Maccy D

UKBouldering.com

Help Support UKBouldering.com:

lagerstarfish

"There's no cure for being a c#nt"
Joined
Jul 26, 2007
Messages
8,918
No, not a return to talking the piss out of Fiend for liking food.
Has anyone else been following Dave McLoud's Twitter thing where he is eating only McDonald's parties?
Fascinating
 
Wouldn't say I've been following it as I'm not on Twitter - but I did see his Instagram post today which outlined what he is doing.

It'll be interesting to see what if any conclusions he draws from this personal experiment. Although as he stated himself it does seem to be of questionable objective/scientific value.

Think he is an absolute nutter (in the best of ways) and am all for it but rather him than me!
 
lagerstarfish said:
No, not a return to talking the piss out of Fiend for liking food.
Has anyone else been following Dave McLoud's Twitter thing where he is eating only McDonald's parties?
Fascinating

Haven't seen the Twitter thread but didn't Morton Spurlock try this in Super size Me with scary health implications?
 
What Morgan did was the full Maccy D's for everything. Dave is just eating the patties, no bun or chips etc. Doesn't sound much better TBH, but I guess more about the Protein intake and it's quality, than all the refined carbs too. Also some milk in his tea too, but thats all he's claiming he is going to eat for a month, unless i'm misunderstanding
 
sherlock said:
lagerstarfish said:
No, not a return to talking the piss out of Fiend for liking food.
Has anyone else been following Dave McLoud's Twitter thing where he is eating only McDonald's parties?
Fascinating

Haven't seen the Twitter thread but didn't Morton Spurlock try this in Super size Me with scary health implications?

Dave is only eating the patties. Apparently the minimum he would need to hit minimum caloral intake (~1670) is 16-18 but he's currently only stomaching around 12-16.

In the end it's just minced beef and salt cooked on a griddle. Even the anti-oil brigade on his page don't seem too concerned. I assume he's trying to make the point that even the meats we perceive as some of the most unhealthiest in society are actually healthy enough when not eaten in combination with loads of refined carbs and fats. It's part of his general narrative that meat has been unfairly ostracised as a healthy food by groups with other agendas (i.e. sugar industry, vegan activists, producers of meat alternatives).

I'm always amazed at the level of emotional responses he gets on his page. Growing up vegetarian (but eating meat since 6 years) I naturally came across some of this discussion but nothing like this kind of intensity.
 
lagerstarfish said:
where he is eating only McDonald's parties?

This gave me vivid images of Dmac preying on groups of obese kids whilst they're distracted by the Hamburgler.
 
I have nothing to add but would like to commend Lagerstarfish on the thread title; superb! ;D
 
steveyo said:
Also some milk in his tea too, but thats all he's claiming he is going to eat for a month, unless i'm misunderstanding

Is he still allowing putting eggs up his bum or has he quit those too?
 
I'm not saying he's mental but this diet does sound mental to me

That said yeah go on lad live your best life
 
Wasn't aware of it until seeing this thread, thanks Lagers. Have messed around with various high fat/protein versus high carb/minimal fat/protein diets over the years. Have always felt healthier and maintained a lower weight with plenty of meat in my diet.

The rationale behind his McD's burger-thon is the interesting part. Anyone interested in the subject of the potential for bias to influence research and how the findings can go on to inform public policy should read the Lancet article he references.

TLDR: Global Burden of Disease study 2019 changed its categorisation of red meat from a 'protective dietary component' to a 'harmful factor', with a lack of transparency by not following prescribed review procedures and little supporting evidence to justify the change. Thus a 'Theoretical Minimum Risk Exposure Level' was reduced from 22.5g per day in the previous study to 0g per day in the 2019 study. This contributed to hugely different findings between the 2017 GBD and the 2019 GBD studies - as in a 36-fold increase in association of deaths attributed to intake of red meat...


From Lancet article:
Additionally, we are puzzled by the reference to more empirical standardised methods for selecting the TMREL for risk factors in GBD 2019. For protective factors, it appears that considerable care was taken to select the level of exposure with the lowest level of risk that was supported by the available data. The GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators recognised that projecting beyond the level of exposure supported by the available studies could exaggerate the attributable burden for a risk factor. Hence, for protective dietary components, the TMREL was set using the 85th percentile of levels of exposure included in the published cohort studies or randomised controlled trials. By contrast, the TMREL for risk factors viewed as harmful was, by default, set to zero. Therefore, the red meat TMREL changed from 22·5 g per day to 0 g per day. The assumption of a red meat TMREL of zero is counterintuitive given the role of meat in evolutionary diets and in contemporary hunter-gatherer populations, in which cardiometabolic diseases were and still are uncommon. Furthermore, recently published results from one of the largest multinational studies, which was conducted in five continents and examined the association between different types of meat and health outcomes, the Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology study, contradicts this premise. It is of considerable importance that the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators provide the empirical evidence for this change in TMREL and confirm that there was no projection beyond the available evidence.

We further question if the totality of nutritional effects of red meat have been considered in the meta-regressions. If the TMREL is assumed to be zero, red meat would then de facto be presented as an inherently harmful food. This assumption would ignore the well documented nutritional benefits with respect to the supply of essential nutrients and bioactive components. If the current public health message advising moderate consumption of red meat as part of a healthy balanced diet is replaced by the message that any intake of red meat is harmful, this change will probably adversely affect iron deficiency anaemia, sarcopenia, and child and maternal malnutrition—these conditions and their associated risk factors are already responsible for considerably greater global disease burdens than a diet high in red meat, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries.

Since publication, GBD 2019 has been cited by 635 documents, including 351 scientific papers and nine policy documents. Using data from GBD 2019, Chung and colleagues concluded that global increases in the red and processed meat trade contributed to an abrupt increase of diet-related non-communicable diseases. The GBD 2019 Stroke Collaborators recently reported that greater numbers of stroke and subarachnoid haemorrhage DALYs were attributable to diets high in red meat, than were attributable to diets high in salt, in 11 of 21 world regions. Of great concern is the extensive quoting of GBD 2019 risk factor data in the evidence document of the UK's National Food Strategy. Figures in this policy document indicate that diets high in red meat are responsible for greater numbers of DALYs than diets high in salt, trans-fatty acids, or sugar-sweetened beverages.

Given the substantial influence of GBD reports on worldwide nutritional policy decision making, it is of considerable importance that the GBD estimates are subject to critical scrutiny and that they continue to be rigorously and transparently evidence-based. Hence, we call on the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators to address two key concerns. First, the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators should clarify where the peer-reviewed publications of their updated or new systematic reviews are that comprehensively address the 27-item PRISMA statement and the 20-item GATHER statement checklists; that justify the updated dose–response curves of the relative risks of red meat for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, type 2 diabetes, ischaemic heart disease, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, and subarachnoid haemorrhage; and that provide the empirical evidence for the changing of the red meat TMREL from 22·5 g per day to 0 g per day. Finally, the GBD 2019 Risk Factors Collaborators should clarify if the additional deaths and DALYs from iron deficiency anaemia, sarcopenia, and child and maternal malnutrition that would result from the imposition of a red meat TMREL of zero have been included in the GBD 2019 estimates.

Unless, and until, all new or updated reviews and meta-analyses pertaining to all dietary risk factors are published, having undergone comprehensive independent peer review, we think it would be highly inappropriate and imprudent for the GBD 2019 dietary risk estimates to be used in any national or international policy documents, nor in any regulatory nor legislative decisions.
 
lagerstarfish said:
No, not a return to talking the piss out of Fiend for liking food.
Has anyone else been following Dave McLoud's Twitter thing where he is eating only McDonald's parties?
Fascinating

This is the stupidest thing I read this week, which is pretty impressive considering that I have spent ten minutes browsing the climbharder subredit and another five minutes on twitters complotosphère

Cannot one of his friends tell him that he lost ten kilos, and his grade went from 8B+ to 8B+ and that loosing three kilos more will possibly take him to the level of 8B+?
 
Nope. He’s not eating the bun, chips drink or any sauce. It’s all about eating only processed red meat for 30 days.
 
Wellsy said:
I'm not saying he's mental but this diet does sound mental to me

Dave (he’s climbed so hard that I’m obliged to only use his first name right?) usually seems more down to earth than other top-level pros then he does these odd food things and you realise in some ways he’s possibly the weirdest of the lot.

I first became aware of this three or four years ago when he made an Instagram post saying something like “day five of my annual fast, feeling good”, but accompanied by a selfie in a climbing wall where he looked as haggard as you’d expect for someone who’d been climbing and routesetting on an empty stomach for the best part of a week :lol:

I’m not a scientist or particularly interested in the subject but his experiments seem a bit limited to be of any use? Surely we established things like “eating only one type of food isn’t very good for you” and “not eating is inferior to eating” decades and decades ago?
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top