forgot to mention, i weighed in at 189 with shorts/shirt/socks on, but I again took a **** as soon as I got home(2 days in a row of that, which is strange, as since I started this diet I've only been going once per day- about 30 minutes after I wake up.

Anklebreaker,

Before I even start, let me say thanks for taking the time. Because I am prone to long-winded debates, I often times don't come across as appreciative as I really am when people take the time to give me advice.


Ok, very first thing I notice is that I feel you're strawmanning me here. I particularly take offense at the phrase "blanket statement". If there was one "blanket statement" that I would like to use to describe my thoughts on diet it would be being open to counter-evidence, using scientific approaches to discerning between different pieces of evidence, and being open minded and objective. Note that throughout my recent posts I've used phrases such as "it seems to me that..." or "I read an article about _____ and it made a lot of sense to me."

If you're going to attribute certain ideas to me, it might be a good idea to actually quote posts of mine. That way you can be sure that I really said it, and we can see the context(Moreover, we may see that I was at fault and I was unclear in expressing certain ideas).

If you're going to paraphrase my ideas instead of quote them(which I hope you won't do, but if you do....) then please don't use words like must("one MUST do HIIT"). I'm 100% certain that I never said anything like that, and that is without a doubt a strawman argument there.


and yea, obviously I especially don't wish for you to assume I'm making certain logical jumps such as this. For the record, here is what I said:

Certainly you can see that my post is a lot less close-minded than your description of me sounds.


I fully agree that this is a common cognitive error, and I'll try to be open minded about the possibility that I'm making it. If you see me making it within this discussion, feel free to point it out.



"In brief, people have a tendency to play this cute little game where a given situation can either be exactly one thing (their preference) or exactly one other thing where that other thing is some ludicrous stupid-ass extreme example that they use to attempt to prove their preference simply by how extreme (and dumb) it is. But compared to something stupid, anything is better by comparison."

I recently watched a bunch of different food movies, one being Forks Over Knives, and I totally felt that they were committing this fallacy in that movie. They continually compared vegan diets to "meat eating diet", but when referring to "meat eating diet" they would assume that means you're eating at McDonald's for every meal. It was like they were completely unaware that its possible to eat fish, chicken, etc. without eating all the unhealthier meat choices.

I don't think I'm doing anything like this at all, but like I said, if I am then let me know specifically where I am doing it so I can change.


"The idea of eating ‘clean’ is one that runs rampant in the physique sports. Simply stated, ‘eating clean’ means eating only unprocessed foods in the diet. Well, except when it’s inconvenient, it’s always amusing watching rabid clean freaks rationalize foods that don’t fit their definition (Crystal Light comes to mind) while eliminating foods (such as dairy) which clearly do fit their definition."

For the record, this entire debate may have started over my usage of the word "clean", and I later clarified what I meant:


Basically, I just want a word or phrase that I can use to communicate to the thread "I followed my diet which is outlined in the previous posts in all of my food choices today" and "clean" seems to convey that message better than any other 5 character word/phrase I can think of. If my usage of the word "clean" has caused you to think I'm buying into certain misconceptions, then I wasn't clear/you didn't understand me.



As an aside, I really don't like this part of the article:

"I’d note that clean freaks often include a ‘cheat day’ where they go out of their way to eat the most junk humanly possible, often to the point of making themselves sick. As well, many fall into the trap whereby if even a gram of an ‘unclean’ food passes their lips, they have ruined their diet and must go binge on everything they can get their hands on. They need to read A Guide to Flexible Dieting."

This seems to be making the same mistake that Forks Over Knives made. A person claiming to eat "clean" and a person having a cheat day are completely separate issues. Pointing out that some people may be foolishly contradicting themselves is of little service to the masses who actually follow what their diet says when they are on it.


"In the clean freak’s mind, there are two binary options: you either eat clean 100% or you’re eating nothing but junk food at every meal every day. "

"the paleo eater seems to see the world as one of two things: you are either a strict paleo eater consuming nothing but meats, veggies, fruits and other paleo-approved foods or you’re living on nothing but refined grains."

I'm not saying that some people don't think this way, but this is so far from my views that I don't think its even applicable to me. I've been on this "diet"(hate that word since i want to keep it up for the rest of my life, not just shortterm) for 20 days now, and I've had at least 20 different foods that weren't organic. I still go shopping at Fresh N Easy once or twice a week, and the broccoli, chicken, asparagus, shrimp(the 4 main things I buy there) is all non-organic.


Agreed, my focus ITT is nearly always on the optimal diet for me personally. With that said my goals are quite generic(get stronger, get better cardio, lose weight), so a ton of the principles that I center my diet around are applicable to the majority of the general population. As this board is fond of saying, there are no special snowflakes.

Obviously I understand that someone who is bulking up is going to need a different diet than me when I'm trying to lose weight. This is just common sense, so I assume you realize I understand this.


And like I said to KC, please check out post #756. My diet really doesn't vary that much from day to day. Do you think I'm getting enough carbs with that diet? If not, make some recommended changes and I'll listen.


This is our first real disagreement so far. Please explain to me what you think I will gain from "moderate amounts" of hfcs, for example, that I couldn't gain from other foods that will be better than hfcs in other areas of overall health.

You seem to be implying that I think "HFCS is the worst thing ever...you can't ever have that or else you should just give up on your diet", which is not at all what I'm saying. I am saying "I can't think of a single reason why me including HFCS in my diet would get me closer to my goals than a diet that is perfect except doesn't have HFCS."

I have a super competitive personality, and I don't know why this is, but its a lot easier for me to keep up with compliance if I've been near perfect so far. The thought of "I've eaten exactly as I had hoped for 19 straight days, if I mess up today then that count will go back down to 0!" is incredibly motivating for me, and theres no way I could remove this type of motivation and still work as hard as I do(both with diet and with workout plan). As such, I strive for optimalization in all areas. I know some people's motivation works just the opposite- if they can't cheat here and there then they'll surely give up. Thats just the way my mind works.


Again I never claimed it was evil or toxic. In fact, theres 20g of sugar in every Arctic Zone Ice Cream I have and I have about 12 pints per week. One of the main ingredients is organic cane sugar.

The only claim I'm making is that I don't see how adding more sugar to my diet is closer to optimal(and I'll be open minded that I could be wrong).


These phsyiological effects...are you speaking short or long term? If you're speaking long term, then do you really think the manufacturing of HFCS has been around long enough for us to conduct extensive and unbiased research?

I'll quote part of my response to KC:


In short, I will fully admit that whatever you say about studies that have been done on the short term effects of HFCS vs organic cane sugar. However, I find it tough to trust the industry that mass-produces corn. I don't trust that they have our best interests in mind, I don't trust the FDA, I don't trust that they don't manipulate studies, I don't trust that they don't pay off doctors, and so on.

I realize that the potential for corruption exists, but I find myself having a much easier time trusting farmer's markets, Whole Foods, and any type of food store that goes out of it's way to educate its consumers on the exact ingredients and their specific nutrition. As such, even in cases where there is zero evidence that the organic choice is healthier than the non-organic choice, I would rather my money go to supporting companies that I like(not to mention the possibility that the organic option is healthier but we haven't been able to properly conduct the research yet either due to it taking multiple generations or due to big companies manipulating the data/the studies that come out).


"No evidence"? Come on, man. At the very least you could say that you aren't persuaded by the evidence, but you come across as close minded imo when you say theres none at all....

What about the steak that contained mad cow disease? That was a direct result of major companies not being regulated closely enough, choosing to maximize profit over consumer health, and the results being horrible.

What about the numerous diseases that didn't exist 100+ years ago and a ton of health experts think are a result of changes in our diet(again I can't "prove" this because we haven't had proper time/focus to do long term studies)?


Basically, this is how I feel:

We agree that veggies are good for you. We both aren't sure if spraying chemical fertilizer in the ground(to produce more crops) is harmful or not. You seem to think that the onus is on me to prove that the organic version is better. I think thats silly. I think I'll stick to eating the organic ones until you prove to me that those chemicals are safe long term.

We both agree lean meats full of protein are good for you. We both aren't sure if feeding the animal a strange diet to increase its size is harmful or not. You seem to think that the onus is on me to prove that the organic version is better. I think thats silly. I think I'll stick to eating the organic ones until you prove to me that those growth hormones are safe.

We agree that fruit is good for you(obviously if you're cutting weight you might not want to eat a ton though). We both aren't sure if spraying the non-organic pesticides is safe or not. You seem to think that the onus is on me to prove that the organic version is better. I think thats silly. I think I'll stick to eating the organic ones until you prove to me that those pesticides are safe.


Basically, I just don't see any reason to not be safer here. If I felt that I could trust the FDA, the government, the farming industry, etc. then I might not take this "better safe than sorry" approach. But given things like mad cow disease, I think its better to be safe.


point taken, although obviously the less possible harmful stuff that touches my food, the better


I'm really confused as to why you think I feel strongly about HIIT. I will gladly plead ignorance here and ask you to help me with my workout plan. In fact, just yesterday I was asking for help with my workout going forward. I listed all my goals, and pretty much told people to give any advice they had. Check out post #814- any help is appreciated.



Again I feel like you're strawmanning me when you use "anxious elimination." I will admit that when making my food choices, very rarely will I arrive at the conclusion that the optimal thing to eat is some processed food. Like I said previously, take a look at the day's diet I posted earlier and tell me specifically if you think I should eliminate anything in favor of some processed food and why.



I won't quote your entire sugar post, but again....look at my diet that I posted and tell me if you think I'm not getting enough sugar. My guess is that you'd approve of my diet a lot more than it seems based upon our debate here. But if you don't, then I will be more than willing to change my diet if you can give me good reasons for doing so.

oh, for some reason forgot to post

deadlift: 1x8x275

interestingly enough, this showed up in my RSS feed last night. http://www.dangerouslyhardcore.com/1...ns-of-organic/

I read the link to the cosmo piece at the bottom as well: http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/featur...c-food-exposed. In fact it reads like Kiefer basically just copied the cosmo piece entirely. The commenters o cosmo are pretty funny.

I haven't exhaustively checked all the references, though.

reading through the article now. It seems to me that the author doesn't share my goals of optimalization based upon quotes like this:

I've already cleaned my diet up well past the "don't drink 6 bottles of apple juice per day" mark, so I disagree with him saying " Let’s worry about the important **** first and save the minutiae for later."



btw, even if nothing were able to be proven about organic being superior to non-organic, as long as I can trust the organic sellers to not actively be trying to alter their production methods in order to maximize profit(and without regard for customer health) I think that alone is worth the extra dollar or two. Just my personal preference. Whether or not I can trust these companies, I'll admit, is still up for debate.


Also just to note, the author concludes with:

I think its rather telling that an article whose premise is based around bashing the organic industry would still conclude this about organic animal products(note: I understand theres a big difference between something being "telling" and something being "proven" and I am NOT mistaking the two)



I dunno, I read the entire article with an open mind, and it seems to be a decent article. I'll admit I'm not 100% sure either way on the issue of regular pesticides vs organic pesticides. My issue is that I feel as if I can find tons of articles that support each side, so I'd rather just be safe rather than sorry.

Let's say that I'm on board with at least the beef part of this whole organic thing. How does one know what the beef they're looking to buy has been eating? I just go to the supermarket and buy packages of chicken from that big trough of packages or a steak at the butcher counter and never really make the decision to "not" get grass-fed. I'm guessing I'd have to go to a fancier place?

Anything thats organic will almost certainly be labeled clearly as such(it enables them to charge more, so it'd be silly for them to pass organic standards and then not clearly label their product). As for how much we can trust whatever committee is doing the test to approve a product for meeting organic standards is unknown to me, but I'd trust just about anyone more than the FDA/US Government. As for your specific supermarket, just ask someone who works there...they'll know for sure.

saw, just google "grass fed beef <insert your town>" and you'll find local farms. Once winter hits and I'm eating more beef and pot roasts, I'm going to check out a place near me that does beef and pork.

I also work with a (literally) world class bbq cook and he has great sources of meat. I'm going to ask him where I can get some chicken. I'll give it a test run before I fully convert, cuz buying chicken breast for $2/lb in bulk is pretty ****ing sweet. But if it's a noticeable taste different and it's really a lot better for me, I'll spend the money, cuz I'm not really doing **** with my cash as it is.

Assani,

honestly don't know what you find problematic about this:

note he's referring to grass-fed beef/free range pork & chicken. I'm not sure "organic" beef means those things are not. The reason he says this is it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that grass fed beef is nutritionally superior to corn-feed beef in huge cramped feed lots. It also tastes a lot better. Same goes for the chicken and pork. Nothing on the produce side has been demonstrated. There's no evidence of any nutritional superiority in organic produce. There's no evidence it's better for the environment if that's a concern to you. In fact it's probably worse due to much lower yield rates. There's no evidence of genetically modified crops being harmful. It's a question of faith at this point, and I'm not letting faith cost me twice as much on produce.

just started running about 2 weeks ago, will be interested in seeing your progress

One Mile Run

date	time
July 30, 2012	7:15
August 4, 2012	7:14
August 8, 2012	7:06
August 15, 2012	7:03
August 20, 2012	6:40

F*ck yeah! Results like today make all the struggles worthwhile!

Possible reasons for today's success:

1. Slightly altered the diet by having 50 calories of coconut water immediately before workout. Huge fan of the energy I felt(felt this way even before I started working out)

2. Didn't run 1/8 mile warmup. Not sure if this was tiring me out or not, but I felt like I got enough of a warmup from ~30 minutes of stretching/foam rolling at home and some light agility drills right before my run.

3. Speaking of foam rolling/stretching, I'm moving away from static stretches before my workouts and doing more active type stretches. Of the 30 minutes that I usually take, less than 5 minutes are devoted to static stretches.

4. Good mindset. Missing that 6 mile run three days ago has been eating at non-stop the past few days. Determined to not fail like that again.

5. Empty track when I started my run(1 person came and starting walking along outer lane during my run). Not sure if this matters or not, but when the track is a little more packed I have to worry about how I'm going to pass people if/when the moment comes up and random crap like that....probably not a huge deal, but maybe it adds a second or two to my time. Its a bigger deal on the 1/8 mile track that I run on compared to a normal 1/4 mile track because you'll pass slower people more often.

6. Didn't waste time "being scared" before starting....this probably ties into #5, as I wanted to start ASAP with nobody there, but usually I have to pep talk myself for a minute or two before starting since I know its gonna be a tough workout. Today I was focused and knew what I had to do, and I just got there, quickly did my agility drills, and then started with no time wasted.


As I was running, I knew I was making good time, but I would've been happy to see anything under 7:00 and my optimistic goal was 6:55. I was pretty shocked when I looked at my IPhone and saw 6:45(I hit 'start' and then wait til :05 before starting).

Nothing at all. I had mistakenly thought that you were arguing against both organic veggies and organic meats. I wasn't aware that your only issue was with the veggies/fruits. My mistake of lack of reading comprehension skills.


I'm not positive on the semantics question either. I know that the chicken/fish I buy most days from Whole Foods is top of the line when it comes to meeting various organic and/or health standards, as they go way out of their way to list all of the precautions they take to ensure it meets various standards.


Cool. Although I'll note that even if it weren't "clearly demonstrated" I would still choose the organic option simply because, to me, I would rather be safe than sorry and I would rather not have to trust the FDA/US Government/etc.


Fair enough. We all spend on money on different things, many of which are completely unappealing to much of the rest of the general population. I'd rather spend money on what I think is the way that best ensures I'm eating as close to optimally as possible and forgo other expenditures like alcohol/eating out a lot. I can fully understand the mindset of those who will wait for absolute proof before choosing to spend their money on organic fruits/veggies.

For sure. Let me know how you're doing too(or link me to your log if you have one)!

fwiw assani your food choices would be close to mine in an ideal scenario where money had no impact on my decision making (with a ton more grass-fed, free range bacon, steak, and miscellaneous free range birds) i would be pretty pumped if the biggest issue w/ my food intake was that there might be a small chance of pesticides in my meat or veggies. and it seems like in the worst case scenario you're only slightly better than regular food, or equal. so idk seems like a pretty sick nutritional feed to me. gl.

any reason for using superfood vs whey?

also, to piggyback on what KC said. you can sometimes (i dont know if this would work in NV) purchase a full cow and they will deliver parts to you at your choosing during the year for cooking.

they do something similar for veggies and fruits with farmshares. (CSAs theyre called). the agriculture side is way more common than the meat. but the meat is growing in popularity along w/ poultry, dairy, and cheese.