Carbs not storing as fat?

Sounds like the initial zero carb diet flushed out the participants' glycogen (and associated water) reserves. So when they started eating carbs again they stored it as glycogen and retained water rather than as fat.

But yes, it is much more efficient for the body to burn carbs somewhat immediately. Converting it into fat waste about 1/3 of the calories.

go read about simple and complex carbs the latter gives you longer lasting energy compared to simple quick burning carbs which tend to make you feel hungry again in a short period

simple carbs are easy to over eat as well

Humans are class 4 predators on par with foxes and owls according to one study done by scientists who consumed a small animal to check how human scarification on animal bones works.

Turns out we digest a lot of bone material.
smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/shrew-eating-scientists-show-humans-can-digest-bone-66337580/

Don't believe the simps falling for the vegetarian meme. Humans are now more carnivorous than herbivorous in the scale of omnivorous behavior.

In a nutshell, because le biological set point. For many (most) people, if you temporarily introduce additional calories or temporarily take calories away the body will just make you lazier or more energetic to compensate, leading to zero net gain or loss in body fat.

Keep in mind that 99% of nutrition studies are completely fraudulent so it's not worth paying attention to them.

Eating too many seeds isnt good for humans. Raises risk of cancer

It doesn't matter what stores the fat, idiot.

Your body is constantly burning fat and storing fat, fat loss occurs when you're burning more fat than you're storing, the process isn't an ON and OFF switch, it's a system that never stops running, in burning fat and storing fat.

If you eat a caloric surplus, you will store fat, yes, in most cases, the fat that is stored, will be from dietary fat, over carbs & protein, as that is the easiest macro-nutrient to store for the body to store.

But, if you eat a calorie deficit with a extremely high fat diet, yes you will be storing a lot of fat, but because you're in a calorie deficit, the amount of fat you store eating a extremely high fat diet will be offset by the fact you're in a calorie deficit and you have more energy coming out of your system then you're putting into it.

Macronutrients
>Fat - Your body burns about 1-2% in processing
>Carbs - Your body burns about 5-15% in processing
>Protein - Your body burns about 20-30% in processing

More calories from Protein & Carbs are always more optimal than more calories from Fat in terms of min-maxing body-composition, but it's not a big enough difference unless you're already very lean and want to get deathly lean.

End of the day, it doesn't matter what you store as bodyfat, if you're in a caloric surplus, you will get fatter, no matter if you're over-eating on any 3 of the macronutrients.

Lol, the peoples who ate the most meat ancesterally were sub saharan Africans like bushman who eat monkey brains and get aids, East Asians and Europeans had it as a rare treat.

Dude are you stupid, they gained only 10% of the overfed calories.
shouldnt matter, if you underrate by 1800 calories a day you would lose weight (fat mostly) proportional to that number.
literally only a theory
>Sounds like the initial zero carb diet flushed
Where does it say they ate a zero carb diet?

Also if you read deeper into the study the overfed group actually saw less glycogen storing and just oxidized the carbs/stored minimal as fat (that 770 number).

Attached: glycogen.png (1873x969, 167.72K)

McDougall Startch Diet, beeotch.

Carbs make you fat if you don't use your muscles. Carbs get digested very quickly and spike insulin which is a fat storing hormone. If carbs don't find room in your muscles or liver they will deposit into fat stores. If you overeat it doesn't matter what the macros are you get the same amount of fat from the same amount of excess overtime. Our body is designed to travel an minimum of 5 miles a day on average and we born with that appetite. Of course we're going to get fat sitting on our arses all day.

It's the complete opposite, because you'd almost never encounter fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds in nature, especially in colder climates.
Also, name one successful fighter that is a vegan.

>matter what you store as bodyfat, if you're in a caloric surplus, you will get fatter, no matter if you're over-eating on any 3 of the macronutrients.

Yet in this study carbs hardly store as fat (only 10%) pretty wild Im just saying. It seems overeating carbs does not cause much fat gain.

tfw actually meat is the forbidden fruit

Attached: 8ae3047a560821223752713d7e80823e[1].png (614x614, 493.25K)

>t the same amount of fat from the same amount of excess overtime.

This study doesnt back that up, the overffed group only gained 10% of what you would expect. (ive seen studies with fat overfeeding and its 90% of calories stored)

Not politics related, take this shit to the fags in Yas Forums

Yummy

youtube.com/watch?v=xbtQ8jSlkLM

I know whats that and GI are, White rice and potatos have a higher GI than Pasta.
I suspected because you used a word like clean you were talking out of your arse, and i now have confirmation.

I did keto and intermittent fasting and lost 35kg in 3 months with no exercise.

not gonna lie I thought I posted this on Yas Forums my bad

could be that it takes more than 4 days of overfeeding on carbs for the body to switch into storing fat more efficiently.

fuck replied to my own post

>they gained only 10% of the overfed calories
You're retarded right?
How much did the control group gain genius?

If you gain .1 kg every 4 days, you're gonna be a fucking fatass.

We have forward facing eyes
We have canines and incisors
Man is a predator
We are omnivores

You can't prove that. Starches were most likely the source.

Here's how it works faggot, I'll break it down for you low IQ dumb niggers.

1000 calories from fat = your body will store 98-99% of those calories (980 to 990 calories)

1000 calories from carbs = your body will store 85-95% of those calories (850 to 950 calories)

1000 calories from protein = your body will store 70-80% of those calories (700 to 800 calories)

So yes, choosing to eat more carbs over fats will have your overall calorie number slightly less, to the point where you can lose fat easier.

But if you want to take that approach of maximizing fat loss, you would eat 100% protein and nothing else, but thats not realistically, so you don't do that, so you take the more reasonable balanced sustainable approach, of focusing on your total calorie intake, you're not a professional bodybuilder or athlete, you don't need to worry about these things. All you need to worry about is total calorie intake because thats realistically all you need to know, if you want to make it more advanced, you can track Protein and Total Calories, but anymore than that is pointless unless you're trying to get down to 5% bodyfat.

>Europeans had it as a rare treat
And what did they eat in the winter brainlet? Enlighten us.

What would you eat innawods? European ancestors eat primarily meat, eggs and milk. There is simply no alternative during the long winter. Especially when they did not had >muh peasant crops

Everyone knows this.

they actually don't, go back and read up you're retarded if you think white bread is better than potatoes or brown rice

>how much did the control group gain
nothing read the study retard. Im doing the calorie math and based on calories they should have gained 1kg not 0.1kg

YET in this study they only stored 10% of the calories as fat. (OVERATE 1800 EACH DAY FOOD COMPLETELY CONTROLLED, ONLY STORED 190 PER DAY)

these dietary trends are major cope because other things are poisoning people. probably water supply, EMF, radiation, anything but food. people have been eating shit for hundreds of years and they were robust, virile, and fertile, only recently people went batshit insane and started coming up with these inane theories of j'accuse macronutrient scapegoatism. vegans, low-carbers, paleo, carnivore diet, keto, its all the same brand of weirdos to me grasping at straws to explain why there health is ailing. pic rel, a delicious meal that has meat, carbs, and veggies

Attached: Kebab_Bakhtyari.jpg (1280x960, 229.92K)

>humans are meant to eat fruit, vegetables nuts and seeds..

Go back to breddit. the s.o.i fried your brain.
Humans are designed to eat Meat by nature.Meat eating is not your decision to make nature decide for you and when Humans are stupid enough to go against nature they lose. always..

Attached: 1583563665189.jpg (1242x1241, 160.17K)

i wish humans were edible so we could kill and eat all vegans and vegetarians

however they also stored far more water weight, and when carbohydrates are broken down... much of the waste is water. Those on the higher carb diet had significantly more water weight.

>girl
You must be at least 18 to post here.

Humans are edible you filthy Hmong.

Yes they had higher water because of the overeating but that water weight is termporary and will go away after they return to a regular diet. Its not fat gain.

For example I could increase water retention by eating high sodium and zero extra calories. Its not permanent its temporary .

What led you to believe that humans aren't edible?

>because other things are poisoning people.

Did it occur to you that plants carry toxins to protect themselves against getting eaten.
The poison is in your toxic veggies. Not in your water supply.

Attached: Vegan.jpg (1280x720, 107.46K)

Don't believe all published studies.
Most of them have reproducibility issues, also some of them are straight up chicanery ( remember Ancel Keyes?)

That isn't what I said. Go act clever on facebook.

I think I found an important point that has been overlooked.
The time period and overfeed amount was not enough to transition over to major amounts of lipids. This means that this study is doing more along the lines of a study for carb loading for athletes than it is for fat storage.

Attached: storage.jpg (705x303, 62.19K)

i get this but the methodology here is good. dont just ignore studies because some are bad, equally stupid logic.

>no argument
it's just that easy run along back to plebbit kid

it's gross

sad.

So basically what I am getting is that my initial thought is likely correct. The overload in carbohydrates is not enough and over a long enough period of time to really "turn on" storage of the calorie as fat. But rather was still filling in reserve capacity of glycogen in the liver and muscles for immediate usage.

>inb4 Nate/Nick Diaz
Neither are real vegans or vegetarians. They eat fish, eggs and other meat and openly admit that onions products turn you into a woman

You are misreading. The excess to be disposed "nonoxidatively". This means not burned off.
The overfed group ate an extra 1400g of carbs, not 800g. Glycogen stores filled up and the rest was literally burned off into nothing other than 10% of the total. The isocaloric group was not gylocgen depleted they were eating 300g of carbs each day and were maintaining their weight.

>But rather was still filling in reserve capacity of glycogen in the liver and muscles for immediate usage.

WRONG. Read the study. Most of the carbs were just being straight up oxidized. The extra carbs far exceeded glycogen storage and glycogen storage decreased in the overfed group, while the rest was burned off, with 10% storing as fat.

>still hasn't defined what 'clean carbs' means

Holy fuck.
The control group gained nothing, and the carb eaters gained 1kg.
>How the fuck do people still think carbs make you fat?
Because they gained a fucking kilo in 4 days.

I did previously you just ignored it lols you can go back to your veganism sub plebbit now

wow bro you really are some kind of stupid considering I spelled it all out for you.

Control group gained nothing (so they were at maintenance)
Overfed group gained 0.1 (NOT ) kg after 4 days, where they ate 7200 calores extra.

they gained 770 calories of fat while overeating 7200 calories.

no, what I am saying is that more of the overage was stored in such a fashion for the short term. The remaining portion of 600g of carbs where then inefficiently stored as fat.
that is because there had yet been an insulin reaction and a 4 day period is not enough to spike it into lipid storage levels. I am saying that what this study shows is that 4 days is not long enough to switch, and thus the carbohydrate isn't as efficiently turned into fat at that point. This means that overeating carbs (carb loading) for 4 days is the optimal level for athletics.

>they gained 770 calories of fat while overeating 7200 calories

>they gained
>gained

Carbs make you fat.
Shut the fuck up already.

anyhow, I look forward to this study being tested on more than 9 people.

>over 4 days
gtfo

Eating in different ways changes everything. Avoiding refined sugars, and grains, makes fasting easier. Fasting is an incredibly healthy practice.
Eating a burger and drinking a coke will create harmful cholesterol particles rather than the healthy ones you'd just get from eating an egg; because that's what sugar does.
It's good to stress the system, you get some more benefits three days into a fast. People who think fasting is bad and must be bad are people who are addicted to food.

You would expect them to gain 1kg not 0.1kg. Yes they store fat but only 10%. Jesus how dumb are you. If you overate 7200 calories of fat youd gain 1kg not 0.1kg

>The remaining portion of 600g of carbs where then inefficiently stored as fat.
Exactly it was mostly just wasted.

You are theorizing that it wasnt long enough, just needed more time, but thats just a theory. How do you know its just that carbs will always store inefficiently?

Sometimes I'll eat 300-500 carbs per day. I try to keep it relatively healthy. Pasta, fresh fruits, vegetables. Lots of water. Although I'm very active I cycle upwards of 200-300 miles per week. Very low meat. If any chicken. High carb is optimal male performance. (Not in the meat head sense but like a long haul endurance motor sense).

mad that overeating fat gets you fatter than overeating carbs?

They measured their triglyceride levels, moron.

>0.1kg
you can lose 5 lbs by taking a shit. calculating changes over 4 days is meaningless

Objectively false, pic related.
Asians tend to eat tiny portions. Not really compareabls It’s the reason they are so short.
Yep. Most nutritional studies are for 6 weeks or less. Which is completely worthless. To prove anything you would need to tract thier extreme diets for at least a year to see how thier body and /insulin and muscles would adapt

Attached: F7D5908B-1070-419C-99EB-F9659A5AD562.jpg (270x187, 9.85K)

You get prion desease being a cannibal

>for 4 days
Worthless.