Here are several more:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1373635/
^carbs negative effects on lipid profiles
^Impact of carbs vs no carbs on metabolic risk factors.
How many beers deep were you at that point? I need to be on the same level of drunkenness so that I read it the same as you. A BAC reading would be the gold standard.In my drunken state, everything you said with a study, I found one that says otherwise...assuming I can read.
And if studies on both sides are done well yet still refute each other then the causative factor might be completely unrelated or dependent upon the context/person.All of those damn studies can easily be refuted with even more asinine studies...
I think a lot of this has to do with unsubstantiated dogma. Remember when fats were evil? Protein was evil too for a short period of time. Now fukking tomatoes and dairy are evil to Paleo people. Those damned nightshades are bloodsuckers.gold standard and such. But at the end of the day, when bodybuilders want to cut adipose tissue, the macro they eyeball first is the CARB. Carb cycling, low carb, no carb...whatever.
I completely agree. But when you're in a hypocaloric diet that includes moderate to high carbs, where is the energy going to come from once carbs aren't enough to supply energy needs?Carbs are the preferred source of fuel in the body. You cannot escape this fact. When carbs (simple especially)are present, they are generally prefered over fat. To deny is a lie.
I think my example was not clear bc I'm not saying that. Take two diets both 2500 cals, both 250g (1000cals) from protein. One has 1500 cals coming from fat and whatever trace carbs, the other maybe 1000cals of carbs and 500g fat.Also, to say that the calories subtracted from carbs are added to fat--complete misdirection.
You are saying the higher fat diet will burn more fat bc trace carbs are in the picture and less glucose is coming in from the diet. I agree with this but it's only half the picture. What I'm saying is bc a higher proportion of calories are coming from fat, that means a higher proportion of your calories are also being stored as fat bc the intake of dietary fat has little to do with fat oxidation in the body. The reason I say you store more fat is bc relative to the other diet, you're eating a higher proportion of fat calories. I'm not saying you substitute carb cals for fat cals.
In the higher carb diet, you do indeed burn less stored fat bc glucose is more abundant from carbs BUT you are storing less fat at the same time bc you're eating proportionately less dietary fat. Remember the stipulation, total calories and protein intake are standardized.
I don't piss on VLcarb diets. I think they do work great for a good deal of people. I simply think reducing fat and maintaining carb intake as much as possible while cutting cals is also an excellent way to cut fat.I'm all about winning an internet war, but we all know that a low carb diet is generally accepted to be MUCH higher in protein. In fact, add the carbs Cals to the protein when I really need to shed the fat. Only a dipshit takes the carbs out and adds the freed up calories to the fats. That kind of moron would deserve to be fat. And to boot, most people know that they should be consuming more MCTs and not LCTs because they are more readily available to be oxidized and less likely to be stored as fat.
There a good ways and bad ways to drop fat. VLcarb is a fantastic way. People piss on it for the same reason they piss on cardio. It's not cool to do a "fad."
And I'm lucky this bitched auto saved 17 times bc I'm way too drunk to think about reposting this shit and my phone reloaded the page so many times and each time I lost the content. Thank sweet baby Jesus for the auto save lol
Results 46 to 46 of 46
Thread: Chris Bell lousy diet advice
02-14-2017, 11:25 AM #46
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
- Thanked 5,039 Times in 2,937 Posts
#Strength First Boston