McDoubles - Macros - Longevity

[DannyP]

Personally, I'd be much, much more worried about adverse health effects from the quality of ingredients, and all the crap pumped into them (while the cows were alive and after they were ground into burger/their milk processed into cheese), than the macros. Antibiotics, hormones, preservatives, hydrogenated oils, etc. concern me a lot more than how much fat, or even sugar, is in something and how that impacts the body over time.

While I don't have any particular science to cite as a backup, I'm willing to guess that for an active person the risk of cancer from consuming that kind of food regularly probably outweighs the risk of diabetes/cardiovascular disease/obesity.

[silachoo]

Personally, I'd be much, much more worried about adverse health effects from the quality of ingredients, and all the crap pumped into them (while the cows were alive and after they were ground into burger/their milk processed into cheese), than the macros. Antibiotics, hormones, preservatives, hydrogenated oils, etc. concern me a lot more than how much fat, or even sugar, is in something and how that impacts the body over time.

While I don't have any particular science to cite as a backup, I'm willing to guess that for an active person the risk of cancer from consuming that kind of food regularly probably outweighs the risk of diabetes/cardiovascular disease/obesity.

Danny, thanks for the input. In fact, that's exactly what i'm worried about. I don't really care about the macros as I just like them because they're tasty (i can eat them consistently), cheap (1.25), and good protein (~25 grams). My question is exactly what you outlined. It looks from some other members that it's hard to tell because of many confounding factors what will directly harm you and what will not.

You think you need 3-5 hours to digest 2 servings of 50grams of protein for MPS? The Broscience is STRONK!

OP, no one has a damn clue with food sourcing really, the confounding multi-factor nature of population groups makes it damn hard to study.

Is Pop A fat because they eat food A or because they eat food A and are sedentary like sponges?

Is Pop B long-lived because they eat food b or because they are physically active and are missing genetic markers for some prime early death causes?

It is bloody difficult to track a group for food and lifestyle for very long and relying on self reporting is pretty much a mega fail. People forget, people lie, people could give a shit.

Thanks greywar. So too many variables to isolate essentially? I'm definitely careful to draw conclusions from coincidences (i.e. Pop A is healthy because they eat alot of fish and good fats or whatever etc..)

I wonder about it too. I don't know.

But, if your like me and just want absolution for your choices then you might enjoy watching the documentary "Fathead" a cinematic response to "Super Size Me." He improves his blood work and loses some weight while exclusively eating fast food for a month.

Fat Head - Top Documentary Films

Great recommendation. I have actually seen that one. That documentary is partially responsible for the part of me that thinks the MAIN component of longevity is a function of not being frail, high activity levels, not being fat. My problem is I'm not sure if those are the only pieces, the main pieces, or only part of the story. I.e. - eating crappy mcdonalds will cause me to get cancer or some BS down the road. From graywar's response it seems like this is a hard thing to study because of the large amounts of confounding variables.

What I do is take two mcdoubles, throw away one set of buns, and make one mcquad. If you eat four, you could have two mcquads. If I did that my stomach would hate me but that's because I'm old. Enjoy it while you can!

Dag - right on. The McDagwood

[BenM]

You think you need 3-5 hours to digest 2 servings of 50grams of protein for MPS? The Broscience is STRONK!

I don't think it's needing that long to digest it. I think it's that there's a refractory period for MPS of 3-5 hours, so once a bout of MPS starts, there's no point trying to initiate another one until that time period has elapsed. And your body ain't gonna be able to use 100g of protein in one bout of MPS.

Jordan touches on it here - 7 Rules to Optimize Protein Intake | Barbell Medicine

If that's broscience then I guess you better explain to Dr Gainz why.

As to the original question, it all depends on the context of the rest of your diet. I wouldn't be stressing out about 1g of trans fats, but I would be concerned about all the other carbs/fat in the McDoubles and how they impact on your overall macro intake. If they fit in, great, if they blow it out, maybe not optimal.

In terms of long term health, eating high fat and high carb is probably not good for you but it's your life.

[manveer]

I don't think it's needing that long to digest it. I think it's that there's a refractory period for MPS of 3-5 hours, so once a bout of MPS starts, there's no point trying to initiate another one until that time period has elapsed. And your body ain't gonna be able to use 100g of protein in one bout of MPS.

Jordan touches on it here - 7 Rules to Optimize Protein Intake | Barbell Medicine

Wait, what? He says here that if you consume 100g protein in one meal it will be absorbed:

Yes Virginia, if you eat 100g of protein at a meal you’ll absorb it all. Yes, it will take longer than if you only ate 20g, but you’ll absorb the first 20g of protein from the 100g at the same rate as 20g on it’s own provided they have similar total fat content and fiber content within the entire meal. That being said, the time course to which a meal is absorbed matters little to anyone, unless they compete or train multiple times per day.

[DannyP]

Danny, thanks for the input. In fact, that's exactly what i'm worried about. I don't really care about the macros as I just like them because they're tasty (i can eat them consistently), cheap (1.25), and good protein (~25 grams). My question is exactly what you outlined. It looks from some other members that it's hard to tell because of many confounding factors what will directly harm you and what will not.



Thanks greywar. So too many variables to isolate essentially? I'm definitely careful to draw conclusions from coincidences (i.e. Pop A is healthy because they eat alot of fish and good fats or whatever etc..)

Great recommendation. I have actually seen that one. That documentary is partially responsible for the part of me that thinks the MAIN component of longevity is a function of not being frail, high activity levels, not being fat. My problem is I'm not sure if those are the only pieces, the main pieces, or only part of the story. I.e. - eating crappy mcdonalds will cause me to get cancer or some BS down the road. From graywar's response it seems like this is a hard thing to study because of the large amounts of confounding variables.

I think that drawing conclusive conclusions (try saying that ten times fast...) is difficult largely because a well-controlled experiment has never been carried out, and would probably be considered unethical (where 1/3 eats only McD's; 1/3 eats the exact same menu/macros, but with quality ingredients; 1/3 is a "control" and eats a "normal" diet), given the hypothesis that at least one of those diets is really bad for you.

Because most of these studies have been epidemiological in nature, there is a lot of correlation that may not equal causation. For example, the study suggesting an increased correlation between red meat consumption and cancer. Aside from having to rely on subjects' memories of what they ate, there's no controlling for whether they grilled their own grass-fed ground beef or got McD's, or how it was prepared (i.e. sugar-ladden bbq sauce vs. simple salt and pepper; butter vs. canola oil).

This site has been a great resource for me:

www.marksdailyapple.com

Some of what's said in the nutrition forums is a bit nutty, and nothing resembling scientific, so take with a grain of salt.

But hey, it's gotta be useful on some level, as the fitness forum where I first read about Starting Strength...

[silachoo]

Personally, I'd be much, much more worried about adverse health effects from the quality of ingredients, and all the crap pumped into them (while the cows were alive and after they were ground into burger/their milk processed into cheese), than the macros. Antibiotics, hormones, preservatives, hydrogenated oils, etc. concern me a lot more than how much fat, or even sugar, is in something and how that impacts the body over time.

While I don't have any particular science to cite as a backup, I'm willing to guess that for an active person the risk of cancer from consuming that kind of food regularly probably outweighs the risk of diabetes/cardiovascular disease/obesity.

You think you need 3-5 hours to digest 2 servings of 50grams of protein for MPS? The Broscience is STRONK!

OP, no one has a damn clue with food sourcing really, the confounding multi-factor nature of population groups makes it damn hard to study.

Is Pop A fat because they eat food A or because they eat food A and are sedentary like sponges?

Is Pop B long-lived because they eat food b or because they are physically active and are missing genetic markers for some prime early death causes?

It is bloody difficult to track a group for food and lifestyle for very long and relying on self reporting is pretty much a mega fail. People forget, people lie, people could give a shit.

I wonder about it too. I don't know.

But, if your like me and just want absolution for your choices then you might enjoy watching the documentary "Fathead" a cinematic response to "Super Size Me." He improves his blood work and loses some weight while exclusively eating fast food for a month.

Fat Head - Top Documentary Films

What I do is take two mcdoubles, throw away one set of buns, and make one mcquad. If you eat four, you could have two mcquads. If I did that my stomach would hate me but that's because I'm old. Enjoy it while you can!

I think that drawing conclusive conclusions (try saying that ten times fast...) is difficult largely because a well-controlled experiment has never been carried out, and would probably be considered unethical (where 1/3 eats only McD's; 1/3 eats the exact same menu/macros, but with quality ingredients; 1/3 is a "control" and eats a "normal" diet), given the hypothesis that at least one of those diets is really bad for you.

Because most of these studies have been epidemiological in nature, there is a lot of correlation that may not equal causation. For example, the study suggesting an increased correlation between red meat consumption and cancer. Aside from having to rely on subjects' memories of what they ate, there's no controlling for whether they grilled their own grass-fed ground beef or got McD's, or how it was prepared (i.e. sugar-ladden bbq sauce vs. simple salt and pepper; butter vs. canola oil).

This site has been a great resource for me:

www.marksdailyapple.com

Some of what's said in the nutrition forums is a bit nutty, and nothing resembling scientific, so take with a grain of salt.

But hey, it's gotta be useful on some level, as the fitness forum where I first read about Starting Strength...

Dope - thanks man. I'll have a look.

[BenM]

Wait, what? He says here that if you consume 100g protein in one meal it will be absorbed:

Yeah he does. Sorry, I wasn't saying that the protein won't be absorbed/used eventually in the part you bolded (which was my comment, not Jordan's). It will, eventually. My point was more that my understanding of MPS is you only need your 3g of leucine and your 30-50g of protein (depending on the individual) to optimise it. Adding more won't make you synthesise more new muscle during that bout of MPS. It might get used during the next bout of MPS, if it's still bioavailable. So ingesting 100g of protein in one hit isn't optimal, partly for that reason, but also because (in this case) of all the other crap you're ingesting along with it to get that 100g of protein.

[manveer]

My point was more that my understanding of MPS is you only need your 3g of leucine and your 30-50g of protein (depending on the individual) to optimise it. Adding more won't make you synthesise more new muscle during that bout of MPS. It might get used during the next bout of MPS, if it's still bioavailable.

OK. I think I've misunderstood that part of the article for a long time then. I took "absorbed" to mean "synthesized" when it doesn't necessarily.

[marcf]

I don't think stimulating MPS is strictly correlated with the amount of protein you ingest, but with the amount of leucine you ingest--whether it's from a source that has only 25g protein or 100g protein. The actual protein content doesn't matter as much as leucine content (as far as I can understand).

[BenM]

OK. I think I've misunderstood that part of the article for a long time then. I took "absorbed" to mean "synthesized" when it doesn't necessarily.

Not guaranteeing I'm right either, maybe I am the one who's misunderstood! Jordan did a webinar Q&A on Facebook yesterday, would have been the perfect time to ask, maybe he'll chime in and clarify.

I know that the whole 'your body can't use more than xx grams of protein in each meal' is broscience. But it also seems logical to me that just consuming a ton of protein in one meal isn't gonna result in a ton more MPS, necessarily - I'm sure there's a law of diminishing returns, and an upper limit where adding more protein does nothing, and just feel like 100g would almost definitely be above that limit for most people.