>https://intensivedietarymanagement .com/power-comparison

>>41788310
Shoo shoo fatty

>>41788321
not even fat, just trying to get at sub 10% bodyfat atm

>>41788350
good article, but what if the goal is muscle gain? should we still eat LCHF with fasts and just eat more or do we need carbs to gain muscle?

Dr fung tends to talk about obese individuals when he argues for reducing insulin for fat loss but for most of us on this board we want fat loss with simultaneous muscle mass retention and dr fungs 'solution' doesnt represent the average lean individual. Which is where calories in/calories out works much better and HAS worked in thousands of people. Despite dr fungs claim that caloric restriction diets 'are stupid and simply do not work'.

>>41788377
It applies to fat loss and muscle preservation, or even recomp, but I don't think it's the most optimal way to bulk, although we certainly don't need carbs just to build muscle. I personally wouldn't lay off carbs in that case, especially in the workout window, and incorporate intermittent or some other kind of regular fasting strategy for insulin sensitivity and other health reasons

> if we understand that excessive insulin causes weight gain, then the treatment is quite clear and just really damned obvious.

The whole article hinges on this and requires you to assume that this is THE cause of obesity without any supporting evidence

If I eat just 500 calories of pure sugar each day, I'm not going to lose weight? What is my body using for energy after those sugar calories are burned up?

>>41788697
it obviously meant on a global scale. most fatties I know don't really eat that much, they just eat crappy food and a lot of sugary beverages in between. eating 500 calories of pure sugar would cause extreme hunger very quickly compared with just about any diet and also further royally fuck up insulin management and muscle mass, which would only greatly increase fat gain later. how does it even contradict anything in the article?

>>41788949

It sounds like you're including insulin in the discussion for no reason. Drinking soda and eating junk food beyond your caloric needs leads to fat gain. Insulin levels have little to do with it. It's not like fat people guzzling 2 liter sodas every day are only eating 2,000 calories.

File: 936full-danielle-sharp.jpg (795KB, 936x1357px) Image search: [Google]

795KB, 936x1357px

>>41788310
Is that Danielle SHarp?

>>41788310
FASTING FOR FUCKN LIIIIIIIIOOOOOOOOFE

>>41789118
>It sounds like you're including insulin in the discussion for no reason
maybe because it's in your initial quote and it's the whole point of the article you're trying to argue against? besides, your exact case is explained in like every other article on this blog, e.g.:
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/caloric-reduction-vs-fasting-part-9/

>>41788310
If I drank 5 gallons of peanut oil I'd be ripped?

>>41788310
you can see her nips, why are they in that position? they look too high

>>41790642
the bra squeezes her tits upwards

>>41790563

> it's the whole point of the article you're trying to argue against?

That's what I said. The article revolves around you already believing that insulin levels are the main factor in weight loss/gain, rather than energy balance.

>>41788310
I really want to be in her bed and see her pusy

>>41790842
based?

>>41790642

Welcome to earth, friend. That's called a bra

>>41790649
>>41790851
huh, never knew it did that. guess it's cause the only time I see nips they aren't in a bra

>>41790927
ever taken a bra off?

most women with B-C's the bottom half of the bra is inch thick padding

>>41790655
You're both right, Jesus. I hate articles like this. It's a good article, but it would be 100 times better if they'd add one sentence that says, "obviously you can't gain weight without sustaining a calorie surplus." The article is talking about obesity, not weight gain. Yes you need to eat at a surplus to gain weight, and yes obese people have eaten at a surplus for an extended period of time. But the insult response is an important precursor along the causal chain to obesity. A "bad" hormonal response can influence a person in a way that causes them to overeat. The article isn't wrong it's just incomplete because it fails to make these connections and I feel like it stems from a fundemental lack of scientific knowledge. It's like talking to a trainer at LA Fitness about nutrition. They probably read some r/fitness posts and a few articles in their uni seminar but tbeyre clearly not a doetician.

>>41791011
>r/fitness
Are they home to the swole left that /fit/ fears so much?

>>41791069
/fit is 40% intermediate lifters pretending to be advanced lifters, 20% neckbeard shitposters, and 40% newbies trying to decipher which advice is real and which is not. r/fitness is like 95% newbies most of which are bound to fail because they lack any fundemental knowledge of fitness or nutrition and 5% advanced lifters trying their best. No degenerates talking about politics which is refreshing.

>>41788310
Seriously, fuck off with your meme diets.

>>41791114
All diets are meme diets until they have a large enough following.

>>41791302
your mom is no longer a meme diet