I am pretty sure that is only the case in excess amounts energy.

people are still getting fatter even though sugar consumption is down



low-carb vs low fat: in practicality and reality both diets work very well

https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fa...r-weight-loss/


as I said overconsumption is the biggest problem in our society. If people learned portion control this would also inherently lower sugar consumption. I've been on keto diets and yes even though I was only consuming slightly less calories I did lose a little bit of weight and all my blood markers got slightly better. But when I just started dieting despite eating chit like ice-cream and what not all my blood markers improved significantly.

https://www.rd.com/health/diet-weigh...with-twinkies/

also this dude literally ate mostly twinkies and lost a chit load of weight and almost all of his blood markers improved. A lot of it really comes down to calories in vs calories out as cliche as it may seem. Not saying refined sugars, processed foods and additives are healthy or anything but losing weight alone seems to make people significantly more healthier and decrease their susceptibility to a lot of diseases.

It's almost as if the main cause of weight gain is excess calorie intake and that reducing calories reduces weight gain regardless of where you cut the calories

so weird

It’s almost like you over simplified everything in a pseudo-intellectual way to avoid thinking in depth and instead resorted to the “cookie cutter” answers everyone always tries to push as the absolute truth

So weird

from when i was a kid everybody knew cigarettes and sugar were bad for you.

Only thing that really messed up people was the studies on eggs and saying how it was high in cholesterol and would increase a persons cholesterol dramactically.

what you just said is the equivalent of saying skin cancer is the problem and not sun exposure. smh

My statement, if you read it carefully, was that the presence of insulin does not increase nett fat. It will surely be the hormone responsible for fat storage When the individual is in a ENERGY SURPLUS, but you are simply not going to be building an energy reserve (fat) when you eat less than you burn.

Sorry chap, thermodynamic principles still hold true in every system (the concept we are after here is the principle of conservation of energy) you are not going to deposit 9kcal worth of energy as surplus when your body isn't getting it. Biosystems are no more exempt from this rule than a simple crank etc. The implication that insulin causes nett fat gain is foolish, it is part of the mechanism responsible for producing fat when you have excess energy, not some demon hormone that turns sugar into the fat fairy, dispensing greasy blessings to cover your gains.

Angered at myself for having a fountain pop today, I generally avoid sugar as much as possible. Hormones and genetics obviously play a big role in how your body utilizes various compounds. Lots of people have horrid diets with lots of sugar and don't get fat as fuk, yet others bloat up and become morbidly obese. If it were all calories in versus calories out, i dont think there would be as many fat people.

I didn't over simplify anything. I was referring to a very specific result in a semi-humorous and not-entirely-serious manner. For some reason you inferred otherwise and became inexplicably offended by it, presumably because you're an idiot

I don't know. I've lost significant weight cutting carbs and fast. But I also may have inadvertently lowered my total calories in doing so because carbs are typically loaded with cals.

Likely because they are capable of disproportional protein synthesis - more energy metabolized to create muscle as a result of their bikes. That said, bike riders need to cut in order to get ripped, and with extreme discipline also - they get fat if they eat in a energy surplus just like anyone else.

Individual machine efficiency will always play a role in how energy is conserved, but aside from wild outliers the vast majority of people will be just fine taking in a reasonable amount of sugar. The crux lies in the word "reasonable"... I am not advocating an all sugar diet - not by a long shot, but it just rustles my jimmies when people demonize a macro or energy source as "the reason people are fat". People get fat for a myriad of reasons, but it not because "xx" is a "bad" food, its because they eat too much of "XX XY XZ" etc. I have lived this, and have been paying the agonizing dues of energy restriction over the last 18 months as a result - with sugar and chocolate thrown in the mix also.

So what exactly do you eat?

So you‘re implying that consuming meat is healthier than comsuming the nutritional dense food like veggies and fruits just because some of them are high in sugar?
It‘s retarded to even think about limiting your fruit intake due to high sugar content, your body metabolically responds totally different to fruit sugar which comes with fiber and vitamins compared to simply refined sugar.

^ more sugar company propaganda

this

What about fruit juice? (I drink orange juice everyday almost)

Granted, I am a biochemist.

The best place to start is here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2897177/

Being fat adapted and choosing fat as your primarily fuel source allows for a massive and movable ceiling of burning triacylglycerol for energy. However, a lot of the ketp hype is garbage since the supporters (I am a supporter of keto) often ignore the role of acylation stimulating protein. ASP has a large impact on fat gain, albeit in a very roundabout way. When you let the insulin response runaway as a result of **** diet, the two work in tandem to make miscers ****ing blubber butts.

https://www.nature.com/articles/0802369

"In this study, a competitive ELISA assay for ASP has been developed using immunospecific polyclonal antibodies, and ASP levels have been measured in seven normal subjects. Following an oral fat load, a sustained significant increase in ASP occurs, whereas after an oral glucose load, ASP levels do not change significantly."

At the same time, being fat adapted and increasing ASP without increasing insulin by any significant amount still allows for fat burning to occur. This is one reason why low carb/fat adaptation allow people to get away with more flexibility in their calories. Trying to burn fat with an insulin spike is, by comparison, infinitely harder.

Im too ****ing tired to correct this with evidence now, but no. Well, you arehalfright.

The glycemic load of many fruits isn't nasty even though the glycemic index is high. The glycemic load provides a better prediction for insulin spikes. This doesnt mean the body innately responds differently to the sugar in fruits. That's lazy thinking. It also doesn't make eating them all the time good for you.

Solution:Eat your mnutritionally dense, low glycemic load fruits during a small window of the day (say 8 hours or less). Grazing on fruits all day is not good for the average person who doesn't have any nutritional deficiencies as it can substantially elevate insulin for prolonged periods. How long and by how much depends on individual genetics, fitness, and dietary habits over time.

The ideas people have on diet literally depress me. **** education in this country and **** the sugar industry for brainwashing everyone in the first place.

Religion of peace

Refined Sugar(Frutose) has caused more death and destruction than majority of wars. These a special place in hell for Ancel Key and a special place in heaven for John Yudkin. Don't even get me started on the toxic effects of grains. Yet these two toxic substances are the most consumed foods in the world. Evil has won in the West and its tentacles slowly spreading throughout the world.

Men were clearly created and made to develop and operate on Fat.

What's so bad about grains?

Read the first study - managed to get something useful out of it.

The second one, not so much - I dont have any appreciable knowledge of ASP's metabolic role so this mostly went over my head.

Genetic propensity aside, assuming perfect self discipline in the individual in question, what practical difference (in your opinion) would there be in terms of fat loss with identical 500kcal deficits - one from a typical balanced macro profile, and one where discretionary carb calories all come from sugar?

Sugar actives the brain more than *******. Cereals are cheap to produce, it is normal for companies to see the benefits of selling poison to the human body.

Grains destroy the gut lining. Gut lining is made of soft tissue which is super sensitive. When damaged through grains, it can takes months to heal. Even if just damaged once. Grains are a toxin and a poison. And the fact the FDA and other nations suggest it should make the bulk of our diet; shows how evil some governments actually are. Cannot describe any other word for allowing the consumption of grains and refined sugar

You can tell this by how many people die at such a young age these days, ingesting such a potent poison every single day, compared to the 1800's when pretty much everyone lived to a healthy 100 years. All the grains I have eaten have by now eroded my stomach lining to the point where I now can only absorb food telepathically.

smh.

Never heard that before. Source?

Settle down, grains are not an organ melting toxin FFS.

The fiber is removed from the fruit, and you drink "water with glucose". With fiber the body respond more slowly, and it does not have a pike of sugar, like you drink coca cola.

Food of peace strikes again.

Just lol if you're not switched to all diet sodas and sweeteners instead of sugar.

Every student should be taught how they can track macros and calories in/out.