Let get some serious shit straight

Let get some serious shit straight

Its not fat makes you fat its grains, carbs, sugar, added sugar...

Inb4 keto paleo fag

Other urls found in this thread:

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/13/fat-people-are-less-intelligent-than-those-who-are-not-overweigh/
livestrong.com/article/331651-burning-fat-vs-glycogen/
diabetesforecast.org/2011/mar/how-the-body-uses-carbohydrates-proteins-and-fats.html
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straight
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_whiskey
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartending_terminology
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

no, it's excess calories.
anything can make you fat, diet can only influence your tendencies to eat too much

>X, Y Z makes you fat

The only thing that makes you fat is a calorie surplus. Your body does not defy the laws of thermodynamics.

No it is stupidity that makes you fat.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/13/fat-people-are-less-intelligent-than-those-who-are-not-overweigh/

It gives a whole new understanding to the word fathead.

well no shit, that's not really reflective on overweight people in general, overweight people simply happen to share their group with downs syndrome people, who generally can't regulate their appetite properly and have extremely low IQ

oh dude this is the funniest reasoning
your body processes foods in different ways; a calorie is not a calorie cause your body isn't some machine dumbshits

not op btw

Yeah I have a hard time believing the human body breaks down fats and reassembles them into different fats as readily as it would turn simple sugars into fats. I really wonder how much consumed fat actually becomes body fat versus sugars becoming body fat.

i actually think it has to do with gi spikes and whatnot
cotrisol is a heluva drug

*cortisol

Of course different foods are processed differently, but the way the food is processed is pretty negligible compared to how much of it it's trying to process.

And your body is like a machine, dude.

calories are calories

You're wrong.
Higher calorie intake than your body needs is what makes you fat. Idiot.

You are not going to get fat from a high protein diet.

Carbophobia was a 2014 fad that has already been debunked in scientific literature. Simple sugars cause problems due to insulin, fatty foods cause problems due to high calorific intake, but there is no devil food nor is there any saint food. A balanced diet is the healthiest diet so stop being literally autistic.

you are if you intake too many calories.

Yes, you will. You will also severely damage your kidneys in the long run.

By consuming more calories than your body needs, you will gain weight. No matter what.

Guys, please, PLEASE, make your diet consist of nothing but 10,000 calories from chicken breasts and cruciferous vegetables for the next, say, 1 year. Go ahead and tell me how you didn't gain any weight because all of your food was "whole, clean" food.

That's why predators are so fat and most herbivores are so svelte.

Do you think herbivores and predators consume and burn the same amount of calories?

Animals are not machines. They don't "burn calories"

Predators also work much more for food. What are you even trying to say here?

Even though everyone in this thread has taken the bate, for the purpose of people knowing truth, everyone else is right.

Calories in < Calories Out.
Exercise is the BASE of health.

Also a nice helping of S A G E doesn't hurt ;)

...

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Have you not realized by now that you are being trolled to the amusement of everyone here BUT you?

If not, then continue on. Keep up the good fight.

The energy it takes to move a large body the same distance as a smaller body is greater.

livestrong.com/article/331651-burning-fat-vs-glycogen/

diabetesforecast.org/2011/mar/how-the-body-uses-carbohydrates-proteins-and-fats.html

Is that Skeletor wearing a giant metal adult diaper?

got something against diapers?

Huh?

Just remember, only about a month left and the kids have to go back to school.

>skeletor
son do you even know who that is

I shitpost from work, boring job with nothing to do. My whole division will probably get laid off soon so I'm just waiting for dat redundancy package.

If this is true then that's even sadder than being a 16 year old.

Glad you enjoy mediocrity in life and your job is almost terminated.

Also, redundancy package? Want to try that one again?

Of course. I was a kid when he-man was originally out and she-ra.

I work in the civil service family, I'll get redundancy and then rehired somewhere else. That's the civil service way in the UK.

He must have a golden parachute.

So it is just what you call unemployment....

I'm actually curious now. What field do you have training in/skills you have?

Also, inb4: IT/Tech field

No, it's not

>Also, inb4: IT/Tech field

You caught me.

Compared to 1960, consumption of refined sugar is up about 20%.

Consumption of added fat is up about 600%, linearly with obesity rates.
Butter consumption was constant for 30 years, is now going up since 2000.
Cheese consumption is up 350%.
Total meat consumption is up. Poultry consumption is up 500%.

But it's the 20% rise in sugar that got us where we are today. Yep, it's definitely the carbs.

Only a tiny fraction of carbs and sugar ever get converted to fat, unless there is virtually no fat in the diet. De novo lipogenesis only becomes a significant factor when you have really low fat intake AND an excess of energy from carbs or protein. In this case, about 25% of carbohydrate calories are used up in the process of synthesizing fat from carbs, an expensive process.

It is well-known that very high carbohydrate diets produce an increase in triglycerides, and in the past some people proposed that this is due to increased conversion of carbs to fat. However, a series of studies in the past 10 years have shown that triglycerides increase on these very high carb diets because people become so insulin sensitive that there is reduced uptake of triglycerides into fat cells.

So combined with the fact that de novo lipogenesis costs so much energy, it is very difficult to become fat when you cut out fat from the diet and increase carb intake. Your body is burning up glucose all the time and stops having much interest in storing fat in the first place. It also makes you diabetes-resistant.

There is controversy about whether these increased triglycerides are a risk factor for heart disease - primarily because epidemiologically, populations with high carb diets also have increased triglycerides but still very low rates of cardiovascular disease and stroke. The science is not as clear as it is for cholesterol, which falls rapidly on low-fat diets.

I once heard our sugar consumption had tripled since the civil war but fat consumption had stayed the same.

What about the role of increased Fructose consumption compared to before.

>let's get things straight

can we move past this ugly, heteronormative phrase already? it's 2016. 'straightness' is no more correct than the alternative (which i presume is 'bent' or 'queer' :rolleyes:); we need both perspectives to be equally considered in order to make real progress as a society.

why not 'let's settle this once and for all' or 'let's get things moving in the right direction'? both are inclusive while still suggesting finality and decisiveness.

>>let's get things straight
He means a different "straight".
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/straight

There is also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight_whiskey
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartending_terminology

>I really wonder how much consumed fat actually becomes body fat

Virtually all fat eaten is turned into body fat. The biological process of breaking down and storing fat is highly efficient.

I probably have one of those high fat diets yet I am not fat so I am not buying this.

>a calorie is not a calorie

How are mirrors even real?

No...
When you eat fat, the fat is stored in fat cells, because the preferred fuel in humans is glucose, and in the case of a mixed meal, carbs are oxidized first and fat is stored. Fat is released throughout the day as a supplemental energy source. Whether the body's fat storage will be smaller or larger at the end of the day is a matter of energy balance.

Then I should be fat yet I am not.

you should be able to read too, yet...

Your logic is flawed like a lot of those who purport to know the workings of the human body which constantly gets revised. I can read fine.

no, you can't, because if you could you'd see that post isn't telling you that consuming fat in and of itself leads to an accumulation of fatty tissue over time.

>Then I should be fat yet I am not.

if you think you should be fat based on that post, you cannot read.

But if he could not read then he could not reply. Logic isn't your strong suit is it, son?

i don't mean he literally cannot read, i mean his reading comprehension is poor, which also appears to be true of you. god it's depressing.

>Its not fat makes you fat its grains, carbs, sugar, added sugar...

No, it's an excess amount of calories that make you fat.

>Posts one thing
>Expects others to interpret it as meaning something else
>Whines about reading comprehension when he can't write well

Since the human body doesn't literally burn its food calories are meaningless. Like most of medicine and nutrition it is junk science.

when people tell you can't throw a ball, they don't mean you actually can't throw a ball. when people tell you you can't tell a joke, it doesn't mean you literally cannot tell a joke. when people tell you you can't sing, it doesn't mean you literally cannot sing. when people tell you you can't dance, it doesn't mean you literally can't dance. shall i go on. when people tell you you can't draw, it doesn't mean you literally cannot draw. when people tell you you couldn't run a fucking bath, it doesn't mean you literally could not run a fucking bath. when people tell you you can't take a joke, it doesn't mean you literally cannot joke. do you get it yet. when people tell you they can't believe something, it doesn't mean they literally cannot believe it. when people tell you you can't throw a punch, it doesn't mean you literally cannot throw a punch. when people

>when people tell you you couldn't run a fucking bath, it doesn't mean you literally could not run a fucking bath.
Actually that's exactly what it should mean.

>> doesn't literally burn its food

Yes, we know that. That's why the calorie numbers stated on foods are not literally the results from a bomb calorimiter, but instead are corrected based on what energy the human body literally gets from them. Those numbers you see quoted -- 4 cals/gram for protein and carbs and 9 cals/g for fats--are already corrected for this difference. They are called Attwater factors.

no, no it isn't. it's meant to mean you are incompetent at managing things.

its calories uber alles. everything else is an excuse for being a lard person.

which is junk science if you actually looked into how they derived that.

That must be a brit idiom.

Are people actually falling for this bait?

Two points, really.

1) It establishes that your understanding of the subject is fundamentally broken for even bringing up "doesn't literally burn food". You didn't even know what an Attwater factor was until you just googled it.

2) Yeah, it's not perfect. People have bitched about it for years. But nobody has come up with anything better. That suggests that while imperfect, it's really not as bad as some people suggest.

The topic has come up before on Veeky Forums Welcome to Veeky Forums! You must be new.

>pseudoscience is better than no science at all

Exactly. Except that the "peseudoscience" as you call it is actually pretty good given that it's been decades since the work was done yet nobody has been able to improve upon it yet. Perfect? No. But it is a step in the right direction.

>A step in the wrong direction is the right direction because no one can figure out the right direction
No wonder there are so many fad diets and bullshit nutritionist speak.

No, it's a step in the right direction. It's just not all the way to the goal yet.

The goal of reaching the fabled land of unicorns, leprechauns, fairies, and other myths?

You think it's a myth that human beings derive chemical energy from the foods they consume?

You think calories actually represents that?

>You think calories actually represents that?

They're a step in the right direction. Which is perfectly logical given that the amount of energy a human being derives from food must be less than the actual energy contained in that food as measured by a calorimeter. Attwater factors satisfy that requirement, so while they may not be perfectly accurate they are indeed a step in the right direction.

>a calorie is not a calorie cause your body isn't some machine dumbshits
excuse me? I know what you're trying to say, but both your reasoning and conclusion couldn't be more wrong and dumb.

Thermodynamics doesn't really come into play, our bodies could easily shit out excess calories, instead they store them as fat.

alright, not OP but I get the calories in, calories out ordeal, but doesnt diet affect how you lose weight? as in, sure you'd lose weight at a deficiency but wouldn't most of your weight loss be muscle if you ignore your protein intake? you'd be lighter but remain a flabby fuck.

But it still does come into play, don't be dumb user. Scientists just must pay attention to the calories lost. I know you know this though, so you should instead phrase your comment in a way that shows why is invoking thermodynamics incorrectly.

You would still lose fat, but yeah.

Adequate protein intake is one of the ways to help preserve lean muscle mass in a deficit. Lifting and not losing too quickly are the other two.

op is technically right. if you eat too much carbs then your body composition will be more in fat than in lean muscle. that's why every bodybuilder eats very little carbs in order to lean out months before their competition.

I remember a study on tv around the time of the atkins fad. A low fat diet and low carb diet eventually lead to the same results if you stuck it out though the low carb diet saw a steep decrease early on but the low fat diet plateau'd until eventually giving way to a steep down turn.

The only certainty is eating less will make you less heavy. Are calories a good way to gauge this? Not particularly. Fat contains the most calories but your body doesn't readily turn fat into body fat. If it did then low carb diets wouldn't have such immediate effects.

>that's why every bodybuilder eats very little carbs in order to lean out months before their competition.

That's to cut water weight, and definitely not for months

>op is technically right. if you eat too much carbs then your body composition will be more in fat than in lean muscle. that's why every bodybuilder eats very little carbs in order to lean out months before their competition.
months? no. Bodybuilders actually go pretty high carb at some points in their cuts

The body uses muscle and protein as a last resort for energy. You will lose some muscle as your body weight decreases since you need less muscle to support your girth. You can try to maintain it by exercising. Most people are getting enough protein without realizing it. Unless you are looking to be Mr. Muscles, you actually need very little protein. This obsession with protein, meat, and being malnourished since every meal doesn't come with steak is a western one.

No calories are K calories.

Huh?

>sugar makes you fat

fuck off fatty.

I hope this meme lasts

The calories referred to on packaging are actually kilocalories.

Huh?

>meme
You need a dictionary.

Huh?