Vid is full of mis/bad information. I love his "white flour causes cancer". I mean....really? This is stupid beyond belief. I also love guys training at high levels of bodybuilding coming off like they are even remotely concerned with their health. Talking about eating bad and then checking to see what it does to thier bloodwork. How can a guy say these things with a straight face?
And "I dont want anything in my body that would cause inflammation"....O-really! How much BA, BB, EO etc is flowing through their veins and he is preaching about eating foods free of pesticides. Guy is out in left field....
First of all, calm down. You are setting the pace for a discussion to turn into a BS bickering session. I will reply as you have replied.
It's a good vid bro. It's not stupid, you just don't want to believe that it is possible that optimal is not possible with IIFYM. If you take the time to listen to the whole thing and not just hear what you wanted to you would see he said IIFYM works. What he is discussing was optimal gains for people that want more than just looking good. His discussion was geared towards competitors or people gearing up to compete.
You don't know what the man does with his blood work. He said he follows IIFYM in his off season. I guess it's not possible to have blood checked in the off season.
I'll agree that the flour could have been left out and not even brought up I thought that was stupid too.
As far as not wanting anything that causes inflammation, that would fall under a risk to benefit ratio. There is much to benefit from the use of the BA, BB and EO in the AAS for the benefits of growth. On the other hand, foods that might cause inflammation have no benefit when there are other foods that will do the same thing and not. Perhaps you would see it differently if you competed in bodybuilding instead of powerlifting. Don't get me wrong, for a powerlifter, you probably look better than 85 to 90% of the guys around these boards. I take nothing away from you.
I see you did not read the article I posted. Actually a studies like this has been done. One group getting almost 50% of carbs from sucrose (table sugar) and the other group only 4%. NO difference.
FROM THE ARTICLE YOU DIDNT BOTHER TO READ:
First up, Surwit and colleagues compared the 6-week effects of 2 hypocaloric diets – one with 43% of the total calories as sucrose (table sugar), and one with 4% of the total calories as sucrose [15].
No significant differences were seen in the loss of bodyweight or bodyfat between the high and low-sucrose groups. Strengthening these results was the use of dual X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) to measure body composition. Furthermore, no differences in blood lipids or metabolism were seen between the groups.
OK, OK, OK. I read the full article that I didn't bother to read. Thank you for letting me know twice. You should have said more about the article than what you did. You made it sound like it was strictly a clean vs dirty thing. You quoted a paragraph and left a reference. You should be more specific next time.
This was from Alan Aragon. Not everyone views this guy in the same light as you. I knew I heard of this guy from somewhere so I did some checking and it turns out he is the guy that says you don't have to eat after working out. The anabolic window is 24hrs. Good thing, now I can wait about 18 hrs after my workout to use slin when I cycle back on. It doesn't matter because I have 24hrs to do it. I will have the same results because he has a study.
I found the study that he has referenced from the article you posted. It was a 6 week study from back in 97. That study proves nothing when it comes to optimal gains or losses long term. Or even a year for that matter. I've already given my experience on this. It's in the thread in the post you quoted from. I don't feel the need to repeat myself on it.
I think general health can have a large impact upon body composition. This is especially true when conditions like insulin resistance and eventually diabetes develop. But I do not believe that simply labeling one food as 'clean' and another as 'dirty' is a step towards reaching better health.
In fact our government has done this several times and look at the consequences on our general health. Remember the "fat is bad" craze? How about cholesterol....that's bad too isnt it? (better not eat eggs). Saturated fats are very bad....are they not? Now the new craze is gluten. Gluten and refined flour is the enemy. Never mind less then 1% of the population have celiacs disease. (they are really the only people that have to worry about gluten).
If I remember correctly, they had studies for this stuff. I think it was stupid too but my point is, they had studies.
In closing.....trying to label something as "clean" and another thing "dirty" based on arbitrary things such as level of processing or nutrient density is a losing battle. It will cause people to make decisions which really do not serve their general interest or do anything to help them reach their goals. I hate to bring it up....but it is just like Glycemic index. Another TOTALLY USELESS label that means NOTHING for general health or body composition..... (unless you are diabetic...but even then GL is a MUCH better tool)
