refined. That too is objective. All of these things distinguish a good carb from a bad one in terms of muscle gain, energy and fat loss.
Click to expand...

I would still beg to differ. Too much fiber can be a hinderance therefore fiber amount does not nessesarily make a food product more 'healthy'; sugar moleculestructure is largely irrelevant given that adding a protein to a sugar will slow its transit throughout the G.I tract, thus giving it a much lower G.I. rating; so again, the molecule structure can be manipulated to serve many means.

I agree on level of processing in some terms, but I do not consider wholegrains healthy.
 
Jiigzz said:
I would still beg to differ. Too much fiber can be a hinderance therefore fiber amount does not nessesarily make a food product more 'healthy'; sugar moleculestructure is largely irrelevant given that adding a protein to a sugar will slow its transit throughout the G.I tract, thus giving it a much lower G.I. rating; so again, the molecule structure can be manipulated to serve many means.

I agree on level of processing in some terms, but I do not consider wholegrains healthy.
Click to expand...

well, ok then.

the molecular structure thought was something like comparing a sugar in the raw to maltodextrin. Both are carbs. Both are sweeteners. But they aren't equal. One is superior to the other due to its molecular structure. And for the fiber part, people typically need 25g of fiber per day to remain at a healthy state. However, during comp time I strive for 35-50g per day which is easily met since I'm literally eating greens all day.

Unless you are challenging the daily fiber needs, I would say that each meal needs at minimum 4-5g of fiber, unless you are eating 8-10 times per day. In that case it could be smaller.

I've got to be honest with you - I'd hate your diet. I wouldn't grow and I'd be miserable. My approach is a minimalist approach, which would mean I try to minimize complication to the diet. Otherwise it becomes too taxing on my body and burdensome in unsustainable ways.
 
fueledpassion said:
well, ok then.

the molecular structure thought was something like comparing a sugar in the raw to maltodextrin. Both are carbs. Both are sweeteners. But they aren't equal. One is superior to the other due to its molecular structure. And for the fiber part, people typically need 25g of fiber per day to remain at a healthy state. However, during comp time I strive for 35-50g per day which is easily met since I'm literally eating greens all day.

Unless you are challenging the daily fiber needs, I would say that each meal needs at minimum 4-5g of fiber, unless you are eating 8-10 times per day. In that case it could be smaller.

I've got to be honest with you - I'd hate your diet. I wouldn't grow and I'd be miserable. My approach is a minimalist approach, which would mean I try to minimize complication to the diet. Otherwise it becomes too taxing on my body and burdensome in unsustainable ways.
Click to expand...

You misinterpret what i'm saying. I'm simply arguing over your interpration of healthy, as healthy is highly subjective. You stated that a healthy carb is highly nutrient dense, but its not the carb that is micronutrient dense, it is the food.

Some people do not consider carbs at all healthy; take ketogenic people for example ( I am not one) they avoid most carbs, so saying a carb laden product is healthy is entirely dependant on your audience. I eat alot of satuarted fats and I consider this to be healthy which is not what a typical nutritionalist would recommened.

My diet is not as complex as I may make it seem; I follow a gluten free, lactose free diet with minimally to no processed foods and have never felt better. Zero bloating etc; I actually decided on this approach in the last month given ZiRs, JJ and other members on this board and others on other boards having resounding success after following a typical BBing diet.

Nutritionalists would argue that fruit is considered healthy, yet you limit it due to fructose (which I agreed with) despite it being high in fiber and micronutrients (falling under your definition of a healthy carb).

But do you catch my drift on something being subjective depending on personal views? I'm not stating you are wrong in your logic, but there are foods others consider staples in diets that I avoid (gluten being one) and simply replace it with rice and meat. It all depends on your audience.
 
Jiigzz said:
You misinterpret what i'm saying. I'm simply arguing over your interpration of healthy, as healthy is highly subjective. You stated that a healthy carb is highly nutrient dense, but its not the carb that is micronutrient dense, it is the food.

Some people do not consider carbs at all healthy; take ketogenic people for example ( I am not one) they avoid most carbs, so saying a carb laden product is healthy is entirely dependant on your audience. I eat alot of satuarted fats and I consider this to be healthy which is not what a typical nutritionalist would recommened.

My diet is not as complex as I may make it seem; I follow a gluten free, lactose free diet with minimally to no processed foods and have never felt better. Zero bloating etc; I actually decided on this approach in the last month given ZiRs, JJ and other members on this board and others on other boards having resounding success after following a typical BBing diet.

Nutritionalists would argue that fruit is considered healthy, yet you limit it due to fructose (which I agreed with) despite it being high in fiber and micronutrients (falling under your definition of a healthy carb).

But do you catch my drift on something being subjective depending on personal views? I'm not stating you are wrong in your logic, but there are foods others consider staples in diets that I avoid (gluten being one) and simply replace it with rice and meat. It all depends on your audience.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.

That makes complete sense. My diet is also lactose free, and I think it might be gluten free for the most part but not intentionally - just by chance I guess.

I understand what you are saying - you are correct, too. I could never play fruit off as unhealthy in general but for my personal goals with trying to keep BF as low as possible while still utilizing carbs and insulin, I've considered it something to be largely absent of my typical daily diet.
 
fueledpassion said:
Ah, I see.

That makes complete sense. My diet is also lactose free, and I think it might be gluten free for the most part but not intentionally - just by chance I guess.

I understand what you are saying - you are correct, too. I could never play fruit off as unhealthy in general but for my personal goals with trying to keep BF as low as possible while still utilizing carbs and insulin, I've considered it something to be largely absent of my typical daily diet.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. And I am by no means trying to discredit yourself as your results speak for themselves so I apologise if this is how I came off, the boards are a hard place to convey personal tone :D. I was only trying to show the OP that the term 'healthy' can be interpreted to mean many different things, hence why I challenged it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top