BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > Logs > Logging your progress
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Unread 06-22-2016, 10:46 AM
Ryker Ryker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pheeeeebs View Post
Not in the chicken breast I buy.

0.4g fat per 100g chicken breast cooked.
First off, going by "cooked" numbers is stupid and, second, all databases that do their own testing have more fat listed than what you quoted. So do they extract the fat? No, more likely they're just reporting the values incorrectly.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Unread 06-22-2016, 12:03 PM
pheeeeebs pheeeeebs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryker View Post
First off, going by "cooked" numbers is stupid and, second, all databases that do their own testing have more fat listed than what you quoted. So do they extract the fat? No, more likely they're just reporting the values incorrectly.
Nonsense. That's how the values are outlined on the packaging. "Per 100g cooked".

Secondly, these chicken breasts are tested for their nutritional value in a lab.

No need for the hostility. You're wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Unread 06-22-2016, 12:16 PM
Ryker Ryker is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 692
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pheeeeebs View Post
Nonsense. That's how the values are outlined on the packaging. "Per 100g cooked".

Secondly, these chicken breasts are tested for their nutritional value in a lab.
So they send it cooked? And they do the tests on the cooked stuff?

And the testing can be off by even hundreds of percent. If you're in the UK, you should know, because there was an article on that in, I think, The Guardian already. When some researchers tested stuff like Ben & Jerry's, Arctic Zero and some other things, the labels were off. Again, look at the independent governmental websites and the chicken breast values, not those done by a small company with a heavy interest to show the number of fats as small as possible. Well, but maybe they do have their own chicken coops, where they breed extra lean chickens or somehow extract all the fat that the rest have.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Unread 06-22-2016, 12:24 PM
truthisharmful truthisharmful is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 43
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neilnacarter View Post
Im running off the myfitness pal chicken breast on there. If that is incorrect then happy days.
you really have no clue what youre doing, have you? just turn around the chicken you bought and add in whatever you take to prepare it. never just use any food group from myfitnesspal unless you have to guesstimate when youre eating out
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Unread 06-22-2016, 12:49 PM
pheeeeebs pheeeeebs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryker View Post
So they send it cooked? And they do the tests on the cooked stuff?

And the testing can be off by even hundreds of percent. If you're in the UK, you should know, because there was an article on that in, I think, The Guardian already. When some researchers tested stuff like Ben & Jerry's, Arctic Zero and some other things, the labels were off. Again, look at the independent governmental websites and the chicken breast values, not those done by a small company with a heavy interest to show the number of fats as small as possible. Well, but maybe they do have their own chicken coops, where they breed extra lean chickens or somehow extract all the fat that the rest have.
Yes, it's sent cooked.

Anyway, We're derailing someone's log here.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Unread 06-22-2016, 06:58 PM
Neilnacarter Neilnacarter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 800
Default

I thought these logs were meant to be supportive.

Truthisharmful is pretty much just a troll.

Ill stick to conversing with Schlansky and some others who provide productive input.

Pheebs - thanks yes this is becoming a derail.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Unread 06-22-2016, 08:19 PM
gtee93 gtee93 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Garden State
Posts: 3
Default

Following, good freaking luck man this diet is brutal but the results make you stick to it. I say in weighing cooked vs uncooked it doesn't matter as long as you stay consistent and you see progress then stick to which one's easier.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Unread 06-23-2016, 01:00 AM
funkord funkord is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neilnacarter View Post
I thought these logs were meant to be supportive.

Truthisharmful is pretty much just a troll.

Ill stick to conversing with Schlansky and some others who provide productive input.

Pheebs - thanks yes this is becoming a derail.
They are indeed meant to be supportive. Just ignore
How is it going with your progress?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Unread 06-23-2016, 04:42 AM
pheeeeebs pheeeeebs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 155
Default

How are you feeling on the diet so far?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Unread 06-23-2016, 07:54 PM
Neilnacarter Neilnacarter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 800
Default

Not too bad. I know what to expect having run UD2.0 and RFL previously. I dont suffer too much on low carbs.

Funnily enough a group of us have a "abs" challenge just a bit of fun.

Straight of the gate with a hilly 9km run this morning.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.