/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10647902
Source?

>>10647906
Mix some baking soda with citric acid in a cup of water and drink it, you stop being hungry all the time.

>>10647925
DONT do this, it makes mustard gas

>>10647902
>he doesn't suck on small rocks of salt throughout the day while drinking large amounts of water in the form of peppermint tea

>>10647984
based

>>10647902
Try posting again after you've hit puberty and got past your grade school level chemistry and biology classes.

>What are the laws of thermodynamics
>If more energy gets consumed than gets burned the excess energy gets stored somewhere (fat)
>If less energy gets consumed than gets burned the excess energy gets released by the storage medium (fat)

Why is this so hard? It's basic physics

>>10648010
Oh, and the trolls come again...>>10647979
that's just co2, retard.

>>10648019
Thermodynamics doesn't explain why you are hungry when you should not be.

>>10648058
You being hungry doesn't mean you become fat. You eating more than you burn means you become fat.

Not this thread again.
I mean, come on.

Literally just fucking do some physical activity and stop eating like absolute shit.
The reason you are fat is because you are mentally weak with little to no self control.

Could OP please bother reading some papers first? It's like he does not care about the current scientific consensus and really just cares about his fuckin schizophrenia, it really hurts my almonds.

Here, OP, not even 5 minutes searching for you, here are the DOIs.

An appetite for life: brain regulation of hunger and satiety (Heisler. Lam. Current Opinion in Pharmacology)

Hunger and Satiety Mechanisms and Their Potential Exploitation in the Regulation of Food Intake (Amin. Mercer. Current Obesity Reports)

Hunger, craving and appetite (Persson. Persson. Acta Physiologica)

The evolutionary psychology of hunger (Al-Shawaf. Appetite).

The motilin receptor agonist erythromycin stimulates hunger and food intake through a cholinergic pathway (Deloose. Janssen. Van den Bergh. Oudenhove. Depoortere. Tack. American journal of clinical nutrition)

Relationships between human thirst, hunger, drinking, and feeding (McKiernan. Houchins. Mattes. Physiology & Behavior)

Also, if you really think the proposed mechanism can be reduced to just "It's chloride's fault and since we cannot take the excess out of our fucking bodies then we shall perpetually remain hungry" or some bullshit like that, please, remember you uare talking about a complex mechanism involving proteins, hormones, enzymes, acidity, amongst many other variables. No matter how much you simplify it, it is never going to be as simple as just "salt concentration".
Honestly, people this dishonest makes my skin crawl.

Also, had to reformat this post because simply putting the DOI made it look like spam
FUCK YOU.

Also also, take a look at this paper:
High-salt intake negatively regulates fat deposition in mouse.

>>10647925
Nice source idiot

>>10648061
It means you eat more.
>>10648076
There is no reason why you should need self control.

>>10648099
The current consensus leads to people getting fatter and fatter, so obviously it isn't working well.

Meanwhile, my advice works and when you do that, you stop being hungry.

The cause must be relatively simple, since people didn't use to get fat - something had to change.

>>10648107
I don't see what could be a better source than an advice that clearly solves the problem.

>>10648219
What is scientific methodology and credibility of information?

>>10647902
I'm going to sleep now so only a quick reply, and this goes to your previous thread too:

1. chloride doesn't need an opposing cation (e.g. sodium) to be excreted, chloride channels can be fueled by atp (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloride_channel))
You're probably thinking of crystallisation, wwhere the salt needs a counteion to crystallise, but urine is in liquid form, and as such doesn't need to be balanced.

2. even if it did need a counterion, protons (i.e. hydrogen ions) would work fine, you wouldn't need sodium.

3. the main thing that causes hunger is not sot sodium levels, which are kept carefully balanced py the body, but neuropeptides like ghrelin and pyy (as an example see https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajpendo.00191.2009))

>>10648254
It works. You can try it yourself, on any sample or population you chose.

>>10648255
It may be chemically possible, but the kidney cannot excrete neither ammonium chloride (unlike sea animals) nor HCl. So it needs a cation to excrete Cl.

A lack of sodium will also cause "hunger".

>>10647902
>The reason we get fat
If your answer is anything other than "calories" you're retarded and falling for one of the many fat person distraction theories made to keep themselves from doing the one obvious thing that works (eating fewer calories).

>>10648219
>I don't see what could be a better source than an advice that clearly solves the problem.
A study made applying scientific method

>>10647902
>they make people overeat on purpose
Idiots with no self control and no productive way to spend their time make themselves overeat on purpose and choose not to exercise so they get fat.

In other news water is still wet and the sun is still bright.

>>10648219
>There is no reason why you should need self control.
According to what line of mental gymnastics?

>I don't see what could be a better source than an advice that clearly solves the problem
Just snort cocaine 24/7, it takes away appetite almost entirely.

Holy shit you are retarded, luckily enough you use tripcode so its easy to filter.

>>10648495
But you can easily test it yourself.
>>10648532
>According to what line of mental gymnastics?
Why would we crave somerhing we have in excess? It makes far more sense we crave something we're actually lacking.

>>10648278
Just wrong.
There are sources of calories which can never be turned into fat. They are just metabolized, or exxreted through urine and sweat. They are called ketones. This is why calories are unimportant and insufficient to describe the effectiveness of a ketogenic diet.

>>10648571
>This is why calories are unimportant and insufficient to describe the effectiveness of a ketogenic diet.
People on keto diets lose weight faster than say low fat diets, but end up losing around the same amount of weight as low fat and other diets in the long run. Weight loss on keto diets is the result of decreasing calories.
>>10648514
>overeat on purpose and choose not to exercise so they get fat.
exercise is a minimal part of weight loss. It's almost entirely calorie intake.
Also, when 1/3 of a population are obese and 2/3 are overweight, there's some other factor than "everyone just changed over the course of a few years and now we're all fat"

>>10648607
Ketogenic diets inhibit the resterification of indigenous fats which are transformed into fatty acids constantly, by converting the fatty acids into ketones which can then no longer be turned into fat, even if they go unmetabolized.
Ketones are use it or lose it.

>>10648615
endogenous* whoops

>>10648615
Please provide evidence that meaningful weight loss can be achieved while maintaining a caloric excess on a ketogenic diet.

>>10648624
Biochemical facts are always stronger evidence than epistimological psued

Why did this retarded street shitter tripfag make another thread about this garbage after getting btfo last time?

>>10648629
>"it's true because facts!"
>refuses to provide evidence
Literally demonstrate it with evidence or it's not science and doesn't matter.
Whatever sleight of hand you are attempting to use, you're talking about consumption of an excess of calories while maintaining weight loss. What you're describing is literal magical thinking.

>>10647902
>The reason we get fat
It's because people are lazy fucks who eat more calories than they burn off.

I don't think anyone got fat behind their back. We all know what needs to be done to avoid it.

>>10648563
Your cravings are heuristics adapted for an ancestral environment of high scarcity. They're not adaptive in an environment of caloric excess.

>>10647902
How to get more "brown" sugar?

>>10648563
>Why would we crave somerhing we have in excess? It makes far more sense we crave something we're actually lacking
In our natural environment running around hunting for food, yes. Not with McDonald's a car-ride away. Our physiology has not had the time to devolve the constant desire to eat more than necessary in case there's no food tomorrow.

>>10648571
>There are sources of calories which can never be turned into fat.
>Calories are unimportant and insufficient to describe the effectiveness of a ketogenic diet.
You don't lose more weight if you keep calories the same and only change the macronutrient ratio.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7096307_Ketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets_have_no_metabolic_advantage_over_nonketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets
>Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets
>KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385608
>Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men.
>The carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity posits that habitual consumption of a high-carbohydrate diet sequesters fat within adipose tissue because of hyperinsulinemia and results in adaptive suppression of energy expenditure (EE). Therefore, isocaloric exchange of dietary carbohydrate for fat is predicted to result in increased EE, increased fat oxidation, and loss of body fat. In contrast, a more conventional view that "a calorie is a calorie" predicts that isocaloric variations in dietary carbohydrate and fat will have no physiologically important effects on EE or body fat.
>CONCLUSION: The isocaloric KD was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE that were near the limits of detection with the use of state-of-the-art technology.

>>10648634
Because it's true.

>>10648672
>>10648682

Nothing changed that much in the last ~30 years

>>10648704
People don't keep the weightloss if it's only because of reduced calories.

>>10648644
Learn basic biochemistry. The evidence is in any undergraduate textbook.

>>10648723
>People don't keep the weightloss if it's only because of reduced calories.
People don't keep the weight loss if they start eating at a caloric surplus again.

>>10648741
If it's so obvious what's preventing you from disproving it?
>>10648745
But they will, so it doesn't work.

>>10648752
Disproving what?
There's no biochemical phenomena in any form of life which can convert ketones back into fatty acids.

>>10648061
Being hungry makes people eat, being hungry all the time makes most people eat more than they should.
>>10648076
>The reason you are fat is because you are mentally weak with little to no self control.
You're completely missing the point. Most people aren't strong enough to overcome their hunger: that isn't being weak willed, it is, by humanity's standard, normal. Being able to overcome those urges makes you strong willed, which most people are not.
Perhaps you're not strong willed, you're just not as hungry as most people. Perhaps not. It doesn't matter: OP is asking about how we solve this problem, not looking for reasons to look down on fatties.

>>10647902
You again you fucker with your shitty made up hypothesis' with no evidence or sources but your superior intellect.
Fuck outta this subreddit you tard.

>>10647902
>no fast food
>no sweet soda drinks
Solution is simple

>>10648799
All the pajas are brown
And their opinion is shit

>>10647902

Isn't the real reason due to leptin, the obesity gene?

>>10648672
Plenty of hunter gatherers lived without food scarcity and did not become obese.

>>10648808
>>no sweet soda drinks
This is kind of impied, but those without phosphoric acid should be fine. Not that you will want to eat anything sweet anyway.

>>10647984
dicks are also salty, go suck on those.

It's high PUFA diet + stress + distorted circadian rhythm, all of the other common nutritional, lifestyle and endocrine issues are peripheral and mostly rooted in one of those issues.

>>10648830
a) Leptin is a hormone.
b) There is no such thing as an obesity gene, though metabolic damage and mitochondrial dysfunction seems to be subject to epigenetic imprinting.

>>10647979
No, it can cause bloating so severe it can kill you.

>>10647902
Stop being a fat pig by not eating shit food 24/7. People are so fucking disconnected from real life it is amazing sometimes.

>>10648219
>There is no reason why you should need self control.

>>10648563
>Why would we crave somerhing we have in excess? It makes far more sense we crave something we're actually lacking.
>>10648682
>Our physiology has not had the time to devolve the constant desire to eat more than necessary in case there's no food tomorrow.

The food industry actually designs everything, taste/texture/sight/odor/shape/bioactive, to be as addictive as possible so that you crave food constantly. The pay for marketing campaigns that target everything from how news articles are written to what characters in all forms of fiction do; all to make you want to eat more. They actually do scientific studies on this shit to make it more addictive. They've been doing this from the very beginning and actually used hardcore drugs to do it until governments stepped in to stop them. The marketing and manipulation is so pervasive and insidious that the average person assaulted with this attack since birth normally has no actual defense against it. It takes a concerted effort to gain the knowledge about such practices, to recognize them, to root them out of your life, and to make the final effort to change your very own life. Only after that will you ever feel any kind of normal and not have an underlying craving to eat constantly.

>>10647902

To lose weight consume fewer calories than you use.

What could possibly be simpler.

>>10647984
>>10648009
NOT based. peppermint tea is mildly estrogenic.

>>10648265
>the kidney cannot excrete neither ammonium chloride (unlike sea animals) nor HCl.

again, literally not true (https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.10311013 ) you don't seem to understand that molecules like HCl, NaCl and MgCl2 don't really exist in solution.

But here's a zinger: If sodium ions are so hard to get, why do 0.5% of hospital patients suffer from hypernatremia (excess sodium blood levels) and why is it more common than hyperchloremia?

>>10647902
>Basically, chloride and phosphate deplete sodium from the body

this doesn't make any sense if you know the first thing about renal physiology

>>10649285
>pic related

this is what every stupid nootropics thread will look like 100 years from now

My old man is a doctor I grew up in the 80s at the height of saturated fats paranoia... when my dad saw these ads on TV promoting 0% fat he used to get pissed and insisted that fat storage was all about insulin sensitivity and had nothing to do with eating fat

Needless to say after 40 years the truth is just coming out about sugar toxicity and the disproportionately high percentage of carbs in our foods...

>>10648571
>There are sources of calories which can never be turned into fat. They are just metabolized, or exxreted through urine and sweat. They are called ketones. This is why calories are unimportant and insufficient to describe the effectiveness of a ketogenic diet.
>>10648629
>>10648741
>I DON'T HAVE TO PROVE MY RIDICULOUS BULLSHIT, R-READ A BOOK!!!
lol

>>10649336
Coca-Cola is way better for you that nootropics or supplements, however.

>>10648571 #
>They are just metabolized, or exxreted through urine and sweat.
>This is why calories are unimportant and insufficient to describe the effectiveness of a ketogenic diet.
>Literally claiming you can eat at a 3,000 calorie surplus and gain zero weight.

>>10649351
He's right that saturated fats are good and crazily demonised, but the carbs thing is mostly what kind of carbs. Too much starch, too much refined sucrose versus mixed glucose-fructose and the vitamins and minerals in fruits, too much wheat, and white flour is "fortified" with antimetabolic forms of iron (most people are overdosed on iron).

People do eat too much carbs, but its mostly the kind of carbs that are the problem. If people switched to getting their carbs from fresh fruits and the odd starch, they would massively improve in health without cutting the amount they eat.

>>10649384
Google "anus"

>>10649389
Correct.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00325481.1958.11692236?journalCode=ipgm20
>We have for the past 15 years treated numerous diabetic patients with the rice diet. Since more than 90 percent of the calories in this diet are derived from carbohydrates, it was anticipated that increased amounts of insulin would be necessary to keep the blood sugar at its previous level. However, the opposite proved to be true. As previously reported, not only is the rice diet well tolerated but in many instances the blood sugar and the insulin requirements decrease.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673655902117
>There is no indication that healthy people taking a diet rich in carbohydrates are especially liable to diabetes ; in fact numerous observations show improvement of carbohydrate tolerance following its greater intake. The Staub-Traugott effect is a classical example of this in acute experiments. As a long-term effect diabetes mellitus is not especially common among the huge and mainly carbohydrate-eating populations of the world-e.g., the Chinese-except the rich and the sedentary among them who partake of large quantities of fat as well and encourage obesity by overeating.
>>10649390
Post proofs or fuck off.
(Of course you can't post proofs because your claim is absolutely retarded and not even once in written history has someone ever been observed maintaining a massive caloric surplus while gaining zero weight, so feel free to just fuck off)

>>10648615
How can you hit 2000+ calories on a ketogenic diet? I tried this briefly (a little more than 6 months) when I was in college and started dating I used to be super self-conscious about my baby fat.

The ketogenic diet set me straight I was shedding those pounds like it's nothing... reached 144 pounds on a 5'10" frame... seemed like I had unlimited energy when I was in ketosis... the problem is there is only so much bacon, eggs, cheese with salad you can eat before you start craving bread.......... I begrudgingly abandoned the diet because I was getting sick of making pizza with almond flour pretending like it's the real thing..... funny thing happens when you stop eating carbs is you don't crave sugar at all but you crave potatoes and bread....

>>10649402
Sorry for the rambling.. what I meant to say is that there is no way you can hit 3000+ calories with the ketogenic diet... you simply feel too full

>>10649412
drink a glass of olive oil

>>10648061
Tremendously low iq post

>>10648265
Those salts dissociate into ions in solution - kidneys do not secrete solid salts because that makes zero sense in an aqueous environment

>>10647902
no, you get fat because you don't move or do anything and you eat like garbage.

you can eat junk food all day but if you're moving all day, you'll still lose weight be fit and have high Testosterone,

google the guy that hiked the colorado trail and ate nothing but snickers bars, he'll show you his testosterone levels at the start and at the end of the hike-through.

>>10648766
I guess you found the magical method by which humans can consume unlimited calories while losing weight.

>>10649767
If you drink exogenous ketones, then yeah, you can't gain weight. You would have to be on a constant drip all day, and get micronutrients somehow.

>>10648099
OP isn't interested in reading. He's made multiple posts about this in the last week and he manages to sound dumber in each one. All he cares about is stroking his schizo-ego by pretending that he's made some world-changing discovery. This shit is literally becoming Optimum Theory 2.0. I hope it dies a lot faster than that did.

>>10650238
source: absolutely nothing

>>10650297
Your a big boy. Learn to Google it yourself.

>>10650318
I can't because you just made it up. If I'm wrong, link to literally anything in the literature that says anything to the effect of that post.

>>10649256
It makes you feel fat, that is a good thing.

>>10649317
>But here's a zinger: If sodium ions are so hard to get, why do 0.5% of hospital patients suffer from hypernatremia (excess sodium blood levels) and why is it more common than hyperchloremia?

Because the numbers may be wrong, if the majority of the population suffers from those.

>>10650283
If at least a few people try, it will change something. Meanwhile, the supposed scientists are stuck in the increasingly implausible claim that much of life around the world just suddenly decided to eat much more. You would figure it out if you did your science honestly, instead of using it as a tool to humiliate ill people.

>>10650495
And the Japanese "salt" with sodium glutamate, which is why they are not fat. And perhaps even the reason why MSG is perceived as making peoples sick, because when you eat a lot of it and you are overweight, it makes you feel bloated and fat.

>>10650516
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-msg-linked-weight-gain/msg-linked-to-weight-gain-idUSTRE74Q5SJ20110527

>>10650560
They didn't determine if MSG makes people gain weight, or if overweight people prefer food with more MSG, as it makes them feel fuller.

>>10650560
They didn't determine if MSG makes people gain weight, or if overweight people prefer food with more MSG, as it makes them feel more full.

>>10647902
Stop eating refined sugar/carbs, fast every now and then, and exercise. It's the best way if you want to avoid leptin/insulin resistance, and avoid aging related diseases.

>>10647902
>phosphoric acid
That's interesting. I had been treating myself to Coke Zero after workouts as motivation to lose weight, but I found myself gaining it instead because I felt so hungry.

>>10650763
by the way, artificial sweeteners will worsen your microbiome and aspertame (the sweetener in coke zero) is known to cause greater weight gain than regular drinks because the ammino acids in it stimulate the release of leptin and insulin (the hormones that regulate hunger/metabolism)

>>10650495
You certainly are an ill person alright, on that we can agree

>>10650516
Japanese people use still use regular salt, the MSG is mostly for the Umami flavor and it's a natural ocurring aminoacid (glutamic acid, which our body produces), present in many things they use in their regular diet (Onions sauce and nori algae, to name a few). I'm going to come clean with you and say MSG is present in a large variety of food, including tomatoes (and italian people have the stereotype of being traditionally fat).
It is used as an additive in food simply because it makes the flavour better, it is directly correlated that better flavor equals eating more, which means people are going to buy more of your shit because why the fuck not right?
Oh right, you are going to say it's because of sodium or some bullshit

Simply put, according to "Is there a relationship between dietary MSG and [corrected] obesity in animals or humans?" by Brosnan JT, Drewnowski A, Friedman MI.

"Overall, it appears that normal dietary MSG use is unlikely to influence energy intake, body weight or fat metabolism."

You know what that means? It does not make you fat, nor does it make you thin. There is no influence.

I repeat myself: FUCK YOU.

>>10650604
On a sensory analysis level literally everybody that is not allergic to MSG is going to prefer food with more MSG.

>>10650516
Also literally the only reason MSG makes people sick is due to chinks cooking bad shit
fuck could you have any non stereotypical dumb opinion

>>10650495
>If at least a few people try, it will change something. Meanwhile, the supposed scientists are stuck in the increasingly implausible claim that much of life around the world just suddenly decided to eat much more. You would figure it out if you did your science honestly, instead of using it as a tool to humiliate ill people.

Oh, look, if more energy is avaible any creature is going to take as much as it can possibly can.
https://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/metabolism/obesity/

Maybe this is more on your level. Otherwise you may need some Primary school books and coloring to do.

>>10651007
Why would you post such an insulting link, anon?

>>10647925
What does it taste like?

>>10648061
>You being hungry doesn't mean you become fat.

Being cold doesn't mean you dress heavier either. But people wearing jackets in the winter is a cosmic mystery to you because you're retarded by choice.

>>10647902
how about we put chemicals that store energy into our body and our body transform those chemicals into waste that gets removed

so when we expend less energy than we collect through chemicals,
we have a chemical surplus

the chemicals have mass

>>10651381
>wearing jackets in the winter
No. Obese people overeating is more like wearing three heavy winter jackets while walking through the Sahara Desert at noon in the middle of the summer. Even if you feel cold because you have a fever screwing with your sense of temperature you're supposed to know better and not overheat yourself.

>>10651379
Kind of like those old soviet lemonades in powder.

>>10647902
Stop making these fucking threads and listen to your middle school biology classes.
You're fat because you eat shit and never move, get over it.

>>10648061
Pretending to misunderstand a post while implying something without actually saying it should be a bannable offense. Its so fucking anoying.

>>10647902
stop looking for excuses and eat less fat fuck

>>10647902
its cause you eat too much

/sci/10651914

>>10648219
>since people didn't use to get fat - something had to change.
Easily accessible tasty foods and sedentary lifestyle are the simpler explanation.

>>10650859
This is a fucking lie.. the insulin spike is very low and is offset by increased metabolic rate induced by the caffeine ..
The whole drink is 0 calories how can you get fat from drinking a beverage with 0 calories?
Spoiler: you can't. You might argue that it makes you feel hungry and hence inclined to eat more... but honestly I drink about 1 Liter of this stuff every day... after a while you don't feel so hungry any more because as you lose fat your stomach will also shrink and you get used to new satiety levels... and there's the effect of caffeine at play here also which suppresses your appetite

>>10652220
just drink water dude lmao

>>10651274
You're insulting everyone on this board by wasting our time with your schizo horseshit.

>>10648099
>simply putting the DOI made it look like spam
4chan's spam filter is absolute shit-tier

>>10651473
Because I, a westerner in the 21st century, knows how soviet lemonade tastes like

>>10652086
Oh, I had no idea there were regular famines as late as in the 60's. Or about all those poor starving Japanese.

>>10653275
Your science is horseshit if you can't give people advice how to stay at normal weight.

>>10653642
It seems it's called sherbet powder in English.

>>10653656
>Your science is horseshit if you can't give people advice how to stay at normal weight.

eat less calories than you burn

>>10653660
Doesn't work. It's implied that advice that works. I can give advice on space flight if I wanted to, but it probably won't be a very good one.

>>10653660
Doesn't work. It's implied that advice that works. I could give advice on space flight if I wanted to, but it probably wouldn't be very good advice.

>>10653667
what exactly do you do for a living? I'm curious how you know better than scientists

>>10653675
You can't call yourself a scientist if you keep insisting on something that obviously isn't working.

>>10648254

B

R

A

A

P

>>10649399
It's funny because you responded to both of my posts. If you followed the content in the first post, you'd understand the proof for the second one.

>>10649493
Most olive oil is cut garbage

>>10654778
Most italian olive oil
Also you can't drink it. You'd just throw up.

>>10654776
You can't maintain caloric surplus and lose weight. You repeatedly asserting that it is true is not evidence that it is true.

>>10647925
>baking soda with citric acid
This reaction is similar to the more common reaction between vinegar and sodium bicarbonate. When an acid (like vinegar or citric acid) is mixed with a carbonate (like sodium bicarbonate), they react to form carbon dioxide gas

>>10654839
Calories are a non-sequitur. It's all about how much you can eat of a certain macronutrient before you "feel full" and how long it takes to digest in your stomach.
It just so happens to be that you don't have to eat much of fatty-protein rich foods to achieve satiety. It's not fair if you want to compare them on a calorie level because a chicken breast is around 170 kcal but 2 slices of bread are "only" 200 kcal. Eating 2 sandwiches you're already north of 600-700 kcal if you count the toppings and you're still NOT FULL.
But 2 chicken breasts or especially a whole steak will last you an entire day.

>>10655039
>Calories are a non-sequitur
Absolutely not. Count calories, maintain calorie deficit, lose weight. Source of calories is immaterial Why are people so invested in fighting this fact?
Also, if a person isn't full after eating two sandwiches, I would guess they've conditioned themselves to overeat.

>>10655086
Two diets both containing 2000 kcal if one is a ketogenic diet and the other is carb heavy then it's not the same amount of food even though it's the same amount of calories the difference between satiety levels and digestion time is not the same and it's harder to over-eat on a ketogenic diet.

>>10655096
>Two diets both containing 2000 kcal
consist of the same amount of energy BY DEFINITION.
>satiety
>it's harder to over-eat
These are subjective considerations and have no bearing on whether calorie deficits induce weight loss.
If you are saying it's easier to lose weight on the keto diet than say, an all candy diet, then yes I agree that is probably true for most people. But it doesn't change the fact that calorie deficits produce weight loss, and excess consumption, irrespective of source, produces weight gain.

>>10653683
Nice dodge. I'll ask the question again: What do you do for a living and why do you think that gives you credibility in this field? Especially since you seem to neither understand the field nor do you have any desire to further your understanding. You want to know just enough to feel superior to others. You're a schizo, Dunning-Kruger brainlet.

>>10655158
moron
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221930616

>>10655711
It's paywalled. Can you use your grown-up words to express what you mean?

>>10655667
>What do you do for a living and why do you think that gives you credibility in this field?

I posted an idea that makes people stop overeating, one that can be easily tested by anybody. Truth is all that matters in any field. Science is not about authority, authority is for religions and literal retards.

>>10647902
Lmao at the baking soda shill

>>10656063
and you are fucking wrong
your belly is going to fucking explode with gas and make you feel fucking full before you admit your theory makes no sense

>>10649584
fatty!

>>10647902
>>10647925
Please kill yourself

>>10656255
It's just an old fashioned soda drink; it's the extra sodium what matters.

>>10653667
>eat less calories than you burn
>Doesn't work
So I guess you are breaking thermodynamics, then, faggot?

>>10647925
>Mix some baking soda with citric acid in a cup of water and drink it, you stop being hungry all the time.
>>10647902
>they switched to phosphoric acid
If they switched from citric acid to phosphoric acid, why is citric acid still in this ingredient list?
http://www.pepsicobeveragefacts.com/Home/Product?formula=35005*26*01-01&form=RTD&size=12

>>10654839
That's a claim you've made and that you have to prove. Further, you've got to disprove the points we've raised against it.

>>10656469
You want me to prove that you can't overeat and lose weight simultaneously? Yeah nah, I am content to let you continue to believe that.

kys OP

bump

Imagine taking a complex organism like the human body and trying to imply that just following CiCo will make you lose or gain energy storage. Go on a 2000 calories diet of sugar with 2000 calories out vs a diet of 2000 calories of meat with 2000 calories out. The results might shock you but the metabolism will adapt to your diet. Your insulin resistance in the case of the first diet will be very high which will make your body store fat from the calories that you consumed rather than burn them. To compensate for this lack of calories, the body will lower it's metabolism. In the case of the second diet, your insulin resistance will drop which will store less fat and use it to fuel your body.

>>10656363
Imagine being so fucking dense that you can't comprehend that not everything that you eat will be metabolized as energy by the body. It's not like pouring fuel into an engine tank. Some substances will not be completely metabolized whereas others will be and the body doesn't work by just saying "whoops we have 2000 calories, store into fat now" you mongoloid cunt. But yes, if you want to use your retarded reductionism, it is CiCo except that the source of calories you eat are important and are gene dependant. The countries with the highest milk consumption have the lowest lactose intolerance. Why? Because they have been acustomed to this specific sugar and can produce the proper enzyme for it. For a month, give 4000 calories worth of milk to a chinese man and 4000 calories of milk to a danish man and the danish guy will have put on significantly more weight because he was able to metabolize the sugars present in milk unlike chinaman who fucking shit it out.


Also, fuck fat people, they aren't physically lazy, they are mentally lazy for not being able to figure out that sugar is horrible for you.

>>10658059
>Some substances will not be completely metabolized
That's accounted for when calorie counts are assessed and placed on food labels. It's not like a bag of celery is labeled with the total amount of calories an animal capable of digesting cellulose would get from it.

>>10658059
>For a month, give 4000 calories worth of milk to a chinese man and 4000 calories of milk to a danish man and the danish guy will have put on significantly more weight because he was able to metabolize the sugars present in milk unlike chinaman who fucking shit it out.
What is the point of that example? You could just as well bring up girls with body image problems who vomit after eating. None of that really has any bearing on how regular nutrition works.
>Go on a 2000 calories diet of sugar with 2000 calories out vs a diet of 2000 calories of meat with 2000 calories out. The results might shock you
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385608
>Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men.
>The carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity posits that habitual consumption of a high-carbohydrate diet sequesters fat within adipose tissue because of hyperinsulinemia and results in adaptive suppression of energy expenditure (EE). Therefore, isocaloric exchange of dietary carbohydrate for fat is predicted to result in increased EE, increased fat oxidation, and loss of body fat. In contrast, a more conventional view that "a calorie is a calorie" predicts that isocaloric variations in dietary carbohydrate and fat will have no physiologically important effects on EE or body fat.
>CONCLUSION: The isocaloric KD was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE that were near the limits of detection with the use of state-of-the-art technology.

Everything you know about nutrition is wrong. Just listen to this guy. He knows what's up!

>>10658110
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA3QavPp1Ho

>>10658093
I am saying that the efficiency to digest substances varies from person to person. It takes an awful long time for concentrated sulfuric acid to digest meat but the human stomach does it in a few hours because it has the proper enzymes. If you don't have the proper enzymes then your stomach won't be able to break down the food properly to access the nutrients. They don't take into account which enzymes you have in your body when they make the food labels. Therefore, if your body does not produce the proper enzyme, you will have difficulty processing certain foods meaning that 2000 calories of meat may only be 1900 for you. Then you will say "so people will lose weight" and that would be true if sugar wasn't easy to digest. Food is so widely available that you can change your diet very easily so people who can't drink something like milk turn to other alternatives like juices. Those are much easier to digest but they also increase your insulin resistance which leads to fat gain more rapidly. I don't attack thermodynamics but I will disagree with the notion that CiCo is too simple to explain fat loss and fat gain.
>>10658105
>whats the point
To further add to my point that labelled caloric content does not mean that it will be converted to ATP by the body. Some people are predisposed to digest some food sources better than others. Meaning that counting calories won't be as simple as CiCo. I know my post was hard to follow but I mainly wanted to say that reducing fat gain and fat loss to CiCo is too simple.

As for the study, I guess I should have precised refined sugar but lets assume carbohydrates because you were kind enough to spoonfeed me your source. It is a nice study that sort of contradicts what I said however, it does not provide me with the actual diet. In order to be in ketogenic state you must consume ~50g of carbohydrates or less. I also never addresses this point because I didn't really think that anyone would reply to my post but as with

>>10658059
How do you imagine someone who is calorie restricting their diet is going to develop insulin resistance and not insulin sensitivity?

>>10658163
prolonged fasting, lack of exercise will lead to muscle loss rather than fat loss. When exercising, something (I wish I could provide source but I've been typing for so ling instead of studying that I won't bother searching for the name and the source, sorry fren) is released that reduces the consumption of muscles by the body and consumes the fat storage in greater amounts. There was a study done on fasting in which the doctors didn't allow the participant to exercise during his week long fast and he lost a lot of muscle but then it was repeated but with exercise and this time the muscle loss was minimal. No source again but a lot of it is from Jason Fung. Anyways, in the case of the study, I would need to know what variables they included or excluded as they are quite important for this topic. Again, didn't think I'd get this much attention and mobile posting with 2000 char limit.

>>10658169
Depends what you eat. Processed sugar will greatly increase your resistance to insulin because it greats such a strong response in the body. The recommended dose is 0 and shouldn't excees 30g yet people intake a lot more than this on a daily basis. Caloric restriction has absolutely nothing to do with the secretion of insulin in the case that I presented.

>>10658176
>Caloric restriction has absolutely nothing to do with the secretion of insulin in the case that I presented.
I can't imagine why you assume that's true. All of the studies indicate that calorie restriction, regardless of diet, improves insulin sensitivity.
>>10658110
I was under the impression that he was fairly orthodox in his views.

>>10658194
You just take me out of context. You insulin resistance will decrease if you have a caloric deficit but I specifically said "processed sugar" as in the diet consists of processed sugar as a large portion of the calories consumed not "insulin resistance will increase in a caloric deficit diet". Since you know all of the studies, I'm sure you can help a retard towards a study in which the insulin resistance was monitored and the diet consisted of a large amount of processed sugar. I'll even take fructose from fruit if you have that.

>>10658232
Sorry, wasn't trying to misrepresent you. My point was that it doesn't matter the scenario, it doesn't matter the source of calories, a negative energy balance will produce increased insulin sensitivity.
>processed sugar
I assume putting someone on an all candybar diet is unethical and so those experiments haven't been and won't be done. And I'm certainly not advocating consuming sugar. I agree 0g is ideal. However, there is this guy:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html

>Since you know all of the studies
You're right, I admit I over-represented my familiarity with the subject. They're there, though.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.20320
>After 1‐year dietary restriction, the completers had clinically significant weight loss when treated by either HPD (15%) or HCD (13.3%), but the difference between groups was not statistically significant.
>The similar and favorable changes observed of both diets on blood pressure, triglycerides, total, LDL and HDL cholesterol, glucose, and insulin levels...
>A previous study on glucose and lipid metabolism, which used two diets with energy deficit and macronutrient content similar to our HPD and HCD (15), is in agreement with our results.

Here's that one:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15941879?dopt=Abstract
>Fasting LDL-cholesterol, HDL-cholesterol, glucose, insulin, free fatty acid, and C-reactive protein concentrations decreased with weight loss.

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/7/11/5454/htm
>Hypocaloric, especially low carbohydrate ketogenic diets rapidly decrease liver fat content and associated metabolic abnormalities. However, any type of caloric restriction seems effective long-term.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/842491?dopt=Abstract
>The improvement in glucose metabolism on high CHO diets appears to results from increased insulin sensitivity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0016508509001504

>>10648870
I already do

>>10647979
Where does the chlorine come from?

>>10656770
Continue to struggle with your diet, I guess. It's not skin off my nose.

>>10647902
>schizo tripfag on /sci/
glad to see nothing has changed in literally years

>>10658372
First, this is a troll thread.
Second, you should know that all those papers are largely bullshit. It's notoriously difficult to replicate human diet studies so basically nobody bothers to replicate the result so all we have are anecdotes. These are generally worthless papers and every doctor is well aware of this which is why they tend to ignore them.

>>10660257
>papers are bullshit because no one replicates results
>there's literally a replicated result in the post
I guess anything you want to be true can be true when you ignore literally all the science. great board you got here, /sci/
>this is a troll thread
it sure is

>>10660257
Not a troll thread. You can try it yourself. I don't get that, do people really think I'm trying to make poison themselves with food additives?

>>10647979

This made me laugh. I don't know why it's so funny.

>>10660243
Kek