Calories in Calories out is a myth

>>40897843
>scientific paper, that says fat people who cant loose weight with counting calories are fat liars

When I ate 2,000 calories per day I went from 195 to 165 over 7 months or so. I ended up with abs, no lower back fat, even had veins on my quadriceps.

>I had no special eating hours ~ I just consumed 2000 calories over the course of the day and didn't go over 2000.

Then I went back to my old eating habits (not counting calories, eating whatever I want) and over 1 year or so regained all the fat.

Counting calories works so long as you actually do it. I can easily track calories, but I simply no longer possess the willpower to actually stick to my calorie limit.

People are in denial about this stuff.

I sometimes wish that someone was able to control my calorie intake for me, that way I'd maintain lean body my entire life.

I control my dogs food intake and I can literally make them overweight by feeding them 2 cups of dog food a day, or keep them lean on 1 cup of dog food a day. Apply the same control to any human and watch their body composition change very easily without any issues.

>>40897886
Unless you're eating the right things it will never matter. If you eat less calories but are eating processed carbohydrates your insulin levels will remain high and your cells will be resistant. Its a balance of resetting your insulin levels, resistance and diet. The food industry has been perpetuating this lie. Why? Money of course.

>>40897951
Exactly! You rebounded and got even fatter, am I correct? Doctor Fung addresses this stuff directly. It wasn't your willpower my friend, it was insulin. Trust me, give the 30 minute video a gander, this shit is revolutionary.

>>40897973
No I did not get fatter.

I just went back up to the bodyweight I maintain on about 3,000-3,300 calories per day.

Nothing at all about the way I eat changes (type of food, timing of food) besides eating less calories.

Fuck off Dr Dung.

>>40898016
Your TDEE does NOT change significantly enough when you go on a caloric deficit that you need meme diets like Keto to lose weight.

Just stay on a deficit, use scale in conjunction with the mirror. Everything else is unnecessary.

Scooby said it best
>eat a bit less
>exercise a bit more
>drink more water

You are literally complicating shit that isn't complicated

>>40898015
I'm no doctor and I honestly don't know a ton. I need to rewatch a lot of his content. But, trust me man this guy knows what he's talking about. You didn't fail because of willpower. ALL of The Biggest Loser contestants rebounded as well. They were set up to fail. If you don't know the cause you can't solve the problem, and the problem is a lifetime of soda, sugars, and all sorts of carbohydrates that have made your body resistant to insulin.

Calories in vs Calories out is not a myth. Your body doesn't break the law of thermodynamics just because you started eating less.

>>40897843
gr8 b8 m8

>>40898063
No you fuck, it's because they revert to eating shitty foods after they get off of the show. Matter CANNOT be created out of nothing, if you are a 500 calorie deficit YOU WILL lose weight, that is a fact and no amount of bullshit Dr. Dung can spout will change that

>>40898060
>eat a bit less
>exercise a bit more
>drink more water

This is exactly the paradigm I'm challenging. It sounds good on paper but it is not practical. It has a ridiculous fail rate, you lose the weight and rebound almost every time. If it were so true the United States, and the rest of the world to an extent, would not be in this obesity epidemic. Something is wrong with the science. I believe Dr. Fung might have the answer.

>>40897973
>>40897843
I lost 50 kilos and didn't gain it back, it's been 5 years.

All I did was eat less, I wasn't even exercising a ton.

don't waste your time op. there are a few of us on here who have realised that CICO is bullshit, but most of /fit/ will just think you're baiting because they've read the sticky and think that they're experts on nutrition.

>>40898060
Sure, if you're a simpleton. Why don't you just go back to having conversations over email instead of complicating things with 4chan and social media

>>40898105
It has a high fail rate because healthy foods are shit for the most part and McDonald's is cheaper and easier in general.

>>40898115
>there are a few of us on here that don't understand the laws of thermodynamics

>>40898122
Ad hominem

Can you come up with an effective argument that defies the laws of physics so I can laugh at you?

>>40898115
You are going to sit there and tell me that if you BMR is 2k calories and you eat 500 less than that your body will magically adapt and become more efficient at using them and magically GAIN WEIGHT creating matter out of thin air? Holy shit dude you are fuvking dumb.

Hey so what happens if I go on an ultra low calorie diet (under 750 calories of pure fat and protein per day all in one meal) and walk an average of 15k steps every day? It seems to be working fine so far but I'm afraid my body might start going into survival mode soon

File: gif.gif (496KB, 450x254px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 450x254px

>>40898139
>laws of thermodynamics
>>40898148
>laws of physics

yep there it is

Listen, this is for the fatties that are trying to lose weight. You have stumbled onto the holy grail of weight loss. I challenge you to watch the video, if you have the aptitude you will find he makes perfect sense. All these niggers are doing is perpetuating a lie that makes the food industry money. I'm telling you this because I'm passionate and I care. I have no motive other than to see you succeed and to challenge the beliefs I don't agree with on this board, much like Dr. Fung is challenging almost every other professional in his field.


>>40898115
It's not a waste of time in my eyes. I fucking love the truth and I love seeing my peers succeed. Even more-so I love sticking it to the big money faggots who could give a shit how much they hurt people as long as they make a buck.

The real problem is people are sold a diet to lose 10 pounds, lose the 10 pounds and then go back to their old habits. To be healthy or to lose weight and keep it off you need to realize you aren't "going on a diet" you're changing your diet. That's the trap.

>>40898148
I'm not saying a simple calorie deficit won't work, homo. I'm just saying there's a lot more that goes into the biology of weight loss than "muh thermodynamics"

>>40898174
your body is responding to your low calorie diet by lowering your metabolism

do alternate day fasting instead

>>40898197
No there isn't, just eat less and you will lose weight.

>>40897954
[Citation needed]


http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/lose-weight-eating-junk-food-nutrition-professor-drops-27-pounds-twinkie-diet-months-article-1.453215

>>40898176
>posts no argument
>thinks he's won

lol, have you given up this easily?

>be me
>calculate tdee
>track calories
>eat healthy abov tdee
>gain weight
>eat less calories than tdee
>Lose weight

wow! it's completely BS!

funny thing I eat worse foods aka shit like twinkies or chocolate when cutting

>>40898186
You are fucking stupid and are literally promoting a meme

>shoo shoo gains goblin

>>40898217
People always cite this twinkie diet. Its complete bullshit. He lost the wait for a short period I'm sure, but he did not fix the underlying problem. Which is again? Class? INSULIN! And the hunger hormone ghrelin.

He fucked his shit up on that twinkie diet.

>>40898186
This amount of autism in this post is amazing

>we've transcended to a land where meme diets are law and bodybuilding is easy

>>40898243
You probably weren't OBESE. You have healthy insulin genetics and this shit doesn't apply to you.

>>40898248
Insulin, insulin, insulin, do you know any other word? Insulin levels are not nearly as important as you think for weight loss.

>>40898274
>Dr. Dung is a genius and his work is law unless calories in calories out worked for you, then you're an anonmly

lol

>>40898274
welp my bad for not reading the word obese, I'm not obese.

still, it applies to fat fucks anyways and doesnt really matter what they eat unless they want to be healthy and preserve and/or build muscle mass

>>40898248
[Citation needed again] Calories are the most relevant factor when it comes to weigh loss or gain. Ask any athlete who bulks on junk, fat people have no excuse for being fat. Unless you have worked up to and fasted for a month no exceptions

So a fat fuck can eat 500 calories a day but doesn't lose weight because of insulin sensitivity? Nah

>>40897843
So, lift and intermittent fasting. Don't eat sugars.

>>40898063
I study this shit and insulin resinstance is reversible you dumb shit
There's way more to it
Yes insulin indeed plays a role in losing/gaining weight but saying it's all insulin is utter bullshit
It's a combination of both calorie intake and hormone levels
but eating less will still make you lose weight there's no other way

Guys I only eat twinkles and I bodybuilding loose wight when? Am 140cm 130kg but can bench my bw so it's mostly muscle

File: fashion-in-american-psycho.jpg (21KB, 608x456px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 608x456px

>>40898248
You have yet to say one thing remotely credible. MUH insulin

>needing food
you guys are weaklings
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm

>>40898314
And I'm arguing that calories are not whats important. Its the balance of insulin and ghrelin. Fat people are fat because they're built up a tolerance to insulin. Studies show higher insulin = fatter people. Lower insulin = skinnier people. You need to retrain your insulin tolerance so that your body doesn't need to eat more to get the same effect. And that is where calories in and calories out comes in. Yes they are eating more calories and getting fatter, but WHY? He's trying to find the underlying factor. Why do the want more calories? Why do almost all of the calories in calories out and exercise methods fail?

The citation is in the OP. In his 1 hour talks, 6 total, there are plenty of studies cited that back this science up.

Diebetes and insulin resistance are symptoms. More likely cause is related to a loss of UCP-1 or something with prostaglandin e2 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550686/

>>40898283
>Insulin levels are not nearly as important as you think for weight loss.

can you explain this statement? the way i understand it, when insulin is elevated you are in fat storage mode and literally cannot burn fat.

>>40897843
>when you eat less your body burns less. When you eat more your body burns more

It's called thermogenic effect of food. Your body consumes more calories by digesting 1000kcals eaten in one sitting than 300kcals. In the end it evens out to be the same.

>It is not eating 6 times a day to keep your metabolism going, it is eating 1 time a day to keep your insulin levels low

It might improve nutrient partitioning but if you're not burning more than what you consume weight loss just isn't gonna happen. Look up on thermodynamics.

>switching to a fat heavy, low carb diet

Not even gonna comment on this one.

Look man, this doctor Fung isn't some lifechanging miracle profet who discovered the secret to something as complex as how the human body works. It's something that it's not 100% understood yet, and when it comes to dieting, it's not so black and white. He's got some good points, but he's not revealing anything that hasn't been considered before. Most of what he says has been discussed countless times before he even made that speech, so it's not an end all be all of nutrition.

>>40898381
>Yes they are eating more calories and getting fatter, but WHY?

You answered your own question

>>40898081
>Calories in vs Calories out is not a myth. Your body doesn't break the law of thermodynamics just because you started eating less.

no, but it's stupid and oversimplified. your metabolic processes are more complicated than one fucking number.

>>40898412
>Your body uses more calories by digesting 1000kcals

correction

>>40897843

Well, yes, when you eat at a calorie deficit, what's happening behind the scenes is your insulin is low, which is how your body knows to burn fat to make up the deficit. The two go hand-in-hand. You can't effectively do one without the other.

>>40898386
What I meant is that he is proposing that insulin levels are empirically more important than eating at a caloric deficit for losing weight and that is just not correct

>>40898367
And ghrelin. They are the underlying factor of why they want so many calories and why they crave the wrong foods. It is the hormonal system that is at work here, not will power or behavior. A lifetime of bad dieting has put them in this state. Fasting to retrain the insulin tolerance will make there bodies need less insulin and therefore needless food (calories) to feed the cells. Thereafter maintaining a 1 meal a day intermittent fast to keep the insulin levels low (you get an insulin spike when you eat).

I just wish people would watch the video, its literally all in there.

>calories in calories out is a meme
>put down that physics book, anon
>thermodynamics is fake news you fucking goyim

>>40898429
It should be oversimplified because people like you try to over complicate it.

File: 1481307705728.png (689KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

689KB, 1280x720px

>>40897843
>Guy starts talking about metabolic slowdown

>Metabolic slowdown is like my number one fear as I continue to lose weight

>>40898413
Why are they craving more calories I should say.

>>40898412
>It's called thermogenic effect of food. Your body consumes more calories by digesting 1000kcals eaten in one sitting than 300kcals. In the end it evens out to be the same.

You should fucking REALLY look up the shit you parrot. No seriously. Go look up the thermic effect of food.

>>40898462
this is the problem with /fit/. dumb fucking aspies from /pol/ or whatever other shit board you came from who read the sticky and think they're a goddamn expert on nutrition.

if your only knowledge of weight loss is calories go down -> weight on the scale goes down, don't fucking post, you have literally nothing to contribute here other than the same garbage every other dyel retard like yourself has posted for years and years.

>>40898464
yeah because body composition doesn't matter, nor does insulin resistance or insulin sensitivity. only those calories and the scale lol fuck am i smart yet???? someone please notice how intelligent i am.

>>40898440
The problem is that people think its a matter of willpower. The only willpower involved is choosing the right foods to eat, not how much you eat. Its not insulin levels so much as its insulin resistance. They have built up an insulin tolerance which needs to be radically changed, and changing the hormonal system is not easy. But once you get to the UNDERLYING reason people want more calories, then you can treat obesity effectively.

>>40898473
Because when you are on a caloric deficit you are literally starving so your body starts to cannibalize itself for energy. It's natural that it would send signals and release hormones for you to eat.

>>40898489

lol i bet you have a shit physique

>>40898507
please leave

>>40898467
Recalculate TDEE for every four pounds lost. If your weight loss stalls for two consecutive weeks just lower the calories, it isn't rocket science my man.

>>40898514

dyel

>>40898514
Tripfag kys

>unless zyzz in disguise
>then welcome back bb

>>40898467
>>40898517
how is this supposed to help him?

>anon is scared about possible metabolic damage
>"hey, just do this thing to exacerbate the damage"

>>40897843
Fuck this Fung faggot

>>40898525
>>40898537
welcome to /fit/

File: 1489717734399.gif (1MB, 430x360px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 430x360px

>>40898517
That doesn't really address my concern

>>40898229
Those arguments don't take into account changes in metabolism. It's a pseudo-scientific argument from people who have never taken a physics course.

>>40898553
>le i'm so old meme

go lift some weights spaghetti arms

>>40898501
Insulin sensitivity will balance out with the introduction of a healthy diet. You CAN eat McDonald's everyday and lose weight, but it isn't as fun because you have like two Mcdoubles and half a fry for the entire day.

Other foods like chicken breast and veggies are more satiating and filling because of fiber and protein. So you can earless and still feel satisfied.

>>40898514
>>40898553
guy I see you have name from contributing to 4chan a lot please answer question?
>>40898341
am new

>>40898570
>half a fry

>>40898502
Yes so we need to retrain those hormones. They will keep you going back to that homeostatic state of being fat. Whatever weight you were is that homeostatic state. Your body thinks its starving but there is plenty of energy stored in the fat cells. Retraining the hormones will smack your hormone system in the face, so to speak, so that you don't have those cravings. You don't need them and your body doesn't "know" that. This is caused from the body "thinking" it needs more food because the cells have become so resistant to the insulin released from eating. The resistance, or tolerance, is a universal concept. Much like building a resistance to alcohol, an antibiotic, or any drug for that matter.

>>40898548
It basically immediately reverses when you eat at a surplus again.

I'm so triggered right now

>>40898558
See>>40898580

>>40898560
Two things.
Changes in metabolism are entirely down to the loss in mass...which equals a loss in basal metabolic rate. You know, less body less calories needed to fuel and move said body?

Secondly, the body does not drop weight in a 1:1 fashion. Some weeks you'll drop 2 pounds others you'll drop a half of a pound. It is not linear.

>>40897843
tl;dw - utilise intermittent fasting and/or a ketogenic diet to lower your set point

>>40898577
Now this I can agree with.

>so many scientific terms and shit

lmao just give in natty card and make sure you get enough protein and a solid curlbro split. 1 meal a day lmao I don't ever see myself doing that

>>40898613
>1 meal a day lmao I don't ever see myself doing that

don't tell your body what you can't do

>>40898593
I wouldn't say the standard deviation is .5-2lbs, more like just .5lbs. More if you don't account for water weight.

File: s.jpg (98KB, 842x1024px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 842x1024px

>>40898566
>>go lift some weights spaghetti arms

ok

>>40898654
Not zyzz

>i cry evrytiem

>>40898654
Where did your chest go.

>>40898381
> Why do almost all of the calories in calories out and exercise methods fail?

They don't, I'm a living proof of that. Obesity is a behavior problem that can be fixed by changing your lifestyle.

File: IMG_0789.png (440KB, 921x741px) Image search: [Google]

440KB, 921x741px

>>40897886
You mean this.

>>40898713
>They don't, I'm a living proof of that

nice anecdote

>>40898654
>trying to btfo with this picture

this place is a fucking joke

>>40898728
your turn

post your best lifts too

>>40897843
>But when you eat less your body burns less.

So why don't we just eat 0, save money and crash the food industry?

>>40898717
LOL!

>saved

Is keto legit?

>>40898654
did u quit roiding?

>>40898782
years ago

>>40898761
It's a conspiracy man

>le tinfoil hat

>>40898444
"Want, crave" "not willpower"

If you are fat you have 0 willpower. All I hear are excuses, I had solutions. My buddies wanted to lose weight at 6'4 260 took 3 months some people just don't have it in them because they are faggot losers

>>40897843
repped brah

Learned about insulin when I was first starting out with intermittent fasting and experimenting with keto diets. Tried everything but was still skinnyfat.

Eventually I realized my carb intake was too high which caused huge spikes in insulin and horrible nutrient partitioning as a result. I still do IF and a keto-esque diet with about 65% fat, 25% protein and 10% carbs. I eat more/less carbs on workout days.

If you are skinnyfat, you will progress out of skinnyfat by improving your insulin sensitivity through decreased eating, fasting, and cutting carbs.

>>40898722
That's basically what bodybuilding lifestyle is about you idiot. It's altering your body by exercise, sleep and food.

>>40898812
this

when I was 13 and knew jack shit about nutrition, lifting/exercise and all of this I ate twice and by the end of it, thrice per day for 2 consecutive months

soup with a slice of bread with sardine patê for lunch and dinner, before sleeping a cup of milk and 3-4 cookies
it was awful in terms of healtyness but fuck me did I have some willpower and discipline to commit to it, went from fat to skinny as fuck

File: hugh wot.png (748KB, 590x598px) Image search: [Google]

748KB, 590x598px

>>40898757

>>40898849
We are discussing weight loss, not weight gain for which insulin does play a more significant role.

>repped brah

Go back to bb.com fuckboi

>>40898593
I'm not sure where you get the information to make your first claim.

Energy efficiency isn't going to stay exactly the same. For one, carbs are a more efficient source of energy than fats or proteins, so a calorie of carbs will yield a greater amount of (usable) energy than a calorie of fat

File: r.png (708KB, 588x489px) Image search: [Google]

708KB, 588x489px

>>40898757

5'11

325 bp x 3
235 ohp x 5
470 sq x 4
560 dl x 3

sorry brah.

File: a.jpg (52KB, 750x385px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 750x385px

>>40898888
>>40898921
seems legit

Obesity is mental disorder. Just stop stuffing your face every time you think of food, stop grazing, and stop eating shit tier food.

well it's been fun conversing with you fags, but I gotta get to the track to hit dat dere 5k workout

>>40898939
Did you get any results for >>40898921? Nothing popped up when I reversed that one

>>40898959
stop having opinions

>2017
>People still fall for obvious frauds riding the low-carb wave to convince nutritionally illiterate obese Americans retards that the reason they're fat is not because they stuff their faces with junk food and restaurant food all day but because their diet has too much of what Americans eat the least of among the nation of the worlds, simple harmless carbohydrates.

Wow
Amazing

>>40898963
it's a screencap from this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErONk8xvJag

>>40898849
>repped brah

kill yourself

>>40898654

Damn Ennui you're looking really good these days. I've been here since your first ever DNP cycle n shit.

Man, I wish I had your wrists, I still look like shit after 7 years cause of my 5.5" wrists. Feels bad man.

Keep up the good work.

>>40897843
You hooked quite a few of them, I give you a 6/10.

>>40898984
good find!

>>40898105
>trying this hard to rationalize being a fat fuck

>just started a keto diet today with an intermittent fasting schedule of 16/8

Good to hear.

The problem here is that people are talking past each other. It's obviously true that eating less calories than you consume will make you lose weight. Only complete retards would disagree with this. The point behind keto and its variants is that most people would prefer not to feel like shit all the time, and some diets just make it easier to eat less calories without feeling like shit. That's it. That's the whole argument.

Also, it may or may not be true that hormones influence how many of the calories you put in your mouth are actually taken up by your body. That this is true is another claim by keto people (and probably also OP's guy). I'm not a doctor, so I have no idea if they are right.

I belive Insulin resistance is a thing in STRICTLY OBESE People.

I don't believe your average fatty normie with a beer gut doesn't have insulin resistance. If you're pushing 300+ you probably do have insulin resistance.

>>40898849
This post is particularly funny since cutting carbs is one of the proven and effective ways to decrease insuling sensitivity. Actually you can induce prediabetes by removing carbs from the diet.

>>40898514
>tripfagging to say go away

neck yourself

File: 1488639023231.png (134KB, 334x393px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 334x393px

>>40898654
>thinking this somehow disproves anyone of anything


fuck do i ever wish I was 5'4 too

>>40899034
>I belive Insulin resistance is a thing in STRICTLY OBESE People.

this is not true. people who are a healthy weight can harbor insulin resistance or even develop type 2 diabetes.

File: twinkediet.png (632KB, 1073x710px) Image search: [Google]

632KB, 1073x710px

>>40898105
>twinkies
>eat less
>lose weight

>>40898063
>You didn't fail because of willpower.
He fucking ate more so he weighed more

>>40899107
>be scientist
>take scientific approach to diet
>including extremely autistic monitoring of intake, and body weight fluctuations

Your body works with what it gets. Period.

>>40898560
How do I create energy from nothing? I have to create energy SOMEWHERE, from SOMETHING. If I eat less than I require, daily, I will be getting energy from somewhere.

That's the first rule of thermodynamics you fucking dolt.

>>40899102
This is false
>>40899034
This is correct.

Diabetes is virtually nonexistent in people who have a body fat mass that is normal for their genetics. There are people who have a "normal" BMI and do develop diabetes, but this is due to different fat distribution and due to their genetics requiring a lower body fat mass for healthy insulin metabolism. This is more typical in Asians, for example.

The only way to really kill insulin sensitivity in a person with low body fat is to feed them a ton of saturated fat while removing fruits, vegetables, fiber and carbs

>>40899169
>This is false

no it isn't

File: Glycemic-Index-Food-List1.png (106KB, 581x548px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 581x548px

Things that make the most sense to me from all this insulin talk is to avoid high glycemic foods, especially when you're hungry and are more likely to binge on it. High GI foods will spike your glucose and insulin sky high and at those levels the glucose is most likely to be converted to and stored as fat (as well as lypolisis being inhibited). Over time this will probably induce some metabolic changes in terms of insulin resistance, changed body composition, etc. This is just the tip of the iceberg, metabolism is complex as fuck and you just can't point your finger at one thing and say it's the cause of everything hence why so many pseudo science bullshit out there.

>>40899107
>Get diabetes
>Destroy your body and metabolism

>>40899119
Yes, but why does he crave more. Yes more calories = more weight but why does the body irrationally crave food when there is plenty of fat cells to eat from. Read the thread, breh.

>>40898248
>wait
You will never teach a class you illiterate retard.

Insulin in the blood makes you produce more fat cells

>Japanese are skinny
>Japanese eat rice with like, EVERYTHING

Why dis.

>>40899272
insulin sensitivity

>>40899194
Yeah you're definitely on to something. I don't know much about the GI but yes, the idea is to stay away from food that spike insulin. Insulin sensitivity might not tell all but its definitely a good start at least. Trying to get to the underlying factor and stop blaming fatties for "having no willpower".

>>40897843

Why do fat people always look for these weird psuedoscience fat loss theories? If you put half as much effort into eating less and making better food choices you wouldn't be fat.

>>40899272
>>40899275
Rice is one of the better carbs for you.

You have to look at the rest of the diet too
>Fish
>Vegetables
>Lean Meats

>>40898283
>>40898217
>still talking about weight loss
No, I'm pretty sure you can easily lose weight without controlling insulin, sure.

But that is also more or less completely fucking irrelevant, because what we're ACTUALLY interested in is ADIPOSITY.

>>40899294

As long as you mention insulin by name, you can make up whatever you want about how the human body works and fatties will believe it.

>>40899194
The glycemic index is "pseudo science bullshit" though.

>High GI foods will spike your glucose and insulin sky high
It is impossible for glucose to be "sky high" in somebody who does not have diabetes, even if you give them several hundred grams of refined sugar and glucose. It does not happen.

>at those levels the glucose is most likely to be converted to and stored as fat
This is false. De novo lipogenesis does not happen in any normal dietary context. The first thing that happens in response to carbohydrate overfeeding is that metabolism is increased. In some people, physical activity level is increased as well (facultative dietary thermogenesis). There are some studies on this and it takes several days of overeating thousands of calories of carbs to get any significant amount of conversion to fat. Even then, the conversion takes 25% of the energy, so carbs stored as fat effectively only have 3 calories per gram. An adult human male athlete can store around 5000 calories of carbohydrates, sometimes more, while burning 100-200 per hour.

Also, the only other viable energy source is fat. You know what happens to fat you eat? It gets stored as fat. So how does it even makes sense to eat fat instead. It doesn't.

File: muh japs are so skinny.jpg (100KB, 1023x730px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1023x730px

>>40899272
I take it that by that you mean skinnyfat soytitted fembois?

>>40899368
they're not skinnyfat, they're just skinny

>>40899295
The Japanese diet was 80% carbohydrates in the 50s, nobody was fat, nobody had diabetes.

Nowadays it's more like 70%, with more fish. China is actually heading from 80% to 60% in the past 50 years and they're all blowing up and getting diabetes.

The American average is 45-50%

>>40899272
Carbs keep you slim.

>>40899239
People crave more because of the brain and how it responds to food stimuli, not any physiological process. Carbs like rice and potato are pretty boring, people don't overeat them. Rice diet works, case closed.

>>40899028
I’m not discrediting what you’re saying, but I think that simplicity goes hand-in-hand with success for weight loss. I think focusing too much on the “why” loses focus on the bigger picture. Weight loss is just that, losing weight, regardless of whether hormones are increasing cravings and hunger. I agree that eating satisfying foods are important for the mental part of losing weight, but even if that’s not done, the human body cannot create calories from nothing. As well, I disagree with recommending IF because people who IF are much more likely to binge eat and underestimate calories consumed. Again, it’s not that I think that it’s 100% wrong, but I think it’s just not the things that people should be focusing on when they want to lose weight.

>>40899239
Because people enjoy food and seek emotional refuge in eating. I used to be fat and I didn't get there by craving food or responding to hunger signals, I got there by eating food past the point of being full because it was pleasurable and filled my boredom.

I'm positive most people that used to be fat can relate.

>>40899392
*complex carbs

>>40899377
>those tiny soytitted twinks
>not even having visible abs despite being professional models or something
>not skinnyfat
"ok"

>>40898654
>dyel christ-cuck

Nothing to be proud of

>>40899431
they look healthy

dunno what you're on about

>>40899437
>christ-cuck

lol

>>40899358
The fat you eat isn't the same as the fat in your body lol

>>40899358
>Also, the only other viable energy source is fat. You know what happens to fat you eat? It gets stored as fat. So how does it even makes sense to eat fat instead. It doesn't.

this is by far the stupidest post in this thread

>>40899440
>they look healthy
They look like weak bugmen, perfectly bred and adapted for agricultural and urban societies

>>40899474
yeah coincidentally those weak bugmen tend to have the longest life expectancy on earth

really gets your neurons firing, doesn't it?

>>40899492
Living long is degenerate, being older than 30 is pathological.

>>40897843
Scientists hate him! Learn one simple trick to melt that body fat away.

>>40899492
Everyone know being large is not good for life expctency.

NFL players lose on average 10 years by being in the NFL.

But I sure as shit would rather be Mike Alstott that jap band member #5.

>>40897843
>if you eat less you burn less, if you eat more you burn more
God I hate that statement. Thermogenic effect of food roughly equates to a 10% burn of calories consumed. So my eating at a moderate deficit of 500 Calories means you're missing out on 50 extra calories that would have been burned by eating at maintenance from muh eat more burn more. That still adds up to a net loss of 450, from food. So long story short eat less, lose more.

>>40897843
>But when you eat less your body burns less. When you eat more your body burns more.

Nice b8 m8.
Just like most things in life, your body only burns more if you're doing things that cause it to burn it. If you you eat 2000 calories above your weight now, and you just sit on your ass and do nothing, you'll gain fat, your body won't just burn those extra 2000 calories into nothing.
It's not difficult to understand.

>You cannot vary how hard it is to eat at a caloric deficit by changing what you eat.

There are people in this thread defending this statement.

>>40899535
>size is the reason NFL players have short life expectancies
NFL players are roided to the fucking gills and frequently receive debilitating injuries that'd kill a weaker man. It's likely their size is one of the main things preventing them from dying more often.

>>40897843
>On a very technical level; yes, calories in calories out.

>It's a myth though

>>40899392
Do you know WHY the diet was mostly carbs in the 1950s? It was because food was a hell of a lot more scarce, and carbohydrate-heavy cereal crops are the easiest foodstuff to grow at scale and store.

People didn't become obese because they didn't have the opportunity to gorge themselves.

>>40899633

>food was scarce in the 1950s

Honestly Dr Fung seems pretty cool, I can tell he's one of those super high functioning people who expects that everyone else (aka the american population) is on his level. Instead of realizing that sometimes these people who "can't loose weight" it isn't because their metabolism slowed a little while they're dieting, it isn't because they gained a few calories from insulin resistance, it's because they're really too lazy to commit to healthy lifestyle changes so they go on a series of unsustainable diets and their weight yoyos back and forth. They aren't going to the doctors because they're honestly tried everything and don't know what to do, they're going to the doctors complaining no matter what they do they can't loose weight because they want a quick fix for the problem. They want pills, surgery, anything other than actually having to take responsibility for their past actions and change their lifestyle for the better.

Yes those factors are playing a part making it harder for them to loose weight, but it's still not impossible to loose weight by calorie reduction. If anything they should blame themselves because no one forced them to eat garbage for the past x amount of years and then go crying to the doctors because it's slightly harder for them to loose weight because they've completely wrecked their own metabolism.

>>40899358
>It is impossible for glucose to be "sky high" in somebody who does not have diabetes

Chronically sure but I was referring to acute, post-meal levels.

As for the other things,
>De novo lipogenesis does not happen in any normal dietary context
> There are some studies on this and it takes several days of overeating thousands of calories of carbs to get any significant amount of conversion to fat
>An adult human male athlete can store around 5000 calories of carbohydrates, sometimes more, while burning 100-200 per hour.

Some source could be useful for these because even though I had biochem over two years ago some of these statements seem kinda way off, especially the 5000 calorie thing (iirc it's around 1400 calories stored as glycogen in liver and muscles in untrained individuals). I could be wrong though but really can't be assed now to go though all those biochem processes I used to memorize just to prove someone wrong (or correct myself).

>>40897843

>that fucking video

why the fuck didn't he give ANY recommendation whatsoever about what he would see as most fitting?

>"JUST DO FASTING!!!"

the insulin thing and saying fasting is good is the only thing he did. he doesn't tell the people what the optimal diet in coordinance with fasting would be, he doesn't say what kind of downsides due to vitamin shortage can happen..... he just basically leaves people with half the fucking knowledge, goddamn

>>40899783

Different guy but here's a textbook that backs up what he's saying about de novo lipogenesis

http://books.google.com/books?id=hrdRROeCI9IC&pg=PA263

Most body fat does come from dietary fat since that's by far the most efficient energy source to store.

I do IF+low carb+calorie deficit. Lost 5 kg in a month and lifts are going up. Went from 94.8 kg to 89.7 kg. 190 cm

I find it easier to feel "full" when I eat only twice a day with little to no carbs. For years I felt hungrier the more I ate but it itsn't the case anymore

>>40899953
>I find it easier to feel "full" when I eat only twice a day with little to no carbs.

same

20/4 or 23/1 is generally what i stick to and it makes it really hard to overeat. if i eat throughout the entire day i can pack down 5-6k calories with ease but if my meals are condensed into a 1-4 hour window, my appetite isn't nearly as insatiable and i can't eat nearly as much.

>>40899953

I feel as if it's always best to do: 1/4 protein, 1/4 carbo, 1/2 vegetables

always makes me feel the fullest

I won't trust any doctor about weight loss unless they're aesthetic as fuck.

What the fuck does a nerdboy know who doesn't have massive pecs and sixpac.

>>40898381
>confusing correlation with causation

You fucked up.

The more insulin you have, the harder it is going to be to lose fat, this is scientific fact. If you have high insulin and cut at a deficit your body is going to compensate by lowering your basal metabolic rate

He mentioned how somebody went from 3500 maintenance to 1700. Obviously lowering your body mass is going to lower the energy required to maintain your weight, but that 1700 could have easily been 2000 if he had lower insulin levels

>>40898381

> In his 1 hour talks, 6 total, there are plenty of studies cited that back this science up.

And you have the expertise to check that he's interpreting the research correctly?

>>40899136
That's the point I'm making. It's all about Calories. This thread is a thinly veiled fat acceptance thread.
I'm not fat because I eat 4000 calories, I'm fat because I didn't at the right time of the day so I created insulin which made me fat.

>>40897843
>wanna gain weight
>add 1000kcal to my diet
>gain 8kg in 2 months
>wanna lose weight
>get on a deficit
>lose 8kg in 2 months

But yeah, insulin.

>>40898063
>I don't know anything about this vast field of study
>but this guy's legit for sure, trust me, I know this stuff

Fuck you op. You're so full of shit because you're excited, thinking you've found "The Secret." You haven't. Calories in, calories out holds as a result of physical laws that transcend physiology.

>>40898105
>but it is not practical
>eating less is not practical
I can understand working out not being for everybody but overeating is a mental illness.

>>40900119

Thanks my friend. I hate how sticky nutrition experts just scream CALORIES IN CALORIES OUT ARE YOU BREAKING LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS HURR DURR

No shit everyone fucking understands that (or should atleast) but there are TONS of 'little' things that play a role in that, BMR being one. And by eating less carbs your body needs less insulin which means your calories OUT will be greater and you can put more calories IN or enjoy HIGHER DEFICIT despite eating same amount of calories but now it consists mainly of fats and protein instead of carbs.

>>40898186
>perpetuating a lie that makes the food industry money
Getting your consumers to buy less in order to turn a profit? A plan mad enough to work.

>>40897843

>calories in, calories out is a myth
>you should fast instead

Calories don't matter but if you go long periods of time without eating you'll lose weight?

File: insulin spike.png (184KB, 978x729px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 978x729px

>>40900439

>No shit everyone fucking understands that (or should atleast) but there are TONS of 'little' things that play a role in that

Little things with little effect on the overall outcome

>by eating less carbs your body needs less insulin

Not necessarily true. Complex carbs make your insulin signalling more efficient, so you require less. Fatty foods make insulin signalling less effective. Protein can also elicit a large insulin response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFIEUjh0jpI (ignore title)

>>40900549
>Little things with little effect on the overall outcome
This. You can always cut harder.

File: insulin-facts.png (96KB, 600x265px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 600x265px

>>40900509

Fucking idiots not even watching the video just literally kill yourself and do the world a favor.

No one is denying the FUNDAMENTALS of calorires in and calories out. No one is denying that despite whatever diet and whatever insulin amount if you are on a surplus you will not lose weight.

> Insulin is supposed to drive sugar (glucose) into your cells where you use it for energy. Unfortunately, people with chronically high insulin levels lose the ability to do this. Therefore they don’t get energy from eating these foods, and in fact their liver converts the carbohydrate they ate to fat.

You fucking idiots just don't seem to get it. High insulin levels make your CALORIES OUT SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN WHAT IT SHOULD BE.

NO you are NOT breaking laws of thermodynamics but because of different factors playing a role in CICO you could be estimating your CALORIES OUT at ~1000 kcal too high which means that you won't lose weight even at a '500kcal deficit' because it's actually not a deficit to begin with thanks to high carb and high insulin levels.

I'm not sure why everyone's autism is flaring up and thinking this issue is a binary. It is not just "cals in cals out" or just "insulin sens and fasting"

Bodies are individual and really complicated.

Personally, I am very carb sensitive and grapple at least 25 hours a week with lifting. I need a large amount of carbs but also can't eat them without getting extremely tired.

Cutting is also difficult, a standard 500 deficit for me doesn't net me the weight loss it would the average bear.

I've had to resort to fasting on a 20/4 schedule, two meals in that four hour period, only water outside of it for two months to reset my relative insulin sensitivity so I could eat carbs without feeling like I'm going to pass out.

Now I still eat within an 8 hour window and feel much better.

Insulin sensitivity is a thing, not a meme, and can help in % efficiency gains.

Fasting speeds up my cuts by 20-30% on the same caloric deficit without fasting.

>>40900713

>I am very carb sensitive
>I need a large amount of carbs but also can't eat them without getting extremely tired.

You make it sound like you have an allergy to carbohydrates

File: 1298567970605.jpg (2KB, 126x97px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 126x97px

>>40900410
its fucking ridiculous how easy it is to overeat if ur sedentary.
i used to ride my bike for commuting, 16 miles 5 days a week and i could eat wtf i wanted.

now i got into an accident a couple of weeks back, i do not cycle anymore. i am a code monkey, work from home,.. i have gained 10 kilos in 4 weeks. wtf. i eat like half of what i ate before, but still... 10 kilos. wtf.

>>40898274
>muh insulin

Insulin doesn't work like that you fat fuck.

If your body overreleased insulin to the point you're stating, your blod glucose levels would deplete, triggering the fucking fat created to be broken down - hence meaning it doesn't fucking matter - you'd still have the same caloric deifict.

But it doesn't work like that, because some glucose is left in the blood because of negative feedback.

Holy shit you need to read up on homeostasis - also, insulin isn't fucking god - it can't magically compel you to eat. Ghrelin makes you hungry and that's a whole other fucking topic to talk about.

>>40898444
>Insulin tolerance

Glycoproteins becoming unresponsive to insulin or falling off doesn't lead to higher fat storage but the exact opposite, leading to sudden weight loss you dumb fuck.

Fasting isn't even the only way to fucking fix it you moron - any controlled carbohydrate diet does that.

>>40898444
>Less energy to feed cells

Insulin isn't made in fucking body cells but in the Islets of Langerhan - in the liver, it's energy consumption is beyond fucking low.

Your cells would need more energy in relative terms, as your glycogen deposits run out - and it results in breaking down amino acids and fats for glucose via gluconeogenesis.

Nothing you say is fucking researched.

>>40897843
This is 100% completely wrong. It comes from people getting overly focused on garbage details and forgetting the big picture. Insulin is not magic it can't violatr thermodynamics. This is just like the solar roadway bullshit. If basic science isn't your thing take a moment to think about why athletes are not doing rediculous shit with their diet to manipulate insulin. No one is fasting and no one is drinling pure fructose after training. Meal timing isn't a big deal and food selection does not affect long term insulin behaviour in any significant way.
TLDR: claim is not backed up by basic science or current practice in elite athletes where the stakes are in the billions of dollars.

>>40898063
He doesn't. He is essentially scientifically illiterate.

>>40898577
That isn't how it works.

The body doesn't think shit - it's more like "Oh, cool, random extra blood blucose, I'll absorb it!". Insulin not being present doesn't fucking stop this - it still happens to a lesser degree by co-transporter proteins.

Your psuedo science is mindboggling.

My personal experience with low/no carb is that it's much easier to eat at a deficit by either eating less or skipping meals because I never get that hungry and my energy levels are pretty constant instead of dependent on when and what i've eaten.

>>40898105
You aren't challenging a paradigm you delusional moron. You are just an idiot on a forum bragging about your magic beans.

>>40901032
>take a moment to think about why athletes are not doing rediculous shit with their diet to manipulate insulin

Athletes use drugs.
All of the shit you're talking about means nothing in the face of a really well thought out drug stack.
This is a fact.

By the way, bodybuilders and athletes DO IN FACT take drugs to manipulate their insulin levels.

>>40901032

>rediculous
>This is 100% completely wrong

its fucking fact, you little autist, post your studies claiming insulin has no effect on fat loss or fuck off. Whats with all these niggers straight up denying established scientific fact? If you think the OP is "100% completely wrong" post evidence, because he makes his argument with studies, trials, and tests. There is no reason Im going to dismiss an established professional with EVIDENCE in favor of some autistic 19 year old on this board. DON'T RESPOND WITHOUT EVIDENCE

>>40901074
But not for fat levels, for levels of muscle mass.

>>40901032
Are you stupid? Elite athletes definitely focus immensely on meal timing. Look up Tom Bradys habits or Michael Phelps or von Miller. The days where athletes were just genetically gifted dudes who showed up to play are gone. They will get rocked by modern obsessive meal planning roid monkey's. And yes most of them use peds at least some point in their career. Grow up kid.

>>40901103

To help out a curious guy, can you fish out the studies the guy in OP video is referring to about insulin and fat loss so we can look at them ourselves?

>>40898560
Reading this makes me sad. I don't want to know that there are people who are not only stupid enough to think this, but confident enough in their stupidity to write it and arrogant enough to write it in such a disgusting way.

>>40901032
The body isn't a simple furnace. Its smart, complex, very intricate. Many factors play into the slightest operation. And Obviously its not JUST insulin, its a multitude of factors. The problem is that. I addressed, multiple times throughout the thread why I believe its not as simple as calories in and calories out. I'll explain it quickly for those that aren't reading the whole thread but just want to reply to the OP.

The theory is that when you are fat being fat is your homeostatic state. When you reduce the calories your body thinks you are starving irrationally, it doesn't know that there is plenty of energy to pull from in the fat cells. You have to retrain your insulin sensitivity so that your body doesn't require so fucking much of it to be satiated. You reduce the amount of times you eat by fasting, your insulin levels drop from not eating, and your cells reduce its resistance to insulin. Once you start eating again, on an intermittent fast, you will not need to eat as much to satisfy your insulin needs. The idea is to keep your cells at a healthy sensitivity to insulin but having fasting periods.

>>40901130
Learn to read. Athletes don't follow dr. Dong's autism. Meal timing is not very important in general (10% from worst to best). Athletes will go as far into diminishimg returns as possible or even do things they know might not have any affect. The meal timing performed by atheletes is high frequency. You are so lost in your bullshit you can't even read anymore

>>40901224
that's becuase they're not obese, read the fucking op. this is for fat people getting back to healthy eating habits derp shit.

>>40901224
Maybe they don't follow this guy in specific but they use similar techniques. They do not all use high frequency all the time.

>>40901172

>The body is smart
>When you reduce tthe calories it doesn't know that there is plenty of energy to pull from in the fat cells

>>40900549
>paleo diets may negate the benefits of exercise

mate im not even clicking that, i can tell by the title that this guy is a plant-food-only, everything must be organic, muh gmo quack

>>40900979
Even if my grasp on the subject is novice, it still trumps the simple:
>muh thermodynamics and twinky study
that is causing so many people to be fat and then ridiculed for failing when the failure rate of these methods is so ridiculously high. Just trying to help and learn along the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DrnGCExhsnM

robb wolf talked a lot about insulin sensitivity in this podcast last week, it's worth a listen imo

i think it's largely individual and because of that it's worth the effort for individuals to figure out exactly how they respond to certain types of food and tailor their diets around it, especially in regards to body composition/reducing adiposity.

I have to actually believe this...as of 4 months ago I've been eating 3k-4k calories a day with a top expenditure of 2.8k calories on workout days. I've only been eating good foods and I've been putting on substantial muscle while keeping my body weight the same if not lost a couple pounds (176/177 6'2")

Before I was eating complete shit and I wouldn't even come close to 3k calories (2-2.5k rougly) and I would see increases/fluxuations in my weight depending on how much i'd restrict myself after noticing me putting on fat. This really does make sense.

>>40901302

That's a stupid reason to ignore information. Maybe you'll like this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPt6ah__398

>>40901387
people who are adamant about plant food only diets are best ignored due to the obvious fact that they have an agenda to push.

>>40901401

Right, that's more rational than looking at evidence.

>>40901432
his channel leads to a website where he's selling his book. he has an agenda to push and followers to please. facts and evidence that don't coincide with this effort are more than likely omitted from any information he provides.

>>40901460

You say this and then post Robb Wolf whose website sells several diet books.

>>40897843
I saw one of his videos and actually thought he had a good point, but he was trying too hard to push the idea that insulin is the heart of the matter, when in fact calories in vs calories out to lose weight and keeping a healthy diet through habit and willpower to maintain it is all there is to it, in essence

while I was watching the video I just kept imagining what his real thoughts on the matter are
>lmao fucking dumb burgers they'll eat up anything a smartass chink come up to
>yes buy my book and make me fucking rich and famous over the internet stupid subhumans IF and eating healthy holy shit lmao this thing has been proven since Han Dynasty
>look at that fucking lard on the back I wish whaling was still legal man the halpoon

>>40901493
you're not wrong that he Sells Things but he doesn't talk about his book at all during the podcast

>>40901560

In either video that I linked, did the guy say "now go to my website and buy my book"?

File: thinking.jpg (15KB, 447x444px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 447x444px

>>40899194
finally a post of reason

>>40899442
What's the chemical difference between pig fat and human fat?

I was pretty lean last fall when I was doing IF and not tracking kcals, went off it for winter bulk. Got FAT. Sticking to IF even when maintenance/bulking

I don't care if it's a meme or not, works for me.

>>40897843
>Daily Reminder that the underlying factor of obesity is not calories, its insulin.
Top kek.

>But when you eat less your body burns less. When you eat more your body burns more.
By less than 5%, the human body has pretty tight tolerances: it's not like you're laptop where you can simply put it on battery saving mode, unless you consider dying a minor complication.

>Get to know this smart gentleman, Dr. Fung.
I hope his entire family gets eaten by pandas, who will then proceed to shit them out on their ancestors graves.

>it is eating 1 time a day to keep your insulin levels low.
Have fun with your cramps, constipation, acid reflux, potential cancer etc. Also: making your blood sugar levels one steep roller-coaster drop - brilliant fucking idea.

>a fat heavy, low carb diet.
Only if you're morbidly obese and are prediabetic. Even then it should only be a temporary measure.

Calories in - calories out is a simplification. But in the same way classical mechanics is a simplification: It still works well in 99.99% of cases (people who actually are justified in their "muh genetics!" claims are very rare and usually confined to hospital beds and/or die young) and the differences from actual results (which take a doctorate or two to understand fully) are under 5% (due to physics putting a hard limit on things.)

>>40901629
>I don't care if it's a meme or not, works for me.
It works because you have less time to stuff your face and snack, also when you eat less (often) you tend to take more care in what you eat. Smiliar things take place when you go keto or buy smaller plates or cut out bread or substitute simple for complex carbs.

As long as you're not one of those retards who think that those things have any magical fat burning properties - you're all set. Idiots who start believing that usually find a way to fuck up on other fronts.

>>40901367

Restricting carbs or do you not bother?

>>40898902
You're right in that your body becomes more efficient...if you become more active.
But it really does come down to your body burning fewer calories because it's smaller.
And I was going to talk much shit about you saying that proteins are a energy source...but you're right.
Protein is a last ditch super inefficient energy source that the body does not want to use.

>>40898633
Body doesn't just drop fat in a linear fashion. Especially if you're already moderately lean or in the normal range of bodyfat.
And some weeks or months the body will not unass a single solitary fucking ounce of fat no matter how meticulous you are and how hard you go in the gym and on your diet.
Body doesn't work like that.
It isn't a 100% efficient machine.

It does all go down to calories in calories out when it comes to absolute weight loss above a certain level. Like well over normal(Which is basically chubby) and into fat as fuck territory.
And to be honest if you've been obese or just fat as fuck for a long period then you're just fucked forever and will just have to deal with having greater cravings then people who've had a relatively normal weight and were fairly active.
But once you stop gorging on foods, fix your diet in a more functional way(a way that doesn't just ruin your life and is simple clean if not cleaner and easy to do forever) and up your daily activity level and drop down into the normal weight THEN this talk about insulin becomes more important.

Till then we are litterally talking about rearranging deck chairs on the SS FATSHITSINKING and every year you are obese is multiple years off of your life.

>>40901655
>Top kek.
Not an argument.

>By less than 5%, the human body has pretty tight tolerances
Its about pointing out that its not as simple as burning more calories than you put in. A person who is insulin tolerant is miserable on a calorie restricted diet and they may not have to be.

>I hope his entire family gets eaten by pandas
Edgy.

>Have fun with your cramps, constipation, acid reflux, potential cancer etc
[citation needed] Many religions practiced some form of fasting even after we mastered agriculture and fasting was mandatory (temporary starvation). It seems to work as a reset for the body. Maybe they know something we don't. As far as intermittent fasting goes; you can still eat 3 meals in a reasonably spaced amount of time. Just allow a 10-16 hour fasting period to reduce insulin resistance.

>Only if you're morbidly obese and are prediabetic.
Yes. That is the topic of the thread.

>Calories in - calories out is a simplification.
You're telling me. The modern formula of exercising more and eating less does not work. Yes you lost the weight temporarily but you don't fix the underlying problems and the failure rate is through the roof.

>>40898105
>If it were so true the United States, and the rest of the world to an extent, would not be in this obesity epidemic.
Oh, so this entire thread is based on the premise that you think fat people aren't personally responsible for how fat they are. Fuck off.

>>40897954
Just because you watch a few documentaries on sugar doesn't make you an expert.
Yes, sugar is terrible for you. But even if you ate 1500 calories of just sugar, you would still lose weight (assuming that's a caloric deficit for you).
>Sugar can't beat the laws of physics and basic biology, retard

>>40902074
You're OBVIOUSLY not fat, and are very insensitive. You are also very dense, but you don't have to be. Read the thread, watch the videos. Learn a bit young padawan.

>>40898105

>It sounds good on paper but it is not practical. It has a ridiculous fail rate

And you think a more practical solution than encouraging people to eat a better diet and live a healthier lifestyle is to get everyone to regularly fast like some kind of monk society?

>>40897843

>Dr. Fung suggests a fasting period to deprive your body of insulin thus reducing your insulin resistance (or tolerance if you prefer) levels and switching to a fat heavy, low carb diet.

This will have you develop a terrible relationship with food. Nutrition should be about eating well to live a long, healthy life. It shouldn't all be focused on weight loss. If you're doing things right, weight loss is inevitable.

>>40902128
Nigga I was morbidly obese my entire childhood and topped out at 325lbs. I adopted CICO as my diet regimen and dropped to 169. Please, be more condescending. It makes your argument even weaker.

>>40898105
>It has a ridiculous fail rate
BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE WEAK

>>40902223
I don't believe a fucking word you just said. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

>>40897843

>Calories in calories out is a myth

Funny that a myth has helped me lose 50 lbs.

>>40900736
With the amount of exercise I do, I need carbs to not die.

Fasting helped my body handle them better, and now my carb sensitivity is much better.

Before, if i ate carbs within two hours of practice, I'd feel like absolute shit.

>>40902510

What are your favorite carb sources?

I have high insulin resistance and PCOS. According to my doctors, I need to eat a very low carb diet in order to lose weight. Are they right? Do different rules apply to me if I have insulin and hormone problems?

>>40898444
I watched the video. It's all legit. Atkins, Robb Wolf, Tim Ferris and others have covered a lot of this before. /Fit/ will likely not watch tho because they like what they have.

Many pro body builders and trainers eat "chicken broccoli and brown rice" religiously.

You do actually want to use insulin to build muscle, however and this doc doesn't address that much.

Low carb is a good tool for building insulin sensitivity so when you do eat carbs when you lift it gets glycogen back in the muscles.

>>40898105
Do you know why US is troubled by obesity? I'll tell you exactly why. Education and Culture. Growing up, most kids in other countries are taught the importance of proper nutrition (eat your vegetables etc) and appreciation/respect for food. Exercise is also encouraged from a young age. This might also be the case in some US homes, but to a far lesser extent than say Japan or France. Now the big difference comes when we look at how exercise and nutrition is taught in school or portrayed by the media/society. It might also have to do with how individualistic the american society has become. Manufacturers will put anything short of poison in the food of their citizens if it means they can profit from it. The health of future generations is ignored.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vwC51FxP10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0TDIQSIssA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So4HVudIm2U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDakFfLQDF4

>fat
>fat parents
>fat siblings
>eat <1500 calories 6 days a week with zero fucking exercise
>drop 85 pound, start dressing better, find a woman
>some limey fuck tryna tell me THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS IS FALSE

>>40899194
You realize that in a normal meal where you mix carbs,fats,proteins the glycemic index doesn't mean shit

>>40900641
Just because you go through lipogenesis doesn't mean the calories suddenly disappear holy shit. You know the funniest part is how you're using a picture made by James Krieger who specifically talks against your delusions about insulin.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

>>40902822
>>some limey fuck tryna tell me THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS IS FALSE

hey thanks you're only the 13th person in this thread to mention thermodyanmics!!!!!! i'm so proud of you anon

>>40902837
>Some people might argue that the "low-carb" condition wasn't really low carb because it had 75 grams of carbohydrate. But that's not the point.

>carbs aren't bad, eat all the carbs
>we'll show you how carbs are literally the same as protein and fat by comparing two different meals loaded with carbohydrates

???????????????????

The best thing I found in Fung's videos is that there may be some health benefits (or at the very least it isn't harmful) to go extended periods without food. I have a weak willpower in the sense that when I eat, I want to eat a lot of food at once, so I decided to only let myself eat one time a day.

Of course, if someone else had a lack of willpower in that they needed to snack all the time, I wouldn't recommend IF; I would recommend eating healthier and snacking on veggies.

I think one of the benefits of IF is that if I stuff myself to the point that I would feel sick eating anymore (which is a lot for a fatty), my body tries to get rid of what is in it. I often poop within an hour of eating, so my body clearly did not use all that energy I ate.

Also, I think there is a huge mental barrier to how hunger is viewed. I think any fatty should fast, at least once in their life, for at least 24 hours to let themselves know that they can survive without eating for a little while. The longest fast I've done is about 48 hours (dinner one day to dinner two days later).

Also, I've come to appreciate being hungry. I like the feeling of my body consuming itself and getting rid of fat; it pushes me to put off breaking my fast even longer.

Thanks for reading my blog. Keep fighting the good fight.

>>40902181
Eating less and occasional fasting has been tied to longevity for a long fucking time.

>>40903025
I think you responded to the wrong person

>>40902711

>Low carb is a good tool for building insulin sensitivity

Fat generally isn't good for insulin sensitivity. Saturated fats especially, which are hard not to get on a low-carb diet, lower insulin sensitivity.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15297079

High carb diets that are high in fiber too (not processed carbs) are great for improving insulin sensitivity and lowering circulating insulin levels, even when they're designed to keep weight stable (no confounding due to weight loss, which on its own can improve insulin sensitivity).

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1025.6097&rep=rep1&type=pdf

>>40903057
oh yeah i meant to respond to >>40902987

>Fast 36 hours twice a week
>Eat whatever I want (Zevia soda instead of real soda) (no fast food or candy)
>high carb on lift days, low carb high protein on rest days
>don't binge on feeding days

This seems to work for me. If I overcomplicate shit and restrict the foods I love I'll fucking go crazy. Can't I have some pleasure in this life and have a chick gyros w/ honey mustard and garlic fries? fuck.

Bumpan

I feel like all of thr carbfags in here are just butthurt that it's possible to live for a few days without eating 6 meals a day.

If everyone in here just tried one fucking day without food i promise you'll change your view of Fung's message.

You don't HAVE to eat keto to get benefits from fasting. It literally just werks.

>>40898081
U shit out calories retard

>>40904046
Day 7 of my water fast. I am 6'2 and went from 209 to 196. I was keto + IF 22/2 beforehand for months so this is not water weight. I dropped a size in pants and my shirts are baggy now. Feels good.

Two years ago I was 315. IF + keto + GSLP changed my life.

>>40898386
That's because you don't understand what insulin does. It just shifts glucose intracellularly. If you don't physically have the glucose to move intracellularly (because you're eating at deficit), then you will not be able to increase your mass. You can't store macros your never ate. No, TDEE doesn't vary that much.

>>40905281
But doesn't it prevent / slowdown the oxidation of fat cells ?

>>40901655
>Have fun with your cramps, constipation, acid reflux, potential cancer etc.

In all animal tests done in the scientific community fasting increased longevity in all subjects.

This makes sense considering oxidation effect any kind of eating has on the body.

>>40904046
>You don't HAVE to eat keto to get benefits from fasting. It literally just werks.

From my understanding proper fasting is that you enter ketosis towards end of your fast. No matter your macros.

>>40905656

>This makes sense considering oxidation effect any kind of eating has on the body.

What if you eat foods with lots of antioxidants?

>>40899670
Yes. In most Asian countries.

>>40898654
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

>>40903067

As a type 1 diabetic who has had 17 years of experience with it I respectfully disagree on your claim. I'm sure there are studies claiming X is better Y is worse while the other study claims Y is better X is worse.

The higher carb I eat the less the insulin I inject works.

I also had crazy amounts of visceral fat at one point in my life despite being underweight because I ate shitload of carbs and abused insulin.

Insulin sensitivity made the carbs store into fat instead of burned for energy and basically fucked my BMR completely.

>>40899670
It was. Everything changed in the 70s-80s.

I've been doing 23:1 fasting since i started losing weight (eat all of my 1200 calories at 3pm) from 360 to 250, i've been lifting and doing cardio fine all the way, 90% protein.

I've been watching this guy videos, and they're interesting, desu i don't really give a fuck about what he says about insuling and that calories in calories out is a meme, but the thing that really bogs me is that he says a person fasting will just barely loose muscle mass, is this true?.

I eat between 130g of protein a day btw.

>>40905920
forgot to quote >>40905173

so yeah, what i mean is how much of those 13lbs are muscle?

>>40905173
water fast bros unite, day 5 here, 8lbs down, even beat my cardio endurance PR yesterday so i AM getting the energy i need

>>40903027
it took me 11 years of trying to loose weight and many visits to different nutritionists, but ultimately the thing that kick started my weight loss journey was a 5 day water fast, i don't even know how to explain it, your mind is 100% focused on your goals while you're fasted, all of those religions were not kidding.

I try to do a big fast once a month to keep focused

File: beans-copy[1].jpg (1MB, 2272x1704px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2272x1704px

>>40905912

>The higher carb I eat the less the insulin I inject works.

The study posted had people drop their fat intake from ~150g per day to ~50g, and up their fiber from ~15g per day to ~90g . If your diet is high in fat and you're not getting your carbs from healthy, high-fiber foods, you probably won't see that kind of improvement in insulin sensitivity when you up the carbs. Food quality is important.

>>40905912
Lipohypertrophy comes from injecting it near an adipose depot. IM injections are much better.

With physiological insulin release from an intact pancreas, tracer work has shown only about 5% of postprandial glucose disposal is done in adipose whereas the rest that isn't immediately burnt for energy is sent to liver and muscle for glycogen synthesis.

Without insulin carbs aren't 'burnt for energy' instead you get hyperglycemia, glycosuria and the resulting damage to vasculature. Diabulimia is serious shit.

>>40902047
>Not an argument.
The fact that it runs counter to every study ever done on weight loss, and also physics, makes it not worth more of a response. Extraordinary claims require... you know the drill.

>Its about pointing out that its not as simple as burning more calories than you put in.
For weight loss? Yes it is.

>Edgy.
He's endangering the lives of people he knows can be reeled in by promises of magic bullets and shortcuts. Hating quacks like him is entirely justified.

>A person who is insulin tolerant is miserable on a calorie restricted diet and they may not have to be.
All the more reason why they need it. Being miserable from just eating a little less is a major warning sign. Every doctor will suggest weight loss to an overweight and prediabetic patient - I guess they're all wrong.

>Yes. That is the topic of the thread.
Nope it's not. OP retarded point is that weight loss is not mainly about caloric restriction. Which is an extraordinarily stupid claim.

>The modern formula of exercising more and eating less does not work.
It worked great for me and 99% of /fit/. The average person is also terrible at eating enough vegetables - to conclude from that that eating vegetables is not good for you and doesn't work is retarded. Time and time again it has been proven that compliance is the reason why diets don't work - in other words: People are lazy and have no determination.

>[citation needed
>>40905656
>"The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition" and "Metabolism - Clinical and Experimental," people were given one meal per day that contained the same number of calories as an alternative meal plan consisting of three meals per day. People consuming only one meal per day had higher blood pressure and blood sugar levels than people eating three meals per day."
>"The scientists discovered that people eating one meal had less efficient immune systems than people eating three daily meals."

>>40901029

Islets of Langerhans are in the Pancreas, retard

>>40897843
wow one guy

>>40899294
They look for shortcuts but ironically just over complicate everything for themselves.

I love how people clearly didn't even watch the fucking video and are trying to argue against it. He's not saying calories in/calories out is wrong, he's saying it won't matter if you don't lower your insulin level. You'll just shit out all the calories you take in and not lose any fat.

>>40906315
What does that even mean?

>>40899169
>fat causes insulin resistance

ok kid

>>40906315
>he's saying it won't matter if you don't lower your insulin level. You'll just shit out all the calories you take in and not lose any fat.
>just shit out all the calories you take in and not lose any fat.
Hahahahahahahahahahaahah, oh fuck - that's even more retarded than what I assumed.

>>40905920
this isn't fasting, this is a low calorie diet where you happen to eat all 1200 calories in one go. it's not a good idea.

>>40906315
>I love how people clearly didn't even watch the fucking video and are trying to argue against it.
Yeah, if they actually watched it they would laugh their asses of and not even bother replying.

>>40905929
None. Fasting is muscle sparing due to high HGH.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-muscle-mass-fasting-part-14/

>>40906474
>>40906463

You are literal idiots.

>>40897843
He has a point. I mean fat loss also depends on Insuline sensitivity AND maybe even more Important leptin sensitivity.
But it that doesn't mean that energy Balance and calories in/out doesn't matter.
Calories will still have the biggest impact. Sure your body can adopt to it and can get into temporary hunger metabolism BUT that's why you don't cut for ages and do strategic refeeds (not fucking cheat days!) and/or short Diet breaks.
Also with higher bf levels the human body actually uses fat more than muscle to get energy.

>>40906463
>>40906361
>>40906474
>Rather than spending 15 minutes of my day maybe learning something I'm going to remain willfully ignorant

keep cherry-picking other studies to prove your world-view though, if you seriously don't learn a single thing about insulin from this video you are either a multi millionaire doctor already or a fucking liar

>>40898467
Do strategic refeeds based on your body fat levels and your Body wont adopt to it. Also metabolism slowdown is temporary.
Maybe also of interest for you, check out the effects of temporary controlled overfeeding (supersize me revisited Experiment) and reverse dieting.

File: anotherone.jpg (38KB, 600x540px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x540px

>>40897843
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8t1JN0RgvO4&index=8&list=WL

jesus fucking christ OP you gotta be trolling, you absolute subhuman nigger retard

I fucking have insulin resistance, and a BMI of 16,5. Insulin resistance does NOT cause obesity, eating like a lardassed piece of shit does.

I know you are trolling, I know it, but you still managed to get a rise out of me, so congrats, I guess.

yeah, this "method" will work. know why? because when your hormones stabilize after eating once a day for a few days, you won't be hungy until your meal. then you can "eat all you want" (but really, nobody can overeat when they're eating one meal a day), and bam you're losing weight. why? because as a fatty, your tdee is probably around, say, 2500kcal, and there's no way in hell you can eat 2500+ kcal of food in 1 meal (especially if you're watching what you eat and you mostly eat salads, eggs and meat). it's not a secret that if you want to lose weight you eat 1-2 big meals per day (you're less hungry this way), and if you wanna gain weight you eat 3-4+ meals per day. thus we conclude it's not the insulin or whatever, but yet again CICO that makes this weight loss possible.

metabolic slowdown doesn't occur until months of starvation.

The only scientific study that actually achieved a noticeable metabolic slowdown is one from fucking WW2 where they literally starved volunteers for like 6-9 months each to test refeeding methods to help europoors.

decreasing your intake slightly won't do jack to your metabolism.

>>40897843

>Intermittent fasting works!
>IF while on keto is even better!

Well duh. Everyone already knows that

how about just don't eat fucking garbage all the time? eat real foods and you will not have a weight problem. Just look at humans from all time periods before this fast food shit. Obese people were a rare spectacle.

>>40906656
yeah decreasing your intake slightly wont, but we all know most fatties slash their daily kcal intake by 50%+ to lose weight faster, and there's a thing called 'set point', where the body is basically comfy at a certain weight (which is, for fatties, the weight they've been a fatty at)

the set point can change, but only if you stay at the new (lowered) weight for a longish period of time

>>40906677
your tdee changes when you lose large amounts of weight, that's what your broscience is trying to say.

>>40898217
>[citation needed]

Here. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/3/290.abstract

>Moderately obese young college men pursuing their usual activities were studied first during a 3-week prereduction weight maintenance period and subsequently were distributed into three isocaloric, isoprotein diet subgroups, which varied as to level of carbohydrate in the diet. On the 1,800-kcal reduction diet consumed over a 9-week period, diet A contained 104 g carbohydrate/day; diet B, 60 g; diet C, 30 g. The three-man subgroups were matched as closely as possible on the basis of maintenance caloric requirement and percent body weight as fat.

Weight loss, fat loss, and percent weight loss as fat appeared to be inversely related to the level of carbohydrate in the isocaloric, isoprotein diets. No adequate explanation can be given for weight loss differences.

There were no outstanding differences in nitrogen, sodium, or potassium balances among the diet groups. The little effect on blood lipids that was observed was probably most favorable to the highest carbohydrate diet group A.

>>40906684
re-read what i wrote, and maybe use google to look into it yourself, but no, it's not broscience

>>40898217
>>40906688

Anotha one! https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538279/

>Actual nutrient intakes from food records during the VLCK (Very Low-Carb Ketogenic) (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = ~9:63:28%) and the LF(Low Fat) (~58:22:20%) were significantly different. Dietary energy was restricted, but was slightly higher during the VLCK (1855 kcal/day) compared to the LF (1562 kcal/day) diet for men. Both between and within group comparisons revealed a distinct advantage of a VLCK over a LF diet for weight loss, total fat loss, and trunk fat loss for men (despite significantly greater energy intake). The majority of women also responded more favorably to the VLCK diet, especially in terms of trunk fat loss. The greater reduction in trunk fat was not merely due to the greater total fat loss, because the ratio of trunk fat/total fat was also significantly reduced during the VLCK diet in men and women. Absolute REE (kcal/day) was decreased with both diets as expected, but REE expressed relative to body mass (kcal/kg), was better maintained on the VLCK diet for men only. Individual responses clearly show the majority of men and women experience greater weight and fat loss on a VLCK than a LF diet.

The reduced weight loss in the higher carb groups, despite eating the same calories and protein proves resistance to weight loss that is immediated by insulin.


So, if he had eaten straight up butter instead of twinkies, he would have lost more weight, more fat, and retained more muscle.

>>40906667
You say everyone knows that. You and I know that. But all the thread and [citation needed]'s reveal that -everyone- does no know that. Those of us who do know it have actual science and experience backing us up.

>>40906694
set-weight isn't a real thing, the only studies that exist for it are fucking starving rat studies with refeeds.

All the fatty has to do is not return to their previous diet.

Produce a study that isn't on rats you fucking retard.

>>40897843
seems to me that you just wanted to get validation for some bullshit theory which shall revolutionize weight loss

eat less, move more, that's literally the secret

Here's a LCHF playlist for people interested in the various benefits (that I have found so far) the first 5 videos are short 5 minute videos about the benefits to athletic performance, brain performance, energy performance, and other things. The first one is the athletic one since this is /fit/.

>>40906712
>I forgot the actual link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtKP9qzIt0s&list=PLH2uhJ2RmgYVETxvU_BCu1Xxb5dFt8xjj&index=1

Warrior diet works great for this, also most people can't eat a fuckload in one meal so never get fat.

You also don't get hungry during the day which is nice.

>>40906709
>eat less, move more

t. 1990s

File: FPS Based Neil.jpg (45KB, 472x292px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 472x292px

>>40897843
Yeah, no.

>>40906723
Warrior Diet has no scientific Backup.
However, if your goal is just losing weight it is okay.
If you want to keep muscle loss at a minimum it is not.
There was a study comparing one meal a Day vs 4hr eating window vs 8hr eating window.
Best one was 8hrs.

>>40906745
Plus
Funny thing is that when your body isn't used to overeating unhealthy shit, you wont even gain much weight.
Fattys basically fucked up their bodies in a longer term to get fat.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19325881-400-supersize-me-revisited-under-lab-conditions/
You can find the full article for free if you search a bit.

>>40906762
so what you're saying is that insulin DOES play a significant role, despite your earlier post suggesting otherwise. interesting!

>>40898381
>Yes they are eating more calories and getting fatter, but WHY?
hormones have an effect on hte body
but so do gut flora and psychology

and those factors are changed by habits. both of them are heavily affected by moving/exercise.

>>40906725
so you're saying we're different today from the people who were fat and lost weight 20ish years ago? lol

>>40906762
your system is set to handle a certain amount and certain types of food. If you suddently change the type and amount it will take time to accommodate, but it will happen.

Obese people have a very different gut flora than normal weighted people. and that is just one factor. The obesity issue isnt due to ine factor. If you think it is then you failed miserably

>>40906580
>You'll just shit out all the calories you take in and not lose any fat.
>If you don't agree, you're an idiot.
Sure thing, mate.

>>40906605
Nobody is saying that insulin is not an important factor in human metabolism, but that is completely different from saying that it can somehow make you violate the laws of physics.

Using diabetics as a baseline for talking about weight loss in the general population (of which less than 10% is diabetic) is idiotic. Not to mention that even diabetics are proven to be able to improve their condition dramatically by controlling caloric intake and that the majority of people are diabetic because of obesity.

Trying to divorce insulin resistance and calorie tracking from each other and representing them as separate strategies for weight control is fucking stupid - in 99.9% of people they are essentially two sides of the same coin. Eating at your TDEE will control weight AND insulin levels (unless you eat nothing but sugar all day.) Losing weight (by calorie tracking) WILL help bring insulin resistance under control. Low carb diets and the like are an effective short-term measure for pre-diabetic, obese individuals - but to imply that that automatically means it should be the default diet or that it has some magical weight loss properties is a flat-out lie.

File: 111360034637978.jpg (69KB, 500x447px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 500x447px

>>40900439
>And by eating less carbs your body needs less insulin which means your calories OUT will be greater and you can put more calories IN or
All fatties hear is more calories in and they'll get back on the sweets/carb train. Don't pretend.

>>40906688
A group of n=2 measuring body circumference and a skin fold which are affected by total body water. No statistically significant differences regardless and the data reported seems to be erroneous... just look at the discrepancies in weight loss on tables 4 & 6.

Here's a meta-analysis with adequate statistical power

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001650851730152X
>While low carbohydrate diets have been suggested to partially subvert these processes by increasing energy expenditure and promoting fat loss, our meta-analysis of 32 controlled feeding studies with isocaloric substitution of carbohydrate for fat found that both energy expenditure (26 kcal/d; p<0.0001) and fat loss (16g/d; p<0.0001) were greater with lower fat diets.

>>40906695
An outpatient trial using self-reported dietary intake - which isn't reliable at all http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v39/n7/full/ijo2014199a.html & http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v34/n3/full/ijo2009251a.html & https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article-lookup/doi/10.1210/jc.2004-1540 - done by the Atkins foundation - an obvious COI that has publication bias - self-published in a pseudojournal ran by them. With changes in energy expenditure can be attributed to differences in protein and fibre intake. Simply amazing.

And twinkies aren't particularly low fat btw (30% E from fat), too high for spontaneous reduction in caloric intake.

www.cochrane.org/CD011834/VASC_effect-cutting-down-fat-we-eat-body-weight
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2008.01922.x/full
>The obesity report produced by the WHO from its 1997 consultation considered 20–25% to be the maximum average intake which would limit obesity, but the dominant policies are still those relating to cardiovascular disease developed by Geoffrey Rose and Henry Blackburn for WHO in 1984.

File: 1476085869021.jpg (33KB, 415x398px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 415x398px

ITT: Fat people arguing against fasting because they have never gone more than 8 hours without carbs.

>>40907757
i'm a fat guy and im arguing against the op's notion that the insulin is the only thing that drives fat loss or gain

that said, fasting is a great method to lose weight because you get to eat 1 or 2 large meals (while still following a deficit) and thus you get to be fuller after said meals

>>40901029
In the pancreas you imbecile.