All those people that winge on about eating 'clean' food..Watch
Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/central-iow...#ixzz2pS5LeIf3
After viewing that documentary, John Cisna of Ankeny -- who is also a science teacher in the Colo-Nesco School District -- put together his own amateur documentary looking at the fast-food giant. He and his team of students came to a much different conclusion.
"I can eat any food at McDonald's (that) I want as long as I'm smart for the rest of the day with what I balance it out with," Cisna said.
That was the theory science teacher Cisna laid out for three of his students at Colo-Nesco High School this past fall. Ninety days of Mickey D's for breakfast, lunch and dinner, but with strict daily nutritional limitations of 2,000 calories and trying to stay close to the recommended dietary allowances for nutrients like carbohydrates, proteins, fat calories, cholesterol.
Cisna approached the owner of the local McDonalds franchise and the owner was so interested to see what the results would be that he agreed to provide those 90 days of meals to Cisna at no charge.
Cisna's students used McDonald's online nutritional information to construct daily meals for their teacher, making sure to follow the nutritional limitations he had set.
Cisna said a typical breakfast would be two egg white delights, a bowl of their maple oatmeal and a 1 percent milk. A salad for lunch would be followed by more traditional value meal at dinner.
"So this isn't something where you say 'well he went to McDonalds and he only had the salads. No, I had the Big Macs, the quarter pounders with cheese. I had sundaes, I had ice cream cones," he said.
During the experiment, he also started walking 45 minutes a day. By the 90th day, Cisna reports he lost 37 pounds and his cholesterol dropped from 249 to 170.
The moral of this lesson isn't to eat more at McDonald's, Cisna said, but to pay attention to your daily nutrition and what you eat.
"The point behind this documentary is, ‘Hey, it's (a) choice. We all have choices. It's our choices that make us fat not McDonald's," he said.
Cisna said he isn't surprised at the weight loss because he wasn't exercising or watching his calories before but he is surprised at the large improvement in his blood now that he's capping his nutrients at the recommended daily levels.
For instance, he said his low-density lipoprotein, or bad cholesterol, dropped from 173 to 113 during the 90-day experiment.
Read more: http://www.kcci.com/news/central-iow...#ixzz2pS5RY9ZU
You don't have to eat rubbish tasting food to lose weight. Eat what you like, just in moderation.
I agree Op, that's why I hate all these fad diets all these people that say "carbs are the enemy". No you are your own enemy.
Sure in the short term you could eat McDonald's everyday and perhaps meet the same goals you would meet while on what is deemed as a 'clean' diet. However no matter what study says what, having a diet containing rubbish doesn't make it ok just because you are getting the 'right amounts' of it.
Nobody blames McDonald's for being fat, that is like saying defence and arms companies/manufacturers are the cause of the world's wars and gun crimes.
Eating clean I would say is unprocessed foods. You don't want food with a load of additives, preservatives etc. On top of that you'd want to be getting all the minerals and vitamins that the body needs so the 5-a-day rule is a must.
Also eating clean is a fairly subjective term since some people have different dietary requirements.
One study which really just tells us what we already knew (eating **** in moderation is fine...who knew ) doesn't render the term 'clean diet' void.
I define "clean" as the type of foods that should (and will inevitably) make up the majority of a healthy diet. These foods allow you to more easily fit your macros and micros, and hence they'll probably make up most of the diet.
Eating so-called "not clean" foods makes it easier to throw your macros off. E.g. you might end up eating too much fat/carbs but not enough protein. Or you might not get your micros due the nature of these nutrient-void "not clean" foods. In other words, these "not clean" foods can (and will inevitably) only make up a small part of your diet, or else you won't be able to hit your ****ing macros/micros in the first place.
It's that ****ing simple. This obvious distinction is where the name came from. Give a categorical name to these foods or not, this is reality. No need to get pedantic about how "clean" (a word) is defined in your so-called fitness dictionary. Get off your high horse.