Lastly, on sugar and fat, it may not make you WEIGH more than an equivalent amount of protein in calories, but we're talking about fat distribution, a far more relevant measure. Americans aren't fat because they eat till satisfaction, rather it's the sugar + PUFAs in all processed foods, + follwing your instincts. People lose weight from eating clean and not exercising and eating to satisfaction all the fucking time.
Low fat diets have helped reverse diabetes, and so have low carb. Both prevent sugar from being in the bloodstream for too long. The sugar releases insulin, insulin can store the fat as fat, as well as the excess sugar. That's pretty simple actually so I have no idea how you thought I was retarded for saying that. Oh yes I do, because you're an emotional little pussy who'd get knocked in a real fight because he's too caught up in his emoticons. Peace!
I said I wouldn't respond but I have to. Post a picture of yourself Mr. 9% bodyfat.
Americans WEIGH more than people from other countries. Since you agreed that fat and sugar doesn't make you weigh more, you cannot say Americans WEIGH more because they eat fat/sugar/processed food. Americans WEIGH more because they eat too much.
How do low fat diets prevent sugar from being in the bloodstream? Fat is the one macro that doesn't convert to glucose (for the most part), unlike protein and carbs.
The "bro science" here is that you think processed food makes you fat, which has been proven false over and over again.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
Explain that one faggot. And I'm not sure where this real fight stuff is coming from. Calm down faggot. You're the one who won't post a picture of yourself on here.
Since it almost seems like you would like to learn, I'll try to post real facts here. Now about a picture of my abs, I certainly have decent abs, but I'm more interested in educating and promoting my ideas, than I am in being right. So even if I had 6%bf, which I've tried to achieve for a while but then stopped, I don't think I'd do it, because the point is that my bodyfat doesn't reflect what works for the general population. A scientific study involving many participants is more likely to. I could post a picture for kicks but it's not that useful.
I take back what I said about weight and am arguing that Americans weigh more mostly because of stress, which is the real cause of eating more calories, especially t[http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/documents/StressEatingandtheRewardSystem.pdf]hose of sugar and food with higher reward.[/http://www.foodaddictionsummit.org/documents/StressEatingandtheRewardSystem.pdf].
Restricting calories but not restricting stress will only temporarily fix the problem. One level above the surface, I could argue it's just excess fat and sugar, or insulin as Taubes says. The insulin theory is definitely a good one, that chronically high blood sugar is what causes metabolic syndrome. Stress, high fat diets, and high sugar diets all cause high blood sugar. Recent studies have shown that meditation and deep breathing reduce blood sugar [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18386551]here[/http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18386551] and [http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/full/10.1089/acm.2010.0666]here[/http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/full/10.1089/acm.2010.0666]
Stephan Guyenet of wholehealthsource.blogspot.com has been intrigued recently by the food reward hypothesis of obesity. In this post he shows how diets with less reward can promote weight loss. The first one incldes a reference to a study on a l[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity_18.html]ow fat diet not restricted in calories leading to weight loss.[/http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/05/food-reward-dominant-factor-in-obesity_18.html]
The twinkie diet may not be broscience, but it's another type, stupid science. Unintelligent science tends to study one variable, and look at things as a duality; either you lose weight or you don't, therefore you succeed and you're right, or you fail and you're wrong. Let me break down my thinking on the twinkie diet:
1. The researcher was interested in proving that calories are the only thing that mattered for weight loss, so he restricted his calories and lost weight.
2. So what the fucking shit is weight loss? Fat, muscle, parasites, bacteria, toxins, water, glycogen, snot? It's more than just fat and muscle.
3. Why didn't he study the effect of a high calorie diet on weight gain, the contrary? maybe he should have binged on twinkies to prove that excess calories = weight gain. Oh but wait, there does seem to be a way to eat excess calories and not get fat... I mean the japanese eat more than we do, ad are slimmer, and I will describe research below that will prove this and I just mentioned the low fat diet above.
4. Forget "weight loss." How about fat loss? No fuck that, how about your overall health? What were his testosterone levels/libido like? How was his mental acuity? How was his digestion? Is this something that could be continued in the long term?
5. Did he look good after he finished the diet? NO NOT REALLY SO IT FAILED.
End of discussion on my part. THe twinkie diet appeals to simple minds who view things in a duality, weight loss, or not weight loss. THere's much more important things in the body than simply weight lost on a scale.
A diet consisting of grass-fed beef, lamb, or other red meat, fruits and vegetables, dark leafy greens, seaweeds, sprouts, and other healthy foods you can think of, increase your metabolism more than a diet consisting of oreos, twinkies, donuts, english muffins, white bread, sugar, and muffins, and take out chinese. So what matters is not just calories,
but the post-digestion effect here, thermic effects of not just digestion, but thermic effects of constituents in food, and how those constituents activate proteins and enzymes that burn fat or increase metabolism. I'll start slow with the research since i'm doing a bunch of other research right now, but here is a well studied way to lose weight while eating a ton of calories.
Again [http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/06/fat-balance-versus-energy-balance.html]here[/http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/06/fat-balance-versus-energy-balance.html] we see a few examples where it is possible to eat a lot and lose weight. The easiest way is a high carb low fat low protein diet. Low protein activates AMPk, which burns fat. Since you all like Lyle McDonald, her[http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/ampk-master-metabolic-regulator.html]e is his article on that. [/http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/ampk-master-metabolic-regulator.html]
Few quotes from thefirst link in above paragraph. "Subjects overfed a low-protein, high-carbohydrate diet consistently gained less weight than predicted by the increased kcaloric intake; in fact, some subjects on low protein diets lost weight despite consuming an excess of 8-10,000 kcal in a week. "
So what this proves is that it's not calories in minus calories out. The hypothesis is that macronutrient balance is regulated in the body, not just overall energy balance. The raw food diet is another great example; many have lost upwards of 100 lbs from jus eating fruit vegetables, and a small amount of nuts/seeds. It's a low protein high carb diet, but can be high in calories too. Not good for gaining muscle, possible to gain strength from stronger collagen links in joints/tendons. But bone mass will be lost most probs.
So back to Americans. Most americans aren't on the high carb low protein diet I described, but you can't argue anymore it's excess calories, because then in any situation where there is excess calories, one would gain weight. False. I think we actually need to define excess calories in terms of metabolic regulators in the body such as mTOR and AMPk. If you activate AMPk from a low carb diet or a ketogenic or low protein diet, it could be possible to lose weight while eating a lot of calories, since those calories aren't telling the body, oh shit this is a lot of calories. When you eat meat, branched chain amino acids, and a lot of acrbs and fat, your body does sense higher calories.
So two things to end this post.
1. The body is not just detecting calories. It's detecting the type of calories, and this is evidenced by activation of AMPk or mTOR, and then leptin.
2. Stress is probably the root cause of everything everyone in the fitness/nutrition industry thinks causes weight gain.
Edit: messed up links.. not fixing them
