Has anybody here completely cut sugar? How long did it take you to get over withdrawal symptoms?
>>36613388
>Yes
>SeIf controI
WeII this was a quick thread!
>OP is a faggot
no because i don't fall for meme diets
1. Read the sticky
2. Delete your thread
3. Kill yourself (most important step)
Just replace it with fruit so you can enjoy sweetness while also being healthy
>>36613424
there's zero difference between fruit, a handful of high fructose corn syrup, 1/8th a glass of water a little bit of fiber and some vitamin C FYI
>>36613393
/thread
>>36613433
Antioxidants and phytonutrients brah
>>36613477
antioxidants kill gains (look it up)
phytonutrients are a meme
>>36613433
http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/diet/elements_phytochemicals.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/pdf/8313.pdf
>>36613486
this isn't the reduce cancer risk by statistically significant amount in one study despite no clear metanalytical studies corroborating that claim board, this is the gains board. if you want to start reducing your cancer risks, there are ways and supplements with a MUCH more robust body of data behind them than this garbage.
>>36613388
Fuck you lynda durham go put pebbles in ur sister's snazz
>>36613497
What supplements have a more robust body of science to back up their cancer-fighting potential than fruits and vegetables? That sounds amazing
>>36613511
>le fruits and vegetables equivocation
Vegetables are great. Fruits - not so much. See: my prior posts.
Also, take your pick of antioxidants. Literally ANY of them is more statistically robust then epidemiological correlation, which is what your claims are based on.
>>36613388
I didn't cut sugar, I just calorie count that shit nigga, goddamn this shit isn't hard.
>>36613483
>phytonutrients are a may may
lncorrent, they are a nutrient variant and exist, therefore not may mays.
>>36613483
Lol I'm not looking that up. Eating a serving of blueberries and having a cup of coffee a day is not killing anyone's gains. And no, phytonutrients are not a meme.
>>36613497
> More robust supplements with more data behind them than whole fruits and veggies
>>36613531
>Vegetables are great. Fruits - not so much.
They're essentially the same thing. If you agree one is good, it makes no sense to say the other isn't.
>Also, take your pick of antioxidants.
Like those found in fruits?
http://www.aicr.org/assets/docs/pdf/brochures/facts-about-supplements.pdf
>Every plant-based food contains many substances you need for good health, including fiber, vitamins, minerals and phytochemicals (plant chemicals), including antioxidants. Although some of these substances are isolated and sold as supplements, research suggests that we get the most protection from them when they are absorbed together from whole foods.
>>36613575
In before someone gives you shit for not posting a peer reviewed article lol
>>36613575
>They're essentially the same thing. If you agree one is good, it makes no sense to say the other isn't.
????
Vegetables are favorable because of their extremely low caloric density and high micronutrient content.
Fruits, by contrast, are packed with fructose and calorically extremely dense and have nearly zero micronutrients except for vitamin C.
Do you actually think vegetables are nutritionally equivalent to fruit or are you just kidding? I've never heard something so absurd.
>>36613388
No, I cut out foods that have added sugar or are pure sugar. You shouldn't be eating that shit anyway. An a few servings of fruit a day isn't going to kill you.
>>36613604
The phrase "fruits and vegetables" is a thing because both are antioxidant-packed and healthy-promoting. Most fruits, aside from dried fruits, also aren't very calorie-dense.
Both fruits and vegetables are known to lower your risk of virtually every disease. If you think fruits are bad for you, okay, show me the data. Should be easy if they're just the equivalent of a glass of water, some metamucil, and high-fructose corn syrup.
>>36613640
>equivocating
>ignoring the point
>shifting the goalposts
>Both fruits and vegetables are known to lower your risk of virtually every disease. If you think fruits are bad for you, okay, show me the data
The point isn't that fruits are bad for you. Drinking a glass of water with fiber is probably a pretty good way to improve health in epidemiological surveys. The point is that fruit has no intrinsic value and should be avoided in low calorie diets (and is) because of the high caloric density (fructose has been implicated in poor health, incidentally) and lack of nutritional value. By contrast, vegetables should be included in ANY diet because of their low caloric density and high micronutrient density. There's a reason that apples taste like fucking candy and brocolli tastes like a plant giant's assholes.
>>36613659
>The point is that fruit has no intrinsic value and should be avoided in low calorie diets (and is) because of the high caloric density (fructose has been implicated in poor health, incidentally) and lack of nutritional value.
The rest of the world disagrees. If you think your point is strong, lay out your data for us. Show us the "fruit does nothing" data. The WHO global burden of disease report lists inadequate fruit intake as the #1 dietary risk factor for mortality, so teach us all why fruit is worthless.
>In charting risk factors, the researchers found that diets low in fruit were responsible for more disease than obesity or physical inactivity.
>“We were very surprised,” Murray said of the fruit finding. “I’m a pretty profound diet skeptic. But the evidence on diet is as convincing as on obesity.”
>>36613700
>The rest of the world disagrees
Disagrees with what? What the fuck are you talking about?
Every bodybuilder alive avoids fruits in their cut. Every amateur alive should avoid fruits in their cut. They are not micronutrient dense (apples don't provide any significant micronutrients except for C, which is an extremely rare deficiency).
Fruit can reduce cravings in the average unhealthy person relative to a large coke because it has a lot of water and fiber, both of which will reduce caloric intake and improve health. It has nothing to do with a little bit of fructose and pseudoscientific 'antioxidants', none of which validate themselves even in hyper-concentration. If you want 'antioxidants', take a C tablet - that's probably 1000-10,000x as much as you'll find in an apple - and you won't be any healthier for it.
>>36613780
>Disagrees with what? What the fuck are you talking about?
That fruits have no intrinsic value and should be avoided in most diets, and that they're no more healthy than a vitamin C tablet. You're just talking out of your ass. You might as well be saying "you can get all the benefits of vegetables by just taking a multivitamin and a fiber supplement"
>>36613823
Fruits should be assessed within the parameters of a diet based on their macros (extremely fructose dense), and their micros (you're not getting any from fruit).
Read the sticky.
>>36613839
>extremely fructose dense
>most fruits range between 150-250 calories per POUND of food
But okay, you must atleast have some data showing that the fructose in whole fruits is bad to be concerned about that. Share it with us. Like I said, the report that looked at 235 causes of death, involved over 400 researchers and 300 universities, and took 5 years to finish, found low fruit intake to be the worst thing you can do with your diet.
>and their micros (you're not getting any from fruit).
Aside from the aforementioned phytochemicals, they tend to be good sources of vitamin C, potassium, B vitamins, and manganese as well. For such low calorie foods, like vegetables, they're a good investment in any diet. A cup of strawberries has 50 calories and 150% of your DV for vitamin C, as well as being very dense in healthy phytochemicals.
>>36613935
Epidemiological correlatory studies that control for NO variables have nearly zero value in understanding nutrition.
Fruits are fine - most people don't consume nearly enough fiber, and all of that water will slow down their food consumption, reducing their overall caloric intake.
This has no value to someone on a calorie controlled diet, ie. everyone on this board, everyone who is serious about nutrition.
Health is mostly a function of calories in/out, avoiding obesity, and hitting your micronutrient ratios. 'Antioxidants' and other such crazes have very little backing a positive effect on 'health', and are nearly universally not justifiable in a fitness-related diet.
Fruits are micronutrient sparse. Vegetables are micronutrient dense.
I'm not repeating myself again. If fruits fit your MACROS - they're fine. That's why bodybuilders and people looking to consume a lot of calories might eat fruit. Any bodybuilder or normal person on a cut will not consume fruit.
That's end of story. This is a fitness board. We're not here to make vague woo-claims based on health, were here to improve fitness. Fruit is only of tangential interest in fitness related diets. Vegetables, on the other hand, are extremely important so as to avoid micronutrient deficiencies.
Everything that you need to understand is in this post, and does not bear a fourth or fifth posting.
>>36613972
>bodybuilders would never consume fruit
Come on, man
>>36613985
Why did you ignore half of that sentence?
Do you know what a "cut" is? I mean, it's painfully obvious you don't know anything about nutrition, fitness or weightlifting, so it's possible.
>>36613433
the difference is that with fruit, the sugar is caught up in the fibrous web and therefore takes longer to dissolve and absorb
>>36613992
Fructose has a very low glycemic load to begin with without having some weird broscience explanation.
>withdrawal symptoms
>sugar
kill yourself
>>36613433
>what is fibre
>>36613988
>Any bodybuilder or normal person on a cut will not consume fruit.
>not objectively meaning "Any bodybuilder, or normal person on a cut, will not consume fruit."
i gues you can't into basic English syntax
>>36614010
My sentence was grammatically correct.
>>36614015
of course it was correct, it just didn't mean what you intended it to :^)
>>36614003
>what is dependency
You should know you mommas boy teet sucking shitlord
>>36614022
No, my sentence was adequate as intended. You just misread and/or misapplied the rules of English you learned in ESL.
![DietIHMEimage3-620x506[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/XjKMXVb.png "DietIHMEimage3-620x506[1].png")
>>36613972
Let me restate what I'm saying again then. Everybody in the world recommends including fruits in your diet, a wide body of research supports fruits as health-promoting foods, the largest report on death and disease identified low fruit intake as the most significant risk factor for diet-related mortality, and fruits are in fact low-calorie and dense in micronutrients, including phytochemicals, as well.
>If fruits fit your MACROS - they're fine
Why did you even post then? All my post said was "I eat fruits I can enjoy sweet foods while also getting the health benefits of fruit," nothing about cutting on a deficit so low that the only macro I could fit in is protein, and your response was "fruits are basically just high fructose corn syrup." Fuck out of here.
>>36614024
>dependent
>sugar
no seriously kill yourself
>>36614037
If you can't accept that fruit is nutritionally more or less equivalent to high fructose corn syrup, I don't know what to tell you. Yes, it helps to slow your roll when you're eating if you're not on a calorie controlled diet, which fiber and water help you do. Yes, fiber is really good for you if you're not getting enough, which is really good on an inadequate diet (which doesn't apply to anyone on this board).
For our purposes and intentions, fruit is a bunch of fructose padded out by fiber and water. None of us have scurvy. Vague, woo claims based on inferences you made from correlations that didn't control for anything should be assessed with actual studies on substances such as antioxidants, which seem to have very little positive effect on health even in megadosages.
The problem is that your association of "fruit" with "healthy" is so ingrained that atomization into the active components (fiber, vitamin C, fructose, water) is too outrageous for you to believe. But it is precisely this atomization, or deconstruction, that allows someone to understand what role fruit plays in a diet.
Fruit has nothing in it that makes it a staple of any diet. Fructose has a low glycemic load, which is fine, water and fiber slow down your eating, improve your digestion and have a host of other benefits, which is again quite fine, but these benefits can all be isolated and identified.
Fruit doesn't fit cuts, which have very little real estate reserved for nutritionally dense foods, such as vegetables and meat. End of discussion.
![41d[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/f757ZdO.png "41d[1].png")
>>36614068
>If you can't accept that fruit is nutritionally more or less equivalent to high fructose corn syrup, I don't know what to tell you.
And I don't know what to say because you're ignoring everything I'm posting. You're asserting that everyone in the world is wrong, all the gathered data is worthless bullshit, and that you're right just because. Again, show me the data. Support what you're saying with some body of facts. If you can't do that, you're talking out of your ass.
>>36613388
Former 295 pound lard ass reporting. Now spoopy assed 135 pound skeleton. It took about 2 weeks of hard discipline to let over my love for sugar. Now that I lost the weight though, I do indulge in it, but at a drastically reduced rate.
>>36614109
I'm giving you the blueprint for a robust worldview.
We already know what's in fruit. We know what roles each of its major elements have in diet, which have been independently corroborated in actual studies with controls and the like.
The problem with an epidemological correlation is that it doesn't allow us to add any kind of nuance to the discussion. It isn't, however, difficult to do so, because the major elements of fruits have been very robustly studied (those that play a major role in diet), and those elements that play a minor role in diet (antioxidants and the like), have been studied fairly robustly, and the data available isn't at all convincing. We know that MEGADOSING antioxidants is dubious, so pica-dosing antioxidants can't be much better.
On the other hand, those MAJOR components of fruit (which I've identified) with active roles in the human diet are easily cleaved from the construct of 'fruit' in your mind and discussed independently. Fructose, water, fiber, vitamin C. A combination that doesn't fit the real estate of a low calorie diet, and provides little benefit for a high calorie diet beyond fitting in your macros, fiber and water intake.
>>36614142
>I'm giving you the blueprint for a robust worldview.
You're just saying "fruit is corn syrup according to me." Why? Where's the data?
>We already know what's in fruit
Apparently you don't, and when I show you, you say "that's just woo and nonsense." Obviously it isn't.
All I'm asking is for you to either support your argument with a sort of reality we can both experience, or stop talking out of your ass. The entire world agrees on this and your objection is basically "I bet everyone's wrong."
>>36614201
What "data" are you looking for, exactly? Do you not know what fructose and high fructose corn syrup are? If you're interested in the role that micro/macro nutrients and fiber play in diet, read the sticky.
Apples 52kcal per 100g
Cocacola 46kcal per 100g
Apples are literally worse than soda.
>>36614244
Another thing that you have to take into account is that HFCS is theoretically slightly more healthy than pure fructose because it includes glucod
>>36614216
>What "data" are you looking for, exactly?
Anything to support the idea that there's no functional difference between high-fructose corn syrup with a fiber and vitamin C supplement, and blackberries or plums or peaches. I've already quoted the AICR in saying that isolated supplements aren't as good as the full spectrum of nutrients a whole food like fruit offers, and other papers explaining the antioxidant content and benefits of the phytochemicals in fruits. You're reducing it to just looking at the vitamin content and deducing that getting the bare minimum of vitamin C needed to avoid deficiency is good enough, and that's all the benefit a food could offer you.
>>36614282
First of all, getting adequate levels of a water soluble vitamin like C is as simple as taking a massive dose. It doesn't matter if it somehow has inferior absorption (which is a dubious claim depending on supplement quality and coadministration of food). As such, the probability of a first worlder being deficient in vitamin C is extremely low. It doesn't really happen.
Now, as for massive doses of antioxidants and vitamins, do they confer any benefit? Usually, no. There's sparse evidence (well explained by examine.com for individual substances), but they rarely live up to the hype.
A carb is a carb. Fiber is fiber. Water is water. The source doesn't matter. These are the major relevant elements of fruit, and they are non-factors in a healthy diet.
That all being said, vegetable consumption is PROBABLY superior to a multivitamin because of bioavailability problems with low quality supplementation and the like. I would be willing to hear an argument out that they could be entirely replaced, though, with high quality multivitamins.
>>36614282
100g of broccoli will give you 150% of the daily recommended amount of Vitamin C.
Tests during WW2 showed that as little as 10% of the daily recommended amount was enough to reverse scurvy.
As such just eat 7g of broccoli and you are good to go.
>>36614307
Vitamin deficiency isn't the issue and it makes no sense to reduce things to that. But of course higher blood levels of nutrients are better than "adequate" levels of nutrients, so that's a stupid thing to argue in the first place.
>Now, as for massive doses of antioxidants and vitamins, do they confer any benefit? Usually, no. There's sparse evidence (well explained by examine.com for individual substances), but they rarely live up to the hype.
As was said earlier, extracted compounds aren't the same as the synergistic effects of the thousands of compounds in a single food source. An apple doesn't have one antioxidant compound that you can isolate for all the benefits of an apple. The compounds work together.
http://preventcancer.aicr.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10655&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=pr_hf_
>Substantial laboratory evidence shows antioxidants may slow or possibly prevent the development of cancer. Studies of large populations usually show that people with diets high in foods that supply antioxidants develop less cancer than those whose diets focus on foods relatively low in antioxidants, such as meat, sweets and other refined carbohydrates. However, large-scale tests of individual antioxidant nutrients often show no effect on cancer risk or even increased risk among certain people.
>Studies now show phytochemicals in a variety of plant foods supply most of the antioxidants we consume. Researchers say that this may help explain why adding just one or a few antioxidants in supplements does not produce the cancer protection seen in people eating a plant-based diet loaded with different phytochemicals.
And that's also the main reason vegetables are healthy, not just because they can help you avoid nutrient deficiency. Ginger root doesn't help with nausea and migraines because it's a good source of vitamins, tea doesn't make your arteries work better because of its mineral content.
>>36613395
>meme
Are you arguing that sugar has a valid place in a healthy bodybuilding diet?
>>36614411
Please see the website I linked for actual meta-analytical study aggregation of the data for 'antioxidants'.
The rest is you just spewing the same shit and ignoring the points that have been repeatedly made in this thread.
This isn't a health board.
This isn't a cancer prevention board.
This isn't a board where we assess epidemiological evidence for how the African-American population can reduce their lung cancer rates by 5% in one study.
Even if it were, the actual data supporting antioxidants is hardly robust.
I'm done with you. You've made me repeat myself several times. At the very least, you abandoned most of your claims when you realized they weren't at all robust, and became equivalent to a guy running a vegan website with your cherry picking.
>>36613388
Mostly cut with occasional relapses. Usually takes me a few days, same as caffeine withdrawal
>>36614411
>antioxidants slow cancer
isn't that what killed steve jobs? ate too many antioxidants to fight his cancer
>>36613388
Yes. 3 days. After that don't eat any sugar and it's easy.
>>36614452
despite the new title /fit/ will always be a health board to me.
>>36614452
You didn't link a website, but again you're ignoring that isolated compounds aren't the same as the spectrum of antioxidant compounds that work together in a food. You're creating a strawman argument.
>The rest is you just spewing the same shit and ignoring the points that have been repeatedly made in this thread.
>I'm done with you. You've made me repeat myself several times. At the very least, you abandoned most of your claims when you realized they weren't at all robust
What claim did I abandon? The thread started with you implying fruits are unhealthy, then changing your tune to "fruits aren't bad if they fit your macros" when I pointed out how every qualified expert who studies this professionally agrees that fruits are healthy foods, and the most comprehensive summary of data ever compiled says a diet low in fruits is responsible for more deaths than any other diet-related thing in the world. Your response to all of this was to just claim over and over that the entire world is wrong about eating fruits because you don't understand what phytochemicals are and how they effect health, and therefore scientists must be making things up or getting their facts wrong. I have to repeat myself because you've never made an argument. You're pulling things out of your ass that you know nothing about, and expecting me to take your word against the rest of the world with no supporting evidence that the only reason to eat fruit is for some vitamin C, which also doesn't matter if your gums aren't bleeding.
>this isn't a health board
>this isn't a cancer prevention board
WHY did you bother to post? I don't get why you're so rabidly anti-fruit that you had to butt in with your uneducated opinion and tell everyone blueberries are worthless because they aren't going to develop scurvy anyway.
>>36614516
Pancreatic cancer is what killed him. He waited for months to do anything about it because he didn't want to have surgery, then at the last minute tried using naturopathic treatments against his aggressive cancer that had been developing for years.
Carbs fuck me up and trigger my acne. I didnt cut it completely just reduced it. I only eat some white rice and the cravings subside. No bread or pasta or anything else. I mainly eat fat and protein
First time posting here in /fit
I'm a fatbody, 325 lbs, 6 foot 4 with a large frame. No excuse, I still have tits, and a gut i want to lose.
Today I joined the gym. Spent 40 minutes on a cycle, then cycled chest / arms / biceps 10 reps each for 3 sets each.
First time in the gym since 10 I was 21. I mainly want to cut weight. Later Ill worry about the muscle.
I've already started a healthier diet. Nuts and lean meat scraps as snacks. and Veggies / Chicken breasts or fish as means,(eggs for breakfast)
What I would like to know, as a huge guy... remember, 6 foot 4, and 325 lbs witha big frame... should I JUST do cardio ? 40m to 1h ? Lift afterwards?
Any and solid advice will be followed.
Thank you in advance.
Pic related. Guy in the middle.
>>36614645
weight loss is 90% diet
>>36614657
Thank you but I'm just trying to get the most out of the gym time.
>>36614675
Then stick with weights. The bigger your muscles, the more calories you use just living.
Also cardio can be dangerous to larger people. Either from increased risk of cardiovascular episodes, or from injury to joints and tendons.
>>36614686
I shouldnt do cardo? The bike seemed pretty harmless.
>>36614716
PT here
first of all i need to stress that diet is the most important part.
second is mentality.Dont get caught in the whole 'snack so i dont lose muh muscle' mentality else your game is lost.stay focused.
About the exercise:
as a begginer you should generally do 30 minutes of light cardio every day and lift 3 to 4 days a week.you could follow a split or a full body routine.I recommend starting with a full body routine with light volume for the first 3 weeks and then switch to a split later on.
A typical full body routine could be:
30m cardio
4x12 squats
4x12 deadlifts
leg stretches
4x12 bench press
4x12 overhead press
2xF plank
and after you follow this for a few weeks you can split your work days into muscle groups or related exercises and increase the volume as well as add accessory work.
useful accesories could be:
lat pulldowns,dumbbell shrugs,face pulls,rows,tricep extensions/pushdowns,curls,calf raises,etc
Dont egolift and remember the only way to succeed is to stay as injury free as possible.Lift up to 60-70% of your capacity for the first month and imo stay away from pullups,dips and running on hard surfaces until you lose some weight to avoid injury to your joints.
Goodluck anon
Been clean for 11 weeks
It took like a month or so to get rid of the cravings
>>36614815
>Spent 40 minutes on a cycle, then cycled chest / arms / biceps 10 reps each for 3 sets each.
Thank you so much> I will copy paste this to my wall and follow it to a "T"
>>36613997
True, but dietary fiber does lower the GL of food.
>>36614452
Lurker here, this guy is right. To the other person you're wrong.
>>36614815
Arent PTs just glorified experienced sport ethusuiasts?
>>36614068
>meat
>nutrient dense
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>>36614855
Oh, okay
>>36614865
Mhmm
>>36614244
Iifym fag
>>36614872
>health
>advocates iifym
>>36614645
Eat 1000 calories below TDEE.
I've cut all added/processed sugar by accident, it was not my intention.
>>36614645
STICKY
T
I
C
K
Y
>>36614938
Please feel free, I'll post results in a month.
>>36614862
to be honest i believe my job is 30% motivating clients and 70% preventing them from fucking their shit up
also i have to add that over half of the "personal trainers" out there are clueless gym rats that hopped on gear or just look swole and don't know rat shit when it comes to anatomy and planning.
Not everybody needs a personal trainer but if you're well off and you just dont have time to research fitness,diet and health you just dont care about that 30-50 bucks a session.
>>36614452
>Epidemiological correlatory studies that control for NO variables have nearly zero value in understanding nutrition.
literally every epidemiological study published in the 21st century controls for confounders, retard
>>36614449
sugar has a valid place in every diet you mouthbreathing retard, 'sugar' does not mean eating pure cane sugar or drinking pure syrup
All carbs are made of sugars
>>36614645
stick finger in your ass x f
