I keep noticing something that doesn’t fully match the common narrative:Some people eat diets that are pretty high in sugar and low in fat, yet they stay lean and seem metabolically fine.If fat is so central to health and sugar is the main villain, how does that actually make sense in real life?Genuinely curious—can someone redpill me on this?Would love to hear explanations, personal experiences, or anything that helped you understand how this works.(I know that there are some factors like genetics, quality of food, lifestyles, etc; but I want to find out about how people manage to do better on certain diets, like the ketoschizosfucks or whatever)
>>77236538Genetics is not some factor, it is THE factor.It's ironic because anons are supposed to be huge racists and still don't get that diet is hyper-ethnic.North africans (I live in France so I know a bunch) have insane sweets craving. Not just carbs, but the sugary taste.I used to make fun of them because for a european, it sounds infantile. As grown men we would rather eat a steak, or if carbs, pasta and stuff, starchy foods.They will just eat pastries and drink honey.I can drink milk by the gallon and be fine, some asians would die doing the same.Then there are probably a multitude of sub groups in every ethnicity.At some point you just have to follow your gut, do what works for you and disregard studies altogether.
>>77236538>>77236561Let me keep it simple, I am going to assume both of you are skinny. Skinny people have no concept what a surplus. Its really that simple.Come back once you start lifting and can actually get fat from experimenting with diet. You have to answer your own question by actually seeing it being done to yourself, no amount of reading or discussion is going to give you an answer.
>>77236538Fats are good for skin, hair and joints. They also taste good and satisfy hunger. Sugar is bad for you.Everything will make you fat if you don't work out and eat too much.
>>77236561100% agree, the best diet is the one that works best for you, thanks for that perspective
>>77236538how can your body use body fat if you're overeating fat?
>>77236601Good logic, but that's not always the case
>>77236570Come on anon, have some good faith on other anons willing to learn instead of baiting
>>77236570I might be slow bro but I have no idea how your post relates to mine, not a single clue
You need a baseline of fat for hormone function. Around 45-50 grams. Beyond that is just your dietary choices Look up Layne Norton material on macros. He's a PhD holder, natural bber and pl
>>77236538high carb, moderate protein, low fat is the key to getting and staying lean, your body will prioritize burning the carbs for fuel which is what you want
>>77236629That's the part that is important, I know many people that follows this type of macros, but I wonder how the hormones work at that level; do they do better with more fat or does that baseline makes the work?
>>77236538saturated fat goodunsaturated fat badfat+sugar combined badso pick one fat is essentialcarbs are inessential so fat is better
>>77236934So can i do little fat and go nuts with the sugar?Lately I've achieved more reps and weight with more carbs
>>77236943Yea but it's not healthy, natties should prioritize fat because they aren't injecting hormones. What's best for maximum performance isn't necessarily conducive to health and longevity.
>>77236634Low-fat diets cause obesity.
>>77236538From what I know, animal fat is good fat, it's the stuff your brain uses to actually function and is really good for the aerobic (oxygen using) system to pull energy from. Fat from plants and what not don't have the same compounds that animal fats do and are either less efficient to pull energy from or just don't at all.In terms of sugar, there's a big difference between actual real natural sugar and holy fuck what is this store bought sugar. Natural sugar usually comes from fruits like apples and is a "slow burning" (for lack of a better term) energy source your brain uses to keep up with things around it, your body can also use it as an extra "quick boost" energy source. The key thing about natural sugar is that it doesn't give you a sugar crash, as it is used over the course of the day rather than all at once.Now with processed sugars like what's in cookies, coca cola and practically everything else today, it is super "quick burning" and hits you all at once. Not only is it processed for sweetness instead of actual sugary energy, this process made it so your body can only use it all at once, which as you can expect, causes a sugar crash and means your body has to store the extra shit it couldn't use somewhere, that somewhere usually being fat.Now I'm not a scientist or anything, this is just from my own experience and what I've learned.I'm pretty sure the animal fats being better is probably due to it being packed with nutrients or some shit compared to other fats.And I think it was due to some form of fibers that fruits like apples have "slow-burning" sugar.The way I live is simple, if it says more than one ingredient on the package, it's probably unhealthy.
>>77236538>Some people eat diets that are pretty high in sugar and low in fat, yet they stay lean and seem metabolically fine.>If fat is so central to health and sugar is the main villain, how does that actually make sense in real life?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citric_acid_cycleBasic biology. Here's your answer.The only difference is that high fat diets are more health and micronutrient focused while high carbohydrates and sugar are solely for sport performance
