So after all of this… what is the take home message?
Dont eat sugar, because you will want to eat more sugar?
Dont eat bread, because it has wheat and it will make you more hungry and make you eat more bread?
Dont allow yourself a little cheat meal because it will just make you crave more cheat meals?
tweet
[quote]MODOK wrote:
So what you are saying is- you were having significant trouble eliminating sugar from your diet through the week and as a result thought about it constantly and binged on the weekends, so you decided to have a certain amount of sugar every day in order to not have those feelings of withdrawal. You need to examine closely whose point is actually being made here, as that is exactly the behavior of an addiction. Ever heard of methadone?
[/quote]
so facko, what do you have to say about this?
looks like MODOK just debunked your whole moderation theory.
[quote]wannabebig250 wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
So what you are saying is- you were having significant trouble eliminating sugar from your diet through the week and as a result thought about it constantly and binged on the weekends, so you decided to have a certain amount of sugar every day in order to not have those feelings of withdrawal. You need to examine closely whose point is actually being made here, as that is exactly the behavior of an addiction. Ever heard of methadone?
[/quote]
so facko, what do you have to say about this?
looks like MODOK just debunked your whole moderation theory.[/quote]
No…I don’t perceive it that way. However, you do. In fact, this post comes of as some sort of vindication statement. Sort of like a HAH…now wtf do you have to say.
Did you respond to the fact that I’m clearly NOT ecto? Did you respond to the fact that I clearly eat 500g of carbs 4 days per week yet am as lean as I am in my avatar? I debunked your analysis of my physiology…where was your response?
Would you rather just throw jabs and make this a MODOK beat facko up thread? I’m unsure as to your motives and/or your intellectual input in this thread.
I do not see how MODOKs response debunks what I have to say? You realize that “pleasure centers” are stimulated in the brain when we do all kinds of activities that we ENJOY. When you enjoy certain sensations…i.e. taste, touch, sound etc…you want to experience those sensations again. We are calling this addiction in regards to the experience of taste i.e. sugar laden foods. That’s fine…I’m addicted to meat too. I’m addicted to broccoli. I’m addicted to sex.
Am I saying that MODOK is wrong in that sugar consumption stimulates very specific areas of the brain…absolutely not. But, what I was doing before…eating “clean” all week caused very serious binge response in regards to ALL KINDS OF FOOD…not just sugar. Fatty, fried foods as well. Because repression builds a fire in me.
What is also troubling is that some very wrong assumptions were made. I said AT LEAST 80% of my dietary intake on days is whole food sources…NOT POPTARTS. The key word is…at least…there are some days where I consume NO Poptarts/cereal/pastry etc…practically all whole food. Some sugar crazed addict I am.
My theory of moderation is healthy in my opinion. This is my opinion. My theory of moderation was outlined above. I am not catering or talking about the general public, because this is being posted on a bodybuilding forum. If you don’t count your macros on a day to day…you’re fucking lazy in my opinion. If you eat the same bro foods day in and day out because you can’t handle eating ONE poptart as opposed to a whole box of poptarts…then, you don’t know how to enforce responsibility and tact.
What you guys seem to be pushing here is…the answer to the problem is to never fucking think about sweets, don’t fucking consume sweets ever…and if you do you will be FUCKED…ADDICTED…CRACKED OUT. If this is the case…why do I have boxes of poptarts sitting in my room for MONTHS now that have yet to be ravenously consumed?
I don’t have fucking withdrawal when I don’t eat sugar…I just simply like the damn taste and choose to eat those said foods from time to time if they fit into my daily totals and I know I’m hitting all of my micro and macro needs properly. Again…there is nothing unhealthy about this. If this means I’m an addict and will practice the above behavior until I die…I don’t see anything wrong with it. There’s dangers to having sex too…I like sex…when I do it…I want to do it again. Does this mean I’m going to avoid sex entirely? Or does it mean I can practice personal accountability and restraint and only choose to have sex with those I know and trust and minimize the said risks?
There is quite a good video on youtube right now…which really examines this entire debacle. Search for it.
…I will also say…although I respect MODOK and all he has done for this forum and has helped me PERSONALLY. I will be candid: MODOK, you have vested interest in holding on to this research and these theories. For you to step back and say…lowly facko is right and I am wrong…would utterly destroy your credibility. I’m not saying you even believe that to be so. In fact, I’m pretty sure you truly believe you are right no matter what I have to say or what anyone else would show you. However, I feel that if you did realize deep down: “I may be somewhat wrong in regards to this sugar thing” …I’m entirely unsure if you have the humble nature to practice humility and admit so…at least out loud in this setting.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]facko wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]roon12 wrote:
[quote]facko wrote:
[quote]roon12 wrote:
Please point out the part where I mentioned eating purely poptarts as a carb source…
I am not debating the idea that eating at a deficit, with appropriate protein, EFA and micronutrients will cause weight loss. The issue here is whether chronic overconsumption of sugar can cause addiction and other health issues.
In the case of addiction, IIFYM is simply not appropriate as the definition of addiction is in contrast to ‘everything in moderation’. See the contradiction here?
In the case of health issues, e.g. cancerous cells shuttling glucose to themselves, it is the removal of the source that is necessary, ie the glucose supply, regardless of what else is being consumed.
You are still ignoring the context, this is not about trained individuals eating the odd poptart, cake or whatever but the effects on those who through years of excess consumption have developed issues and how they can be resolved. My understanding of IIFYM is perfectly sound, yet it has limitations, it is not a universal solution.[/quote]
BTW…I use IIFYM in a surplus as well…as I’m doing right now. Deficit or surplus it can be applied…
Not being a dick…was legitimately unsure if you knew this.[/quote]
No it isn’t news that the standard diet is fairly shitty. The addiction stuff and possible method of action is.
And yes I’m aware that IIFYM can be used in a surplus, but not when losing weight 
hell, I use it myself. Now I’m going to eat a poptart and watch the Hodge Twins…
[/quote]
Actually, the sucrose addiction hypothesis isn’t new at all. There is a great deal of research on the subject going back many years. You just don’t here about it because no one wants to hear about it and would rather eat pop tarts and call it moderate behavior.
[/quote]
Okay MODOK…all I do is eat poptarts and protein powder. That’s all you will hear from me anyway.[/quote]
I wasn’t even thinking about you when I typed that, the roon guy mentioned he was off to eat pop tarts.
[/quote]
I don’t even like poptarts
It was a humorous reference to the Hodge Twins youtube videos and the responses from Ian McCarthy on the topic of eating poptarts while losing fat. Facko’s comment about eating poptarts all day reminded me of them.
I am gonna say that i know plenty of “normal” people, old, young and in between that are not conscious of what they put in their body in terms of amounts of food and if that food has whole wheat, a bit of wheat, gluten free, sugar, sugar free ect. And they remain at the same weight and body fat (low enough to be around normal for males/females respectively) year after year without training or regular exercise.
They enjoy themselves and eat what they want. They are not addicted to these foods and yet somehow they are able to tame these neurological changes that happen even though they are really not dedicated to maintaining a certain body composition. Are these people the annomilies? I some how doubt that.
Just because some people become addicted to a certain stimulus doesnt mean everyone will.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Just because some people become addicted to a certain stimulus doesnt mean everyone will. [/quote]
Yet, restrictions and laws are put in place to at least help those that will become addicted to certain things 
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I am gonna say that i know plenty of “normal” people, old, young and in between that are not conscious of what they put in their body in terms of amounts of food and if that food has whole wheat, a bit of wheat, gluten free, sugar, sugar free ect. And they remain at the same weight and body fat (low enough to be around normal for males/females respectively) year after year without training or regular exercise.
They enjoy themselves and eat what they want. They are not addicted to these foods and yet somehow they are able to tame these neurological changes that happen even though they are really not dedicated to maintaining a certain body composition. Are these people the annomilies? I some how doubt that.
Just because some people become addicted to a certain stimulus doesnt mean everyone will. [/quote]
You are also confusing the issue. Just because a substance is addictive doesn’t mean that it must cause an addiction. The vast majority of people can also drink and take opiates without becoming addicted to them. A substance having addictive properties does not mean that an individual will become addicted, it simply means the substance has addictive properties.
[/quote]
That was more a comment towards the moderation doesnt work because the sugar activates this addictiveness. Seems that most in this thread are portraying in a completely negative light and can not seem to wrap their head around moderation does work. Even with people who dont count calories/macros ect and dont exercise regularly. So a bit of sugar laden food here and there is just fine. Also are all addictions bad? I would say that most of the physique conscious are quite addicted to most of the things involved in weight lifting including the adrenaline rush involved in exercise. Not all addictions are detrimental. Obviously some are. Living in small town WI i am surrounded by alcoholics.
Again just adding in some discussion and a different point of view since few seem to like to add anything that might contradict this idea that sugar is a terrible thing. Since sugar is so addictive all BBers better stop eating any carb source as that is just converted to sugar. Uh oh lots of carbs = addiction. So those carb ups on the AD diet gonnna make everyone addicted. How does work?
For people who are cheating with Poptarts, let me help ya out.
Butter. No transfats.
You’re welcome.
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
For people who are cheating with Poptarts, let me help ya out.
Butter. No transfats.
You’re welcome.
[/quote]
It’s not cheating…it fits my macros. Thanks.
[quote]facko wrote:
It’s not cheating…it fits my macros. Thanks.[/quote]
I think you just set T-Nation back by 10 years…you can’t be serious? In that sense McDonald’s fits my macros too. Then again, I guess everyone has there own view on “Cheating” which in my girlfriends case is consider tongue in mouth but I disagree.
[quote]Lykos wrote:
[quote]facko wrote:
It’s not cheating…it fits my macros. Thanks.[/quote]
I think you just set T-Nation back by 10 years…you can’t be serious? In that sense McDonald’s fits my macros too. Then again, I guess everyone has there own view on “Cheating” which in my girlfriends case is consider tongue in mouth but I disagree.
[/quote]
He’s just following the advice of Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald
[quote]Lykos wrote:
[quote]facko wrote:
It’s not cheating…it fits my macros. Thanks.[/quote]
I think you just set T-Nation back by 10 years…you can’t be serious? In that sense McDonald’s fits my macros too. Then again, I guess everyone has there own view on “Cheating” which in my girlfriends case is consider tongue in mouth but I disagree.
[/quote]
…strong inability for reading through threads …or strong lack of reading comprehension skills.
IIFYM means… fuck it…either you can read up and see a multiple paragraph description OR you can be ignorant and think I get all of my carbs from poptarts and all my protein from protein powder or something…
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
[quote]Lykos wrote:
[quote]facko wrote:
It’s not cheating…it fits my macros. Thanks.[/quote]
I think you just set T-Nation back by 10 years…you can’t be serious? In that sense McDonald’s fits my macros too. Then again, I guess everyone has there own view on “Cheating” which in my girlfriends case is consider tongue in mouth but I disagree.
[/quote]
He’s just following the advice of Alan Aragon and Lyle McDonald[/quote]
Lol? Basically…I tend to follow those with a no bullshit approach.
[quote]facko wrote:
…strong inability for reading through threads …or strong lack of reading comprehension skills.
IIFYM means… fuck it…either you can read up and see a multiple paragraph description OR you can be ignorant and think I get all of my carbs from poptarts and all my protein from protein powder or something…[/quote]
I just think your philosophy of cheat meals is highly flawed (rationalization? Comfort food?) and resembles that of Dave Tate(around the time he hit up John Berardi). All his prior eating habits fit his macros, but he looked like shit(IMO) and although his strength was better then most he was completely the opposite of good health. If moving weight is your ultimate goal then by all means do what you must.
[quote]Lykos wrote:
[quote]facko wrote:
…strong inability for reading through threads …or strong lack of reading comprehension skills.
IIFYM means… fuck it…either you can read up and see a multiple paragraph description OR you can be ignorant and think I get all of my carbs from poptarts and all my protein from protein powder or something…[/quote]
I just think your philosophy of cheat meals is highly flawed (rationalization? Comfort food?) and resembles that of Dave Tate(around the time he hit up John Berardi). All his prior eating habits fit his macros, but he looked like shit(IMO) and although his strength was better then most he was completely the opposite of good health. If moving weight is your ultimate goal then by all means do what you must. [/quote]
Uhm no…wrong…you CLEARLY did not read my assessment of IIFYM.
80% whole foods…20% other shit IF IT FITS YOUR MACROS…ALWAYS hit micronutrients daily.
Dave Tate was certainly not counting macros lol…he just ate ding dongs whenever the fuck he felt like it. I DONT do that…I may have a ding dong…but, it would be 1 ding dong and the rest lean meat, broccoli and other fibrous veg, and whole starch sources like potato…Thats IIFYM.
My avatar does not resemble Dave Tate before he started working with Berardi…
[quote]facko wrote:
[quote]Lykos wrote:
[quote]facko wrote:
…strong inability for reading through threads …or strong lack of reading comprehension skills.
IIFYM means… fuck it…either you can read up and see a multiple paragraph description OR you can be ignorant and think I get all of my carbs from poptarts and all my protein from protein powder or something…[/quote]
I just think your philosophy of cheat meals is highly flawed (rationalization? Comfort food?) and resembles that of Dave Tate(around the time he hit up John Berardi). All his prior eating habits fit his macros, but he looked like shit(IMO) and although his strength was better then most he was completely the opposite of good health. If moving weight is your ultimate goal then by all means do what you must. [/quote]
Uhm no…wrong…you CLEARLY did not read my assessment of IIFYM.
80% whole foods…20% other shit IF IT FITS YOUR MACROS…ALWAYS hit micronutrients daily.
Dave Tate was certainly not counting macros lol…he just ate ding dongs whenever the fuck he felt like it. I DONT do that…I may have a ding dong…but, it would be 1 ding dong and the rest lean meat, broccoli and other fibrous veg, and whole starch sources like potato…Thats IIFYM.
My avatar does not resemble Dave Tate before he started working with Berardi…
[/quote]
I did not say you resembled Dave Tate just your mentality is on course with the way Dave Tate was. If you strictly adhere to your 80 % (hopefully resembling that of an ancestral nature) / 20 % crap that’s probably doing better then most. My only discontent would be the failure of compliance to this ideal. IMO this would be a lot of wiggle room to slip from. You do mean over the span of a week right? not a day?
I think i saw the MOA that you were discussion but i am still confused on how only sugar does this? Sugar is glucose or gets converted to glucose which is the sugar you referring to that is causing the over excitation in the brain? All carbs get converted to glucose so again this should be creating the same signal? I do not think the body can differentiate between sugar carbs and oatmeal. Glucose is glucose…or maybe i am wrong please correct me if i am.
Also what about these large carbs up on the AD? Many including yourself included foods that contained this terrible sugar substance.
Or is sugar only really toxic to some people as some seem to do just fine with it.
(This is for discussion purposes as someone has to play devils advocate and i only see one other stepping up to the plate)
[quote]MODOK wrote:
What is a “macronutrient” in your opinion, facko? Is a steak a piece of protein? How about fish? What about a bowlful of hair? They all contain a substantial amount of protein, are they equivalent? What you are missing is that there really isn’t a clear cut definition of “macros and micros”, they are an illusion. As a pharmacist I have been in charge in the past of managing patients on total parenteral nutrition. We develop a formula based on all the patient’s particular “macro and micro” needs according to our best understanding of science. You know what happens? These patients stay horribly sick, their quality of life is terrible, and their life expectancy after they begin TPN therapy is very abbreviated.
Food is infinitely complex and unique mixture of both “macro, micro” and currently scientifically UNKNOWN substances. Use caution when you are categorizing and simplifying components of nutrition…it isn’t nearly as simple as tweedle dee and tweedle dum over on their websites say that it is. Their “no bullshit” schtick has, in a funny way, become a marketing act and hence “bullshit” in its own right. [/quote]
It is my understanding that Macros and Micros are certainly “real”…not illusions. Where as a calorie is kind of an illusion because it’s a man made concept created in order to explain a natural phenomena such as energy provided by the above said macros. No a plateful of hair is not the same as a piece of steak… who is debating that? Amino acid profile obviously does matter. Plus…noone without certain psychological conditions is going to sit down to a nice big bowl of hair for dinner tonight. Steak tastes better…
You truly believe that I think human physiology, nutrition, and the whole notion of food/food energy is simple? There’s not much simple about it…maybe in the simplified words and approaches we use to quantify physique or health effects of certain things consumed in substantial amounts or not consumed enough etc. But, the actual process taking place…that’s mind boggling and incredibly intricate.
My argument to you is that there are many things that can be considered addictive…I never even claimed to disagree with your assessment of whether or not sugar exhibits similar pharmacological effects as opiates perhaps. I just disagree with trying to govern peoples choices to be addicted or not. I really do. I extend that sentiment to recreational drugs as well. That is when things become a moral issue and moral ideology is what we are discussing at that point, assuming I concede the notion that sugar is an addictive drug akin to opiates or other narcotics. Use and abuse.
I choose to use sugar for the pleasure I derive from it at that point in time and I do genuinely make sure to keep tabs on my consumption. It makes up a very small portion of my overall dietary intake. I don’t expect to nor claim to understand the vast intricacies of nutrition…neither in terms of physique enhancement NOR in terms of maximizing health. Few, if any, have that level of grasp on the subject that they have definitive answers for the subject.
Others are arguing the idea that counting macros is really only necessary when you DO want to fit “junk” in your diet due to the pseudo nature of such food and the fact that such food can be so energy dense for such few bites. Therefore, setting up an environment that may cater towards over consumption of energy needs. This is bullshit to me as well. There are MANY days where I include ZERO “junk” foods. Just meat, a plethora of green vegetables and certain tuberous starches. Guess what…I can eat that food for hours and not get full…just as I could eat boxes of poptarts and not get full. You discuss the notion that ancestors ate when they were hungry and stopped when they were full…I’m assuming their propensity to get fuller, quicker…was higher than someone in our modern age consuming processed/highly concentrated food sources. Yet, what does someone like me do…if I can just as easily consume 500g of carbs from potatoes and broccoli as I can from poptarts? Not full in either circumstance. If I went entirely by satiety…You’d be watching my fat ass on TLC talking about how difficult it is for me to roll over in bed to get up in the morning.
Therefore…the best I can do is count macros…and keep track of micros…AND make sure the majority of the said intake is by way of whole food sources. I don’t start when I’m hungry…and I don’t stop when I’m full…I start when I can…and I stop when I hit the numbers.
And you are very correct in your assessment…that is a lifestyle far removed from any sane individual in our society.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
[quote]facko wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
What is a “macronutrient” in your opinion, facko? Is a steak a piece of protein? How about fish? What about a bowlful of hair? They all contain a substantial amount of protein, are they equivalent? What you are missing is that there really isn’t a clear cut definition of “macros and micros”, they are an illusion. As a pharmacist I have been in charge in the past of managing patients on total parenteral nutrition. We develop a formula based on all the patient’s particular “macro and micro” needs according to our best understanding of science. You know what happens? These patients stay horribly sick, their quality of life is terrible, and their life expectancy after they begin TPN therapy is very abbreviated.
Food is infinitely complex and unique mixture of both “macro, micro” and currently scientifically UNKNOWN substances. Use caution when you are categorizing and simplifying components of nutrition…it isn’t nearly as simple as tweedle dee and tweedle dum over on their websites say that it is. Their “no bullshit” schtick has, in a funny way, become a marketing act and hence “bullshit” in its own right. [/quote]
It is my understanding that Macros and Micros are certainly “real”…not illusions. Where as a calorie is kind of an illusion because it’s a man made concept created in order to explain a natural phenomena such as energy provided by the above said macros. No a plateful of hair is not the same as a piece of steak… who is debating that? Amino acid profile obviously does matter. Plus…noone without certain psychological conditions is going to sit down to a nice big bowl of hair for dinner tonight. Steak tastes better…
You truly believe that I think human physiology, nutrition, and the whole notion of food/food energy is simple? There’s not much simple about it…maybe in the simplified words and approaches we use to quantify physique or health effects of certain things consumed in substantial amounts or not consumed enough etc. But, the actual process taking place…that’s mind boggling and incredibly intricate.
My argument to you is that there are many things that can be considered addictive…I never even claimed to disagree with your assessment of whether or not sugar exhibits similar pharmacological effects as opiates perhaps. I just disagree with trying to govern peoples choices to be addicted or not. I really do. I extend that sentiment to recreational drugs as well. That is when things become a moral issue and moral ideology is what we are discussing at that point, assuming I concede the notion that sugar is an addictive drug akin to opiates or other narcotics. Use and abuse.
I choose to use sugar for the pleasure I derive from it at that point in time and I do genuinely make sure to keep tabs on my consumption. It makes up a very small portion of my overall dietary intake. I don’t expect to nor claim to understand the vast intricacies of nutrition…neither in terms of physique enhancement NOR in terms of maximizing health. Few, if any, have that level of grasp on the subject that they have definitive answers for the subject.
Others are arguing the idea that counting macros is really only necessary when you DO want to fit “junk” in your diet due to the pseudo nature of such food and the fact that such food can be so energy dense for such few bites. Therefore, setting up an environment that may cater towards over consumption of energy needs. This is bullshit to me as well. There are MANY days where I include ZERO “junk” foods. Just meat, a plethora of green vegetables and certain tuberous starches. Guess what…I can eat that food for hours and not get full…just as I could eat boxes of poptarts and not get full. You discuss the notion that ancestors ate when they were hungry and stopped when they were full…I’m assuming their propensity to get fuller, quicker…was higher than someone in our modern age consuming processed/highly concentrated food sources. Yet, what does someone like me do…if I can just as easily consume 500g of carbs from potatoes and broccoli as I can from poptarts? Not full in either circumstance. If I went entirely by satiety…You’d be watching my fat ass on TLC talking about how difficult it is for me to roll over in bed to get up in the morning.
Therefore…the best I can do is count macros…and keep track of micros…AND make sure the majority of the said intake is by way of whole food sources. I don’t start when I’m hungry…and I don’t stop when I’m full…I start when I can…and I stop when I hit the numbers.
And you are very correct in your assessment…that is a lifestyle far removed from any sane individual in our society. [/quote]
I know that I, for one, have never legislated any behavior. My discussion on this subject is entirely based on the scientific principles being debated. I do not give a damn if you or anyone else chooses to eat sugar. Have fun.
The construct of a “macronutrient” or a “micronutrient” is indeed an illusion. These terms and categories were invented by people attempting to categorize food constituents. If you look into it deeper however, this is impossible due to the extreme variability of food. Just as my example on TPN states, a perfectly constructed food source (TPN) according to our current medical knowledge is inadequate. This food source contains ALL of the macros and micros that we currently believe are necessary for life. More times than not the patient gets sick and fails to thrive after a period of time. Macros and micros are illusions because they fail to categorize what they seek to categorize, food, which is uncategorizable. You once asked me if you could exist on protein powder as the sole protein source for a period of time. You think of protein as the only necessity that you get from protein food sources. By your logic, a simple substitution of laboratory-prepared protein will replace the chicken or steak. But it cannot. Food really is unquantifiable. Take 10 apples from 10 orchards and you will have 10 wildly different amounts of macros and micros. Which is the correct one? 10 Grass fed beeves and CAFO beeves…same thing. Which do you choose? The proteins are different, fats are different, and each have wildly different minerals and vitamin content. How then can you look up a number in a book that says “ground beef- x protein, y fat, z carbs” ? Its an illusion to allow people to try and quantify and put in scientific terms something that is really too complex for that type of analysis.
[/quote]
The thing is…I value your words a great deal. And, I agree with basically everything you have said above.
My question then is: How do we quantify macros even in terms of bodybuilding? If there is that much variability…how is it that counting and calculating macros etc works in achieving physique goals. I.e. …100g of potato to me is roughly 20g of carbs…That’s how I choose to quantify it and I go by that. And it works for me…when I cut my carbs or increase my carbs based upon the above guidelines for potatoes and various other foods…I get physique effects.