Protein and Carbs alone = BIG Insulin Spike

[monkeydan]

Druluv - comments on the below please? You conveniently seemed to miss this one in your quest to prove something that pretty much no RCT has ever been able to prove. Still, don't let that get in the way of your beliefs, eh?

Glycaemic index effects on fuel partitioning in humans.
D?az EO, Galgani JE, Aguirre CA.

Laboratory of Energy Metabolism and Stable Isotopes, Institute of Nutrition and Food Technology (INTA), University of Chile, Ave. El Libano 5524, Macul, Santiago, Chile. ediaz@inta.cl

The purpose of this review was to examine the role of glycaemic index in fuel partitioning and body composition with emphasis on fat oxidation/storage in humans. This relationship is based on the hypothesis postulating that a higher serum glucose and insulin response induced by high-glycaemic carbohydrates promotes lower fat oxidation and higher fat storage in comparison with low-glycaemic carbohydrates. Thus, high-glycaemic index meals could contribute to the maintenance of excess weight in obese individuals and/or predispose obesity-prone subjects to weight gain. Several studies comparing the effects of meals with contrasting glycaemic carbohydrates for hours, days or weeks have failed to demonstrate any differential effect on fuel partitioning when either substrate oxidation or body composition measurements were performed. Apparently, the glycaemic index-induced serum insulin differences are not sufficient in magnitude and/or duration to modify fuel oxidation.

Seeing as the insulin index (II) is very closely correlated to the glycaemic index (GI) - although there are certain foods which rate highly on the II but are surprisingly low GI - wouldn't you expect to see a shift to fat storage with an 'insulin spike'?

You also might be interested in this documents from the AJCN...

Energy from different sources may be considered relatively equal as long as there is energy balance. The main differences between macronutrients are mostly mediated through the regulation of food intake. An overwhelming amount of evidence shows that the ratio of fat to carbohydrate in the diet is the primary factor in the macronutrient composition of the diet that easily causes passive overconsumption of energy and thus leads to weight gain. In contrast, high-carbohydrate diets seem relatively benign, regardless of the type of carbohydrate. There is little evidence that sugars have direct negative effects on bodyweight control.

No one is saying that an all mayo diet will work well. However once you get sufficient protein in your diet and ensure adequate EFA intake, it really doesn't seem to matter where the other calories come from. Given equal calories and protein intake between 2 groups (which is something that has NOT appeared in any of the studies you have posted thus far) pretty much every single study fails to detect any difference in body composition regardless of whether the other calories come from.

There are studies showing no difference between high and low GI carbs on a diet, etc. etc. etc.

But keep on tryin! This is a fun thrad lolz!!!1
__________________

[matthor]

Druluv - comments on the below please? You conveniently seemed to miss this one in your quest to prove something that pretty much no RCT has ever been able to prove. Still, don't let that get in the way of your beliefs, eh?


Seeing as the insulin index (II) is very closely correlated to the glycaemic index (GI) - although there are certain foods which rate highly on the II but are surprisingly low GI - wouldn't you expect to see a shift to fat storage with an 'insulin spike'?

You also might be interested in this documents from the AJCN...


No one is saying that an all mayo diet will work well. However once you get sufficient protein in your diet and ensure adequate EFA intake, it really doesn't seem to matter where the other calories come from. Given equal calories and protein intake between 2 groups (which is something that has NOT appeared in any of the studies you have posted thus far) pretty much every single study fails to detect any difference in body composition regardless of whether the other calories come from.

There are studies showing no difference between high and low GI carbs on a diet, etc. etc. etc.

But keep on tryin! This is a fun thrad lolz!!!1
__________________

bro bro bro...

[PowerManDL]

monkeydan I would have you know that I possess a degree in Sanskrit, with a specialization in Urdu and Farsi, and I am prepared to bring the ownage to your argument with my superior abilities.

I hope that you are trembling, because the devastation is about to begin.

You treat insulin and sugars as if they are simply playtoys to be disregarded, and this is simply not true! How you would think such a thing is preposterous, and it makes me cry on the inside.

There are facts to be presented in research, and unfortunately you take all of these facts and try to use them to make them say things that you want them to say, but you fail at this because I can read facts and I know your game. I have a degree in Sanskrit and it makes knowing your game to be quite easy.

I hope you are seriously thinking twice about arguing with me again, because your logic and skills at research are quite disappointing to me.

I was barely even trying hard again, because I'm busy at work and I have 15 people here that need my attention and the phone's ringing and I left my lunch at home, but I still have time to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.

I hope I've made it clear to you that your words are made of hurt and anguish, and are not helping you to agree with my point, which is that you are wrong.

My degree in Sanskrit clearly eclipsed your knowledge of insulin and carbs. Now I must return to work because I am very busy but I hope you learned a lesson.

[mimo]

monkeydan I would have you know that I possess a degree in Sanskrit, with a specialization in Urdu and Farsi, and I am prepared to bring the ownage to your argument with my superior abilities.

I hope that you are trembling, because the devastation is about to begin.

You treat insulin and sugars as if they are simply playtoys to be disregarded, and this is simply not true! How you would think such a thing is preposterous, and it makes me cry on the inside.

There are facts to be presented in research, and unfortunately you take all of these facts and try to use them to make them say things that you want them to say, but you fail at this because I can read facts and I know your game. I have a degree in Sanskrit and it makes knowing your game to be quite easy.

I hope you are seriously thinking twice about arguing with me again, because your logic and skills at research are quite disappointing to me.

I was barely even trying hard again, because I'm busy at work and I have 15 people here that need my attention and the phone's ringing and I left my lunch at home, but I still have time to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.

I hope I've made it clear to you that your words are made of hurt and anguish, and are not helping you to agree with my point, which is that you are wrong.

My degree in Sanskrit clearly eclipsed your knowledge of insulin and carbs. Now I must return to work because I am very busy but I hope you learned a lesson.

This may be the funniest **** i read all week.

Well done,sir : Dano:

[DBcrusher]

lol this thread is funny.

O btw I ate lean pork loin and corn tortillas.....AHHH INSULIN SPIKE!! HELP! IM GAINING 5lbs AS I AM TYPING!!!

Your waist looks bigger already... damn insulin.

[druluv]

I knew that study was going to come up, that's why I didn't say that low carb diets lose more fat than high carb diets. My argument is as stated, When you reduce carbs, you will naturally reduce calories.

While this metabolic study confirms that it boils down to calories in/ calories out, it fail to answer why scientist can't get the same results in free living subjects. Every study where we don't closely watch people, the low carb group seems to always lose more weight. Free living studies are way more important than metabolic ward studies because this is how real people need to reduce. If the US was one big metabolic ward, then this would not be a discussion, because all food would be portion out perfectly, and regardless of your hunger, there would be no food until the next portion meal.

Free living low carb studies show that people have less cravings, and more often than not, after the experiment, they end up eating close or similar to the way they ate in the study.

When people are left to their own device, why can't people control their hunger on high carb diets?

This information is crucial for people who always are hungry when they try the traditional body building diet. If people see that their hunger is out of control, simply reducing carbohydrates may help control appetite.

One of the issues I have with the metabolic ward study is that I didn't see any during or exit interviews. I would like to know which group was more satisfied with their stay at the ward; is this information available? This is important, why can't the metabolic ward study be replicated with free living people? So it seems like low carb diets maybe advantageous for free living subjects.

With the results of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, the participants of this study didn't fair to well with their high carb diet of 1800k. With that said , the metabolic ward high carb group actually ate less calories than the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, so I wonder did the participants of the metabolic ward study have any reactions like the Minnesota Starvation Experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneso...ion_Experiment

Among the many conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondraisis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a standardized test administered during the experimental period. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression. There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[1] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation. The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest) and reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema (swelling) in the extremities, presumably due to the massive quantities of water the participants consumed attempting to fill their stomachs during the starvation period.

[Dirty Shoez]

lmao, you're a moron.

Yes, lets all eat an all mayo diet as that is CLEARLY what Alan has recommended. Jumping to moronic extremes to discredit an argument just shows the weakness of your own.

Is there any common sense in here? Any?

I can just picture you leaning back, arms crossed, smug look of satisfaction at your desk; job well done.

Yes. There was definitely satisfaction. Then I went to my night job at UPS, lifting and loading heavy boxes. What do you do for a living, BTW?

If you SAY "calories in calories out", and really MEAN "calories in calories out".....and I know its hard to understand this if you have brain damage.....then such a standard should hold up under ANY GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE.

Money is money....right? Yes. It is! And guess what? X amount of Pesos equal Y amount of US Dollars in value. Period. How the system works. How you go about exchanging them is your own problem.

Diet exchange....

Starting to ring a Bell? ....

Anything? ......

.....didn't think so. Go lift some more weights, dunderhead.

[Dirty Shoez]

Hahahaha, you could quite possibly be the dumbest ass I've encountered online. No offense.

Is it really that difficult to wrap your brain around the concept of giving a realistic example when forming a basis for argument?

You better put that Spanish degree to work and pull your head out of your culo, amigo.

LMAO, quitter. Its fun for you to have your little quote wars, but once you get slapped upside your head for acting like a cabron, then all of the sudden my response isn't worth a line-by-line response. Why? Because you couldn't "win". There would be no "gotcha". Nothing. Air-tight arguments all around. Intimidating, I know.

You see, unlike you I don't go run and play the copy-paste studies game. Because we all know, studies will say just about whatever we want them to if we look long enough. Bottom line: calories are not calories. They effect EVERYONE differently. One thing that can be agreed for EVERYONE is that all-or-nothing diets DO NOT WORK. Now that we have ESTABLISHED THAT (since you quit, or rather, won't defend the position)......we can start the work on WHAT is the path to creating ranges of ratios that work for the greatest amount of the population, depending on their needs.

Did i mention already that I know your type? Am used to putting up with you? Etc.? Did you think it was some kind of funny joke i was telling? I don't like people like you. You make forums less fun to use, by constantly messing with people. And as long as you keep acting the way you're acting, I'm going to be making this forum less fun for YOU to use, starting with this thread.

[Dirty Shoez]

monkeydan I would have you know that I possess a degree in Sanskrit, with a specialization in Urdu and Farsi, and I am prepared to bring the ownage to your argument with my superior abilities.

I hope that you are trembling, because the devastation is about to begin.

You treat insulin and sugars as if they are simply playtoys to be disregarded, and this is simply not true! How you would think such a thing is preposterous, and it makes me cry on the inside.

There are facts to be presented in research, and unfortunately you take all of these facts and try to use them to make them say things that you want them to say, but you fail at this because I can read facts and I know your game. I have a degree in Sanskrit and it makes knowing your game to be quite easy.

I hope you are seriously thinking twice about arguing with me again, because your logic and skills at research are quite disappointing to me.

I was barely even trying hard again, because I'm busy at work and I have 15 people here that need my attention and the phone's ringing and I left my lunch at home, but I still have time to tell you that you don't know what you're talking about.

I hope I've made it clear to you that your words are made of hurt and anguish, and are not helping you to agree with my point, which is that you are wrong.

My degree in Sanskrit clearly eclipsed your knowledge of insulin and carbs. Now I must return to work because I am very busy but I hope you learned a lesson.

Me and you should hang out. We can play pool or something.

[Dr. Horse]

I still find it hilarious that a year of latin was used as cred for arguing about insulin...

[Adam444]

So insulin is not important.
It doesn't matter when we eat our carbs, as long as we eat them in 24 hour period.
It doesn't matter if we eat 2-3 times or 6, or 1. If everything totals out at the end of the day, we're O.K.



Please shut your faces. If you don't think it matters to eat carbs for your breakfast, pre/post work-out meals, you should learn the basics of nutrition before you start trying to analyze a study that's posted on the Internet... that has nothing to do with people who work out.

Also, Alan might be knowledgeable on these topics, but what's annoying is his little bitches following from thread to thread, and keep kissing his asses in order to look "cool" or win debates, because they don't know **** themselves.



--- There are certain times that certain macro nutrients should be consumed. I don't understand how you guys think you can eat whatever you want, as long as it totals out at the end of the day... maybe it might WORK, but it's not OPTIMAL.

[alan aragon]

Also, Alan might be knowledgeable on these topics, but what's annoying is his little bitches following from thread to thread, and keep kissing his asses in order to look "cool" or win debates, because they don't know **** themselves.

Adam, they are not bitches. They are bros. We are part of a small cult with a mild fetish for objective evidence. And, I only have one ass.

[Adam444]

I only have one ass.

Sorry, when blood goes into my fingers and toes, my brain gets a little tacky...


Look at Sibrek's post... "Can you please address Adam444" because he's such a little bitch that he can't stand up for his own self... what a big man.

He also lies about his imaginary "over $50,000 BMW" LOL... you should do a try-out for your little group, and leave the bitches outside...

[Sibrek]

Sorry, when blood goes into my fingers and toes, my brain gets a little tacky...


Look at Sibrek's post... "Can you please address Adam444" because he's such a little bitch that he can't stand up for his own self... what a big man.

He also lies about his imaginary "over $50,000 BMW" LOL... you should do a try-out for your little group, and leave the bitches outside...

LOL because U wont listen to anyone no matter what they say...you're a brat.

I haven't lied about my 'over 50,000 bmw' its around 44,000. U mad?

[Dr. Horse]

So insulin is not important.
It doesn't matter when we eat our carbs, as long as we eat them in 24 hour period.
It doesn't matter if we eat 2-3 times or 6, or 1. If everything totals out at the end of the day, we're O.K.

Now who's being naive?




But seriously, I don't think anyone argued any of that at all, did they?

[GetShredded]

5 star thread of goodness.

[alan aragon]

LMAO, quitter. Its fun for you to have your little quote wars, but once you get slapped upside your head for acting like a cabron, then all of the sudden my response isn't worth a line-by-line response. Why? Because you couldn't "win". There would be no "gotcha". Nothing. Air-tight arguments all around. Intimidating, I know.

You see, unlike you I don't go run and play the copy-paste studies game. Because we all know, studies will say just about whatever we want them to if we look long enough. Bottom line: calories are not calories. They effect EVERYONE differently. One thing that can be agreed for EVERYONE is that all-or-nothing diets DO NOT WORK. Now that we have ESTABLISHED THAT (since you quit, or rather, won't defend the position)......we can start the work on WHAT is the path to creating ranges of ratios that work for the greatest amount of the population, depending on their needs.

Did i mention already that I know your type? Am used to putting up with you? Etc.? Did you think it was some kind of funny joke i was telling? I don't like people like you. You make forums less fun to use, by constantly messing with people. And as long as you keep acting the way you're acting, I'm going to be making this forum less fun for YOU to use, starting with this thread.

I hope you realize that your cluelessness is the key reason that this thread is pure gold. Your combination of ignorance, misunderstanding, and bravado is why you're being called a moron. This is why PMDL is so hilariously and accurately making sarcastic parodies of your posts. The fact that you don't realize this is... Priceless. The only explanation is that you MUST be a troll for trolling's sake, no one can be this dumb for real.

[Haywood Jablome]

epic

What worries me with you is that you don't have full understanding of sugar and fat metabolism.

he doesn't
true story

lol

i wont even bother reading the rest of your post after this

you must - for the lulz factor

[matthor]

I knew that study was going to come up, that's why I didn't say that low carb diets lose more fat than high carb diets. My argument is as stated, When you reduce carbs, you will naturally reduce calories.

While this metabolic study confirms that it boils down to calories in/ calories out, it fail to answer why scientist can't get the same results in free living subjects. Every study where we don't closely watch people, the low carb group seems to always lose more weight. Free living studies are way more important than metabolic ward studies because this is how real people need to reduce. If the US was one big metabolic ward, then this would not be a discussion, because all food would be portion out perfectly, and regardless of your hunger, there would be no food until the next portion meal.

Free living low carb studies show that people have less cravings, and more often than not, after the experiment, they end up eating close or similar to the way they ate in the study.

When people are left to their own device, why can't people control their hunger on high carb diets?

This information is crucial for people who always are hungry when they try the traditional body building diet. If people see that their hunger is out of control, simply reducing carbohydrates may help control appetite.

first bolded point - so what are we actually arguing here? No one other than you is talking about adherence we are talking about body composition, and you admit in that sentence that high carb/low carb doesnt matter. Are there advantages for some going lower carb in terms of adherence and convenience? Well sure, but tthats not being relevant to a debate regarding body composition

Second bolded point - People over eat and under report. People are weak and people are stupid. Again the above point comes into it - sure cutting carbs makes it easier to reduce overall calories but that isnt being argued. We are talking about the effects on body composition. If people stuck to the same calories on high or low carb, you have already conceded that it wont affect body comp

Yes. There was definitely satisfaction. Then I went to my night job at UPS, lifting and loading heavy boxes. What do you do for a living, BTW?

If you SAY "calories in calories out", and really MEAN "calories in calories out".....and I know its hard to understand this if you have brain damage.....then such a standard should hold up under ANY GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCE.

Money is money....right? Yes. It is! And guess what? X amount of Pesos equal Y amount of US Dollars in value. Period. How the system works. How you go about exchanging them is your own problem.

Diet exchange....

Starting to ring a Bell? ....

Anything? ......

.....didn't think so. Go lift some more weights, dunderhead.

Awesome, you lift heavy boxes? Glad to see those linguistic studies being put to good use

Show me where Alan, or anyone has argued that it is purely calories in calories out, that protein or EFA's didnt matter? Ohh right, no one has ever said that as that would be a retarded extreme reserved for your side of the argument.

IN every single discussion regarding this there is a dip**** like yourself who comes in touting; why not just eat lard and bacon and still hit my macros?! Cos you would be a fkn moron to do that and a bigger moron to suggest it.

Have adequate dietary protein, meet your EFA needs, ensure sufficient calories around workouts and THEN the rest doesnt matter. Worrying about clean or dirty or low carb of high carb after those basic requirements are met isnt necessary. That is the stance being put forward not some ridiculous extreme that you fools try to use to discredit a valid and correct argument as you are too scared to divert from the brotastic lifestyle.

Now sorry, what were you mentioning about pesos? You freakin idiot

So insulin is not important.
It doesn't matter when we eat our carbs, as long as we eat them in 24 hour period.
It doesn't matter if we eat 2-3 times or 6, or 1. If everything totals out at the end of the day, we're O.K.



Please shut your faces. If you don't think it matters to eat carbs for your breakfast, pre/post work-out meals, you should learn the basics of nutrition before you start trying to analyze a study that's posted on the Internet... that has nothing to do with people who work out.

Also, Alan might be knowledgeable on these topics, but what's annoying is his little bitches following from thread to thread, and keep kissing his asses in order to look "cool" or win debates, because they don't know **** themselves.

--- There are certain times that certain macro nutrients should be consumed. I don't understand how you guys think you can eat whatever you want, as long as it totals out at the end of the day... maybe it might WORK, but it's not OPTIMAL.

read above Einstein

[alan aragon]

Druluv -- understand one little thing about science & research. The less control you have over the variables, the more you leave open to chance. The more you leave open to chance, the weaker your data is, and the more tentative your conclusions are. This is why we have to make a very clear distinction between correlation and causation. You first have to try to understand that. You can do it, man. I have more faith in your mental functioning than the Spanish linguist-turned-UPS box boy.

Now, let's imagine you were to cop out and ignore experimental research & put all of your stock in uncontrolled/observational research. What exists in this vein of research is FAR from a landslide in favor of the near-keto & keto-level low-carb dieting you have hardon for. As a matter of fact, the bulk of the observational research showing long-term weight loss success is in favor of a balanced macro diet, with carbs being the dominant macro. Does this mean we should all jump on the high-carb, low-fat train? No, but at the same time, to latch onto the nuts of the other extreme of dreams of insulin-mediated weight loss advantages & other such nonsense is just plain ignorant.

[MattyH7688]

So insulin is not important.
It doesn't matter when we eat our carbs, as long as we eat them in 24 hour period.
It doesn't matter if we eat 2-3 times or 6, or 1. If everything totals out at the end of the day, we're O.K.



Please shut your faces. If you don't think it matters to eat carbs for your breakfast, pre/post work-out meals, you should learn the basics of nutrition before you start trying to analyze a study that's posted on the Internet... that has nothing to do with people who work out.

Also, Alan might be knowledgeable on these topics, but what's annoying is his little bitches following from thread to thread, and keep kissing his asses in order to look "cool" or win debates, because they don't know **** themselves.



--- There are certain times that certain macro nutrients should be consumed. I don't understand how you guys think you can eat whatever you want, as long as it totals out at the end of the day... maybe it might WORK, but it's not OPTIMAL.

in for kissing the multiple asses of alan

[Phosphate bond]

With the results of the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, the participants of this study didn't fair to well with their high carb diet of 1800k. With that said , the metabolic ward high carb group actually ate less calories than the Minnesota Starvation Experiment, so I wonder did the participants of the metabolic ward study have any reactions like the Minnesota Starvation Experiment?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneso...ion_Experiment

"Their meals were composed of foods that were expected to typify the diets of people in Europe during the latter stages of the war: potatoes, rutabagas, turnips, bread and macaroni."

This is not what I call a healthy well rounded diet. Some fat (essential fatty acids) are good for the nervous system where they function as a second messangers for neurotransmitters.

Are you really going to use a deficient diet as a basis for a crusade against carbs in general?

P.S. I'm not sure this "Minnesota starvation" diet had adequate protein either (essential amino acids).

[Drandom]

Dirty Shoez, you lose!

[matthor]

Dirty Shoez, you lose!

dont worry - i've worked out how to get rid of dirty shoez.. FOR GOOD!

[Phosphate bond]

I think this whole insulin secretion vs inhibition of lipolyis is also partly confounded by potassium intake.

Some carbs (fruits) not to mention vegetables have a lot of potassium in them.

High potassium intake usually downregulates alpha 1 receptors. Alpha 1 receptor levels are usually inversely correlated to beta receptor levels. This receptor relationship is important on adipocytes for the purposes of modulating hormone sensitive lipase.

Part of this may be because beta receptor "responsiveness" and stimulation (via cAMP) moves extra cellular K+ to the intracellular compartment.

What I am mentioning is obviously very complicated stuff. I just bring this up because I don't think these simple "macro" correlations are the whole story. More inquiry is needed.

[monkeydan]

I knew that study was going to come up, that's why I didn't say that low carb diets lose more fat than high carb diets. My argument is as stated, When you reduce carbs, you will naturally reduce calories.

Ah, ok - I must have misunderstood you.

I didn't realise that you were saying if you cut out carbohydrates (the macronutrient from which most people get the majority of their daily calories) that they would lose weight. This makes perfect sense.

[t-bone2]

Bottom line: calories are not calories. They effect EVERYONE differently.

Yes, they absolutely are. Unless you've found a way to invalidate thermodynamics which, regardless of macronutrient class, mandates that a calorie is a calorie. Perhaps what you meant to say, as inferred from your additional statement, is that human physiology does not extract all the calories released during oxidation of a food. Even there, individual variation does not seem to be significant. If you have data that states otherwise, please post it. Apart from that, a calorie is still a calorie.

[PowerManDL]

Yes, they absolutely are. Unless you've found a way to invalidate thermodynamics which, regardless of macronutrient class, mandates that a calorie is a calorie. Perhaps what you meant to say, as inferred from your additional statement, is that human physiology does not extract all the calories released during oxidation of a food. Even there, individual variation does not seem to be significant. If you have data that states otherwise, please post it. Apart from that, a calorie is still a calorie.

He's trying the usual strawman approach of the bro-tologists, which is to state the following:

"Oh yeah? Well if this guy eats nothing but cheesecake and candy bars and his friend eats a clean diet w/ lots of protein you can't say they'll get teh same results on the same calories LOL!"

The stupidity there is obvious, but for the slow I'll point out that the argument doesn't control for protein and EFA intake.

Nobody, nobody, nobody has argued that it's *pure* calories vs. calories with no control for protein and EFA intake.

The argument is that, *once protein and EFA intake is controlled for*, thus fulfilling the body's requirements, then calorie sources don't matter.

People tend to have a problem with reading comprehension, which is what makes it harder.

Further, reviewing the literature, the only studies that actually show any variation in results vs. quality of food intake rely on self-reporting (ie, the participants are full of ****, either not recording things or lying).

Studies that actually do control for this, surprise surprise, show no differences. And this is for the reason pointed out: thermodynamics pwns all.

Insulin is a powerful hormone *in the context of the body's processes*, but people have a problem understanding that thermodynamics is an even more fundamental principle of physics, and by proxy, of chemistry.

Simply put, insulin can't create energy from thin air. Energy, in this instance, being measured by the kilocalorie. Without an abundance of energy to store, the body is not going to store. It has energy needs that must be met; it would be stupid to put money in your savings account when you can't pay the light bill.

You can't look at this over acute time frames, either. What happens in the near-term after a feeding isn't the net result over an entire day, and studies that examine the near-term often don't reflect the real-world situation in the first place (done fasting when most people wouldn't be, as an example).

In short, I'm typing out what I'm sure has been stated over and over and over again, but liberal-arts majors with no understanding of even basic science feel that they can read a study or two and "disprove" people far more educated on the matter than they are.

It was more fun trolling, honestly.

[Elliptical Envy]

PowermanDL for broscience mod in 2008!

[matthor]

way to ruin the thread powermanDL - i was enjoying this!