T Nation

1/2 lb. Chessey Double Beef Potato Burrito

two dollars and a half lb. of food, how awesome is that? Whats more is that the nutritional facts are relatively harmless and may even be somewhat helpful to somebody on a bulk! :
calories: 530 , total fat: 25g (only 8 saturated meaning the remainders are “good” fats from the sour cream), Carbs: 57 g (7g fiber & 5g sugar), and protein 20 g. Obviously lower in protein than you’d like but other than that does anybody see anything wrong this?

There’s only so much information the label can give, what are the ingredients? (Preparation would be good too, but if it’s fast food I doubt that information is available)

From the looks of the label, it seems o.k.

The 1/2 pound cheesy nacho burrito is pretty darn tasty as well.

saturated fats aren’t bad fats. i’m wondering when that myth is going to die. you’d think it would have been dead by now on this supposedly progressive site.

and i’d venture to say the remaining fats that you think are the healthy ones are in fact the “bad” ones.

[quote]ProjectX wrote:
saturated fats aren’t bad fats. i’m wondering when that myth is going to die. you’d think it would have been dead by now on this supposedly progressive site.

and i’d venture to say the remaining fats that you think are the healthy ones are in fact the “bad” ones.

[/quote]

I’m looking at the possible insulin spike from those unnamed carbohydrates, that may adversely interact with the saturated (It’s my knowledge that saturated fats may raise cholesterol/ arterial plaque/whatever IF in the presence of insulin)

Or I may be waaaayyyy over-analyzing (most likely)

Dude, you’re making me hungry.

D

[quote]silverhydra wrote:
ProjectX wrote:
saturated fats aren’t bad fats. i’m wondering when that myth is going to die. you’d think it would have been dead by now on this supposedly progressive site.

and i’d venture to say the remaining fats that you think are the healthy ones are in fact the “bad” ones.

I’m looking at the possible insulin spike from those unnamed carbohydrates, that may adversely interact with the saturated (It’s my knowledge that saturated fats may raise cholesterol/ arterial plaque/whatever IF in the presence of insulin)

Or I may be waaaayyyy over-analyzing (most likely)

[/quote]

dude you’re killing the joy of eating a burrito. just give in. it’s better here on the dark side.

fuck that, eating one of these a day cost maybe 15 bucks for a week. Alongside from tasting amazing it only has 50 mg cholesterol. In regards to ProjectX, i’m skinny and active so i couldn’t care less about saturated fats. As far as im concerned the only “bad” fat out there is trans fat.

[quote]diamonddelts59 wrote:
In regards to ProjectX, i’m skinny and active so i couldn’t care less about saturated fats. As far as im concerned the only “bad” fat out there is trans fat.[/quote]

dude are you high?

i was saying saturated fats are GOOD FATS. so what do you mean it’s ok to eat them because you are skinny and active?

if you do agree with me they are good (which is the opposite of what you implied in your first post) then why do you have to justify eating it?

for now i only see that these burritos may be affecting your reading comprehension and logic.

but that doesn’t affect hypertrophy so keep pounding them down.

[quote]ProjectX wrote:

dude you’re killing the joy of eating a burrito. just give in. it’s better here on the dark side.[/quote]

I concede to the burrito-y goodness

Regarding my overanalysis, it was just that; to an athlete the small intricacies should make no noticeable difference at all, even over the long term.

Enjoy your half pound of cheesy goodness!

[quote]ProjectX wrote:
diamonddelts59 wrote:
In regards to ProjectX, i’m skinny and active so i couldn’t care less about saturated fats. As far as im concerned the only “bad” fat out there is trans fat.

dude are you high?

i was saying saturated fats are GOOD FATS. so what do you mean it’s ok to eat them because you are skinny and active?

if you do agree with me they are good (which is the opposite of what you implied in your first post) then why do you have to justify eating it?

for now i only see that these burritos may be affecting your reading comprehension and logic.

but that doesn’t affect hypertrophy so keep pounding them down.[/quote]

saturated fats are not good fats regardless of what you believe. theyre neutral if anything because theyre not horrible for you if your active (high-intensity, heart pumping exercise) because the main adverse effect of sat fats are heart problems and arterial buildup.

I prefer the volcano burrito.

Sounds disgusting. I’ll take my one pound homemade burger with avocado, spinach, and tomato I just ate for about the same price instead.

If I’m eating a burrito, I’ll eat a real one – carne asada w/ pico & guac!

[quote]diamonddelts59 wrote:
saturated fats are not good fats regardless of what you believe. theyre neutral if anything because theyre not horrible for you if your active (high-intensity, heart pumping exercise) because the main adverse effect of sat fats are heart problems and arterial buildup. [/quote]

wrong, wrong, wrong.

what i “believe” is based on scientific studies actually.

instead of sending you those which you may have trouble with, here’s the layman’s version for the general public:

[quote]ProjectX wrote:
diamonddelts59 wrote:
saturated fats are not good fats regardless of what you believe. theyre neutral if anything because theyre not horrible for you if your active (high-intensity, heart pumping exercise) because the main adverse effect of sat fats are heart problems and arterial buildup.

wrong, wrong, wrong.

what i “believe” is based on scientific studies actually.

instead of sending you those which you may have trouble with, here’s the layman’s version for the general public:

http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2009/06/06/saturated-fat/[/quote]

i cant seem to understand yet why you assume im some kind of moron. Anybody with a doctorate can say whatever they please simply because they have one. In this article that you provided, thinking you were smart, there are no studies to prove any of this. Sure saturated fats can have effects on all those processes listed but it’s to a minimal degree except POSSIBLY brain function (even still not that greaet. that’d be EPAs and ALAs.) That article fails to mention that saturated fat and cholesterol helps with test production. great article, idiot.

[quote]diamonddelts59 wrote:
i cant seem to understand yet why you assume im some kind of moron. Anybody with a doctorate can say whatever they please simply because they have one. In this article that you provided, thinking you were smart, there are no studies to prove any of this. Sure saturated fats can have effects on all those processes listed but it’s to a minimal degree except POSSIBLY brain function (even still not that greaet. that’d be EPAs and ALAs.) That article fails to mention that saturated fat and cholesterol helps with test production. great article, idiot.[/quote]

“i cant seem to understand yet why you assume im some kind of moron.”

that’s the thing, since you’re a moron you “cant seem to understand” a lot of things, one of them being, that you are a moron.

simply put, part of being a moron is not realizing you are a moron.

i’m not saying that trying to be mean or to insult you. i’m just stating the facts. i fully accept you as you are. in this world there are normal people, and there are morons. you fall into the latter category.

moving on…

anyways, as i alluded to earlier, i left out any studies because you would have trouble understanding them, because well, you’re an idiot.

but if you insist here’s one of those studies…

(and before you scream “But that was done on post-menopausal women!” so what? arteries are arteries).

now wipe the refried beans off your monitor and read this you taco eating moron…

Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women
Dariush Mozaffarian, Eric B Rimm, and David M Herrington

ABSTRACT

Background: The influence of diet on atherosclerotic progression is not well established, particularly in postmenopausal women, in whom risk factors for progression may differ from those for men.

Objective: The objective was to investigate associations between dietary macronutrients and progression of coronary atherosclerosis among postmenopausal women.

Design: Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and after a mean follow-up of 3.1 y in 2243 coronary segments in 235 postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease. Usual dietary intake was assessed at baseline.

Results: The mean total fat intake was 25 +/- 6% of energy. In multivariate analyses, a higher saturated fat intake was associated with a smaller decline in mean minimal coronary diameter (P = 0.001) and less progression of coronary stenosis (P = 0.002) during follow-up. Compared with a 0.22-mm decline in the lowest quartile of intake, there was a 0.10-mm decline in the second quartile (P = 0.002), a 0.07-mm decline in the third quartile (P = 0.002), and no decline in the fourth quartile (P <0.001); P for trend = 0.001. This inverse association was more pronounced among women with lower monounsaturated fat (P for interaction = 0.04) and higher carbohydrate (P for interaction = 0.004) intakes and possibly lower total fat intake (P for interaction = 0.09). Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with atherosclerotic progression (P = 0.001), particularly when the glycemic index was high. Polyunsaturated fat intake was positively associated with progression when replacing other fats (P = 0.04) but not when replacing carbohydrate or protein. Monounsaturated and total fat intakes were not associated with progression.

Conclusions: In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression.

Am J Clin Nutr 2004;80: 1175?84.

But that was done on post-menopausal women!

that was done on post-menopausal women! and ARE YOU SAYING ANYONE WHO EATS TACOS IS A MORON!? ILL FIND YOU!

It’s okay to question conventional wisdom. Sat fat & chol aren’t bad fats. They are very vital to your growth & health. If you’re avoiding them from your diet & still seeing results at the gym. Then I guess you’re getting enough.

[quote]diamonddelts59 wrote:
two dollars and a half lb. of food, how awesome is that? Whats more is that the nutritional facts are relatively harmless and may even be somewhat helpful to somebody on a bulk! :
calories: 530 , total fat: 25g (only 8 saturated meaning the remainders are “good” fats from the sour cream), Carbs: 57 g (7g fiber & 5g sugar), and protein 20 g. Obviously lower in protein than you’d like but other than that does anybody see anything wrong this?[/quote]

I’ll pass. I’m not trying to knock a burrito (I prefer the Home Wrecker from Moe’s w/double meat) That burrito might be good for calories to bulk or if you only have $2. Maybe once or twice a year I would try it. But I personally see the cons outweigh the pros if you plan on making that a weekly thing. To much process salt,msg,other preservatives. I’m sure it has a ton of artificial ingredients and most likely trans fat as well.