Carbs make you fa-

what is this thing and how did it become green?

it's these faggots' jesus christ
called vegan nogains he's a green goblin retard that makes videos on the internet about how being vegan is best diet while fucking his totally not a tranny gf(male)
he's been stalling for 10 years but decided to not be a skinny mutt so he started roiding

solid debunk of OP 10/10

yes if you keep fat very low then you won't gain (much) bodyfat. Every study on de novo lipogenesis supports that

why is he green in every pic? filter?

Finally, have thought about making one of those pics after explaining this to brainlets on here countless times. Saved.

I recommend everyone interested to listen to ClimbSci podcast, they have 3 episodes. One for carbs, one for fat and one for protein. They are long but gives very good info. Relevant to this would be the one of carbs of course.

good man

anti carb shit is retarded

I would like to try this but I'm concerned if I cut fat too much I'll lose gains

atm I'm doing

60/20/20 with not too much fat gain

concerning obsession with vg you have there

Yeah no buddy

Nice argument.

Anyone who actually lifts knows that carbs are a top tier macro.
People who say carbs are evil are middle aged moms and turbodyels.

Carbs>Raises bloodsugar>Past a certain point free fatty acids are no longer utilized and only the glucose(from the carbs). Free fatty acids come from your fat storages(your fat ass). No fat loss occurs. This is for the laymen. This fred is bait lads, move along

this is about fat gain not fat loss cunt

If you want to maximize performance for optimal muscle breakdown for larger growth, carbs are great. If you want to lose bodyfat, carbs are not so great.

completely retarded

completely true

>fat makes you fat

Buuuullllshiiitt, FFA's are always used to varying degrees and especially at low to moderate intensity. Postprandial(after meal) rise in blood sugar is short and occurs about an hour after a meal and then declines to normal.

At no point is only glucose or FFA's used, they just vary in ratio. So your whole point fails. On just that point.

So in reality:

Carbs>Raises bloodsugar>Body fills stores and uses as energy, minimal fat storage occurs>During whole day FFA's are used>Replacing fats that continue to fill up stores with carbs will have an favorable effect on fat loss long term.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26278052

"Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity."

"Dietary carbohydrate restriction has been purported to cause endocrine adaptations that promote body fat loss more than dietary fat restriction. We selectively restricted dietary carbohydrate versus fat for 6 days following a 5-day baseline diet in 19 adults with obesity confined to a metabolic ward where they exercised daily. Subjects received both isocaloric diets in random order during each of two inpatient stays. Body fat loss was calculated as the difference between daily fat intake and net fat oxidation measured while residing in a metabolic chamber. Whereas carbohydrate restriction led to sustained increases in fat oxidation and loss of 53 ± 6 g/day of body fat, fat oxidation was unchanged by fat restriction, leading to 89 ± 6 g/day of fat loss, and was significantly greater than carbohydrate restriction (p = 0.002). Mathematical model simulations agreed with these data, but predicted that the body acts to minimize body fat differences with prolonged isocaloric diets varying in carbohydrate and fat."

btfo sciencelets

Calories make you fat

>6 day study
Fuck off

> Thinks a 6 day metabolic ward experiment is poor evidence

brainlets....

>yes if you keep fat very low then you won't gain (much) bodyfat. Every study on de novo lipogenesis supports that

Ok well prove it with yourself. Eat nothing, but sugary sweets every meal of the day, in a huge excess of the calories you need. Do it for like 6 months and then show results. Get back to us with results.

CTFU m8

youtu.be/GKJRI4_ojcw

>implying

BTFO by durianrider

Who has claimed that you can "Eat nothing but sugary sweets every meal of the day, in a huge excess of the calories you need. For like 6 months" and not gain weight? that is not even close to what anyone is talking about you retard.

I think that is alphadestiny After becoming vegan

>in a huge excess of the calories you need.
This image was made JUST for reards like you
>image instead of big boy words for spergs with a short attention span at the bottom

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524030/

"Theoretically, based on the amount of ATP required for the initial steps of metabolism and storage, the DIT is different for each nutrient. Reported DIT values for separate nutrients are 0 to 3% for fat, 5 to 10% for carbohydrate, 20 to 30% for protein [16], and 10 to 30% for alcohol [6]."

People that cut fat in that study increased carbs and protein. Per 100 calories, your body uses 2 to digest fat, 8 to digest carbs, and 25 to digest protein on average. That means that high protein diets burn more calories due to the amount of energy expended through digestion alone. This is why clean eating results in people staying leaner as processed foods require slightly less work to digest, and it's why people in that study lost more weight on low fat. Subtracting the 2 kcal from fat per 100 kcal from the 8 in carbs gives in a 6% increase in calories burned while eating the same amount, hence the findings.

The above explanation is also the answer to the "Starvation Mode" - your body is not actually lowering its metabolic rate, you're just eating less on a cut which, after a few days when digestion catches up, results in a lower TDEE due to a lower amount of calories being burned through digestion. Starvation Mode as it's normally recognized does not exist unless severely malnourished.

>tldr;
-Digestion burns calories, and fat uses the least.
-Processed foods are easier to digest and tend to burn less calories digesting
-Starvation mode doesn't exist, it's just your body burning less calories due to less food to digest

>most stored fat comes from dietary fat
Holy shit you're legitimately retarded.

>research that disagrees with my agenda is retarded
tired_pepe.png

Except this is also implying that if you ate slightly under your caloric maintenance in nothing but carbs that you would lose weight, which simply isn't true.
That guy was speaking in hyperbole, of course a caloric excess would make you gain, but you do realize you're basically implying that a healthy adult male could eat a whole cake throughout a day and lose weight, right? It would have to be the only thing they ate, but the point stands. That's fucking stupid and it's insane that you aren't realizing that.

Let me see if I understand your post correctly.
Are you implying/stating, that if I eat PURE SUGAR at exactly TDEE I will gain weight, OR, that if I eat whatever, regardless of sugar/carb content, "slightly under" TDEE, I will NOT lose weight?

If you eat whatever junk shit you want slightly under TDEE you won't lose weight, to varying degrees depending on your choices.
A diet of nothing but water and a whole cake a day would make you fat.

>A diet of nothing but water and a whole cake a day would make you fat.
not if the cake is 3000 kcal and your TDEE is 3001

You would become deficient in the other macro and a a shit ton of micronutrients but yes if you only ate a cake but it amounted to less calories than your TDEE, then yes you would obviously lose weight. How could you believe anything else lol? please explain your reasoning.

you, and every other retard that has posted any gay little image macro with "de novo lypogenesis" in it completely discounts regular lypogenesis. You dont need to make an entirely new fat cell to get fat, you just store carbs in already present fat cells through plain old lypogenesis.

>DNG doesn't result in much fat storage
>so eating in excess of daily calorie expenditure in mostly carbs shouldn't equal much fat storage

Is that not what you are saying? Or are you just making CICO, but stressing carbs for some reason? I am not anti carb, but I'm also not anti fat.

I don't think you understand anything about nutrition. Junk food doesn't equal weight gain, junk food just happens to be calorically dense and highly palatable meaning people are more likely to OVER-consume(Go over their TDEE) calories when they eat it, but the over-cunsumption part is essential. If you eat nothing but junk food and don't exceed your TDEE you will NOT gain weight.

In brainlet terms, junk food taste good, many calories per bite, people like eating things that taste good, no way of adjusting bite to calorie = very easy to eat too many calorie

>lypogenesis

what's a good macro ratio for lean bulking and other for cutting at a small deficit(250kcals) ?

I do something like 45c/30p/25f on average for both

>de novo lypogenesis

You don't even know what it is, de novo lipogenesis is just converting carbs into fat, it has nothing to do with making new cells.

No seriously. I'm asking this. I don't care if this makes me a "brainlet." What the fuck is the point being made here right now? If it is just trying to say carb calories are fine if eaten within your daily expenditure, I don't disagree. What does it hold over dietary fat though that you are trying to prove?

Full fat adaptation takes weeks you mog.

Loving the budget freelee in the back there.

lol you think that matters? It will only increase fat oxidation, because you eat more fat you retard... Look up the studies yourself, matched by calories keto/low carb does not cause more fat loss. Also being fat adapted is bad for peformance since it's at the cost of glucose utilization and only glucose, not fat, can be used anarobically.

if you keep fat very low you will also have huge hormonal issues, jesus christ how are you this retarded.
You need fat to be healthy. so you absolutely have to eat that. Now if you eat tons of sugar you will spike insulin which doesn't let your body use the fat you just ate so you get fat. Gee hormones are hard. also lmao low fat high carb, nice going in 1 year you will have rock bottom t, diabeetus maybe even fatty liver disease .

>29% carb, 50% fat
>Carb restricted
Lol what a joke study

DAILY REMINDER THAT 60% MEDICAL STUDIES CAN'T BE REPLICATED!

Considering people usually eat 60% carbs, yes it's carb restricted.

that's a retarded reasoning

Carbs don’t make you fat, calories do and carbs are an easy way to load up on calories

Please brainlet, explain the definition of restriction.

how could a brainlet like me possibly explain the definition of words to a proper medical genius like yourself. Let me try: oonga bonga. bunga bonga unga dunga. Best I can do

>what is insulin

As I thought.

Vegans live in a magical place where insulin doesn't exist.

So no answer from the cult yet? I'm trying to understand this better, but you aren't really helping.

>check the names of the researchers
>(((Hellerstein)))
>(((Schutz)))
hmmm.....

He's literally green-screened himself to make it look like he lives his bedroom

>only quoting the abstracts

What do you think de novo means?

No fat is.

>those sample sizes

>no pathway to CHO from fat

some 40 pathways, actually. including, rather obviously, from the glycerol backbone.

>muh de novo lipogenesis

glucose needs to be taken more than half way to fat, to acyl-coa, to enter the krebs cycle

>little denovo lipogenesis
>from sub-maximal caloric load
>from three days of overfeeding

lulz

Sugar is a cofactor in obesity:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21738749/

Chronically elevated insulin induces insulin resistance:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19654321

this guy is exactly why we need to chill with the memery on Veeky Forums; i can't tell if this kid is trolling or a genuine idiot

De novo lipogenesis is in english grammar "genesis de novo lipo"

Genesis= Creation
de novo= Of new
Lipo= Fat

So it means creation of new fat, not creation of new fat cells, but rather creation of new fatty acids. Stop being fucking retards please.

brainlets read:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10365981
"The enzymatic pathway for converting dietary carbohydrate (CHO) into fat, or de novo lipogenesis (DNL), is present in humans, "

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4832395/
"de novo lipogenesis (DNL) is the biochemical process of synthesising fatty acids from acetyl‐CoA subunits that are produced from a number of different pathways within the cell, most commonly carbohydrate catabolism. "

asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=15872
"Synthesis of fatty acids endogenously (known as de novo lipogenesis, or DNL, Fig. 1)"

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0026049514001115
"De novo lipogenesis (DNL) is a complex and highly regulated metabolic pathway. In normal conditions DNL converts excess carbohydrate into fatty acids that are then esterified to storage triacylglycerols (TGs)."

you're both wrong in assuming 'lipogenesis' strictly means fat hypertrophy as opposed to fat hyperplasia

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194822/
>The regulation of adipose tissue mass is complex. Increases in adipose tissue arise as a consequence of both hyperplasia (increase in fat cell number) and hypertrophy (increase in fat cell size) [2]. Hyperplasia relies on pre-adipocyte proliferation and differentiation into mature adipocytes. Adipocyte differentiation is a tightly regulated process orchestrated by the temporal expression of key transcription factors resulting in cyto-skeletal changes as well as the induction of key genes involved in lipid metabolism, namely lipogenesis, fatty acid uptake, lipolysis and β-oxidation. In mature adipocytes the relative balance of these processes is crucial in determining adipocyte size (and hence fat mass). Increased lipogenesis and fatty acid uptake favour lipid accumulation within the adipocyte, whilst lipolysis and β-oxidation promote lipid loss.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3194822/

God, another idiot. De novo lipogenesis is neither fat hypertrophy nor hyperplasia, it's the creation of fatty acids only. What happens when the fat is stored is another matter. Did you even read what you linked? it clearly differentiates between lipogenesis and hyperplasia/throphy.

brainlet galore