Thought experiment: We assume a set of twins are 100% adherent

File: Pepe_Thinking.png (12KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 640x640px

>>42529189
>what effect would this have on body composition
Fat Diabeetus

>why?
I dunno, science and shit.

>>42529248
You not heard of IIFYM??

Liver complications, most likely diabetes and/or other conditions depending on genetics, a shit load of visceral fat. This doesn't even take into account the difference in hunger, energy, or overall wellness

>>42529320
Where would the additional calories come from in order to facilitate the stored visceral fat?

>>42529320

Also since the diets/calories are controlled, the sheer quantity of insulin spikes is going to attribute to essentially an x00 surplus, meaning one twin WILL gain more "fat" than the other

>>42529348
Interested to know where that caloric surplus is coming from

>>42529189
Sugar twin would gain more muscle if he eats his sugar (with adequate protein) in the post workout window, as insulin would be increased and this is what's needed for the muscles pwo

>>42529341

>The digestive and viscosity characteristics of dietary fiber are the likely modes of action which affect diabetes and obesity risk. These mechanisms appear to decrease nutrient absorption, therefore, decreasing metabolizable energy. Dietary fiber may also be able to decrease gross energy of a food due to its lower energy density.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257631/

Yes, you can lose weight on a diet of 100% twinkies, the difference in eating simple carbohydrates is with the insulin spike that comes afterward. It doesn't amount to much in accordance with CICO, but in a controlled study as the OP purports, it WILL make a difference of about a couple hundred calories, which will make one twin more "fat" than the other. Nutritrion is really not as simple as calories in calories out

I don't know if there would be any difference in the results, but the sugar-eating twin would feel hungrier all the time, and be more likely to go over the allocated total calories. (thus getting fatter and having more work to do when it comes time to cut.)

>>42529722
The simple sugar is marginally more efficiently digested and thus the sugar-fed twin would have a higher energy intake in spite of the same nominal macronutrition.
However, more importantly, a diet in which all the carbs were simple sugar would result in near immediate health problems including insulin insensitivity, loss of energy, and stress hormone production which would supress basal metabolism. With marginally higher CI and much lower CO, even at the same level of exercise, the sugar fed twin gains more weight or loses it more slowly

>>42529876
Didn't mean to reply just needed a window