Guys on this forum obsessively fret over their weight like some prom queen trying to fit into a new dress for the dance. Life is to short and food is to good to fuss about what you eat all the time. I pretty much eat a mostly healthy diet and I could care less if it’s fats or carbohydrates. If I want to lose weight I just eat a little less or up my cardio. Most importantly stop eating out so much. A sure way to add on the blubber is eating out for lunch or dinner all the time .
Scott
1 Like
Storing carbs as body fat via de novo lipogenesis is inefficient. By comparison, storing dietary fat in body fat reserves is easy and efficient. Fact!
It’s not a matter of efficiency, it’s a matter of toxicity. The body metabolise carbs first due to its Inherent toxicity levels. Hence the fallacy ‘carbs are the preferred energy source’. Even then, you have very limited capacity to store glycogen. So in the presence of other macros, carbs go first, fat is stored for rainy days. But here’s the rub, the body has no option but to store any carbohydrate surplus in fat cells. If you are metabolically healthy then this is not a huge concern. Otherwise, brace yourself for metabolic syndrome.
Again, your post has actually undermined your own argument.
There you said it - Carbohydrates and toxicity in the same sentence. It’s like when my homeopathic relative blame all cancers on “sugar”. Come on. Life expectancy on different diets?
1 Like
The body will store surplus fat and surplus protein as fat also…not just surplus carbohydrates
Carbs are toxic…lol…so, since the beginning of time man has been eating toxins
1 Like
This is really basic biochemistry. Ruminants natural defence mechanism is to run away. Plants don’t have that option. What they have is toxins to ward off predators.
Some authorities dare to acknowledge this. For example, the quote below is from Hong Kong’s Centre for Food Safety.
‘Natural toxins are poisonous substances present naturally in fruits and vegetables. They are produced by plants to defend themselves against fungi, insects and predators, and offer a protective mechanism for the plant.’
As stated, this has been well known for decades.
As Antonio’s excess protein feeding studies showed, it’s rather difficult to gain fat from high protein intake even in an energy surplus. Again, you’re sliding into the ‘calorie is just a calorie’ argument.
Eat 10 pounds of beef a day and see if you lose or gain weight
Keep falling for that, lol
There is also traces of alcohol in almost any food. What does alcohol originate from? Yet another toxicicity paradox. LOL
2 Likes
Good point broached here, namely the tendency of “alternative” practitioners to have their pet topics that are either demonized or heralded. Self serving bias abounds in these fields. I’m a recovering quack with an alternative healthcare background, before I wised up and relied on critical thinking and relying more on the science part of my education rather than the science fiction. And the irony is that such people often tout how much critical thinking they have, all the while ignoring any glaring fallacies, as they deride the more mainstream beliefs and their adherents.
Mind you, I like these discussions that we have here as well as thought provoking discussions in general, a healthy exchange of information and viewpoints is a good thing. But it was a big turnoff throughout my college years having to have everything crammed in your face with no allowance for opposing viewpoint (both instructors and students were guilty of this). The aforementioned sugar hypothesis, inflammation as the as the go to default for every argument about pathology, and as we have seen in this thread, the favorite macro/micro nutrient of the day.
My opinion for what it is worth, is that anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and thermodynamics give us the solid foundation needed to support or refute these concepts. Problem is, a lot of pseudoscience is mixed in with the legit out there, which makes it hard to separate wheat form the chaff, compounded all the more by the glut of info on the net. This is the same problem we see in regard to training as well, a shame because neither area should really be made to be overcomplicated. You really do have to do what Bruce Lee espoused, take what is useful, disregard the rest.
1 Like
Well, with that said, give us your take on optimum nutrition
This over feeding study was very interesting to me and has encouraged me to try to really crank up the amount of protein I eat daily. My calories are, in total, way up from where I was (around 1500 calories to now eating closer to 2500 and closer to 3000 on training days, but I haven’t really been counting). I don’t have an exact protein goal in mind, but I base every meal around protein and have several protein shakes throughout the day. Additionally on training days, I do about half a box of cereal (Fruity Pebbles or Oatmeal Cream Pie cereal being my favorites) with a vanilla protein shake poured on top post workout! The results through this and Fortitude Training have been unbelievable! I’m arguably leaner and up from 169 to 186 since starting this protocol May 16th to now!
Sorry for the long write-up, but I can certainly advocate for going very high protein, based off of personal experience.
The bottom line, what do your numbers look like? How is your BF%? How are your lipids? Resting glucose? C-Reactive Protein? Blood Pressure? If you can maintain good levels and feel good on whatever reasonable diet, I really don’t think it matters so much. If you’re struggling somewhere, it might be worth looking into what and how much you’re eating.
Come on dude, you’re better than that!
These guys ate around 300g of protein with a calorie surplus of 800 kcals a day for 8 weeks and didn’t gain any fat! That’s 5.5 times recommended daily allowance of protein!
I speak from personal experience…4 years ago I was almost 230 with a 40 inch waist
Did the Atkins, did the keto, did the high protein, did Girondas steak and eggs and could not lose a pound and was still fat and my cholesterol was almost 400
Did Darden’s high carb, low fat and protein reduced calorie and I am at 200 with a 35 waist as we speak…I still have a ways to go to reach my goal of between 180 and 190 but I will not go back to high fat or high protein…so, am I better than that?
1 Like
In normal pathology, someone with your starting numbers should be able to lose a pound or two on almost every diet known to man.
You would 
, but it didn’t
So Dardens was the only one that you reduced calories for? A caloric deficit in any of those diets would make you lose weight, especially at that weight, and it’s not “I think”, it’s you not being above the laws of thermodynamics.
This might be a hard pill to swallow, but putting aside what’s “optimal”, if you did ANY diet and didn’t lose weight at that weight and waist size, you did something wrong outside of how you split your macros.