Calories and when the system hates carnivore

[Ron OG Mouse]

When you talk about carnivorous or keto or any diet you have to think about the quality of food in the US. Assuming In your in the US. We allow corporations to do bad things to our food to get a increased profit. Our chicken and beef almost don't qualify as chicken and beef in my eyes. In the EU they regulate this and protect the people instead of the profit.

I can remember the very first time I went to whole foods and bought a few $50 chicken breasts. Took it home and cooked it up. As soon as I bit into it there was a strange but familiar flavor. It took me a minute but it was the actual flavor of chicken. Something I hadn't tasted since I was a child. These bloated steers and chickens that can hardly walk now can not be healthy for us. Don't get me wrong, I eat the hell out of them but if people wanna blame cancer on a diet we really should be looking at the food we are eating instead of the diet.

 

[Bigtex]

Not at all. Look back on these kinds of threads I have posted over the years. There were people on here telling me they got ripped for a competition eating krispy cream donuts and popeyes chicken! Can't even make this shit up.

I only block the people who I have something personal against or they just troll my posts to be an asshole. You can have a different view and we can get along. If you are a condescending little bitch I'll block you. Its pretty simple.

OK, I am bored watching football today so here we go........

Have to agree with you when you are right.

In fact, I got ready for several powerlifting contest eating Shipley's donuts, ice cream and fried chicken including chicken fried steak. But it wasn't a bodybuilding contest and I was certainly not trying to get ripped, just put on as much weight as I could. So I guess in a way these fucking foods (krispy cream donuts and popeyes chicken) have their place. In bodybuilding......I would have to see that to believe it.

Now on the calorie thing......I know that has been debated for a million times and I honestly hate getting involved in it because diet becomes a religion. But in a real world, a calorie is not really "a calorie" when it comes to body weight, body composition, health, or practical outcomes. Remember the law of individuality. While 1 kcal of protein, fat, carbohydrate, or alcohol always provides the same amount of energy when burned in a bomb calorimeter (or on paper in a closed metabolic ward), the human body is not a bomb calorimeter. Different macronutrients and foods trigger very different physiological responses. Here’s why the “calories are calories” idea falls apart in practice.

We know the TEF play a part in how different foods effect our individual metabolism. So calories from protein are not the same as calories of carbohydrate.

• Protein: ~20–30% of its calories are burned just digesting and metabolizing it
• Carbohydrates: ~5–10%
• Fat: ~0–3%
• Alcohol: ~10–15%

Notice ever the figures in TEF are not exact because the law of individuality sets in and the amount of fat in protein and the GI of carbs plays a huge part. All different types of oil differs in response. So fat heavy proteins should not increase the metabolism like a non fat source. Low GI carbs do have the same response as high GI carbs. Shorter chain fatty acids raise metabolism more than longer chains.

How our hormones (ie insulin) react when neutrients enter the blood stream also play a big part. Remember, we are all individual. So its not a one size fits all formula where a colorie is really a calorie. For instance:

• FTO gene (the “obesity gene”): certain versions make people store more fat from carbs.
• PPAR-gamma variants: increase fat-cell formation and fat trapping when carbs/insulin are high.
• AMY1 copy number (salivary amylase): people with few copies digest starch slowly --> bigger blood-glucose and insulin spikes -->more fat storage.

Our individual needs for carbohydrates vary greatly depending on our activity level. Sedentary people with little muscle mass fill their tiny glycogen tank in one meal --> every additional carb gram after that is converted to fat or raises triglycerides. However, a 200-lb weightlifter stays shredded on 500+ g. Simply because the muscle glycogen stores are much larger and the need for carbodydrate to fill these after training is much greater. So bodybuilders understand how many grams of carbs they need to fill muscle glycogen stores so the excess does not spill over and stored as fat.

So how our individual body partitions nutrients is also a factor. For most of us, being overfed fats (w/carbs/pro) generally are predominantly stored as fat. Depending on our individual response, carbohydrates can be stored as glycogen, converted to fat via de novo lipogenesis, or burned off. Because of individual differences in insulin physiology, fat-cell behavior, and energy partitioning. Over feeding with protein, 0–10% stored as fat, the rest raises energy expenditure and lean mass. Again, this is all very individual.

So while some of us love the carnivor diet, some don't get such good results. My only comment on it is with the price of meats, its priced itself right out of my food basket. I get the cheapest frozen chicken I can find and the cheapest frozen shrimp. When they come down on the prices of the rest I may change my eating habits. But I have always been genetically lucky and have a very hard time gaining weight and do not store much fat. I started off as a 6'1" skinny kid and had to stuff myself for decades to ever get up to a respectable weight. I still fight with it and miss one mill and I am down 5 lbs. My wife breathes and gains weight.

I agree with you again on the food guide pyramid. This is what one of the contributing fastors that has lead to a nation of obesity since the early 1970's. As you can see in the graphy below. The food guild pyramid was developed by the USDA in 1991 and pushed off on America in a time when we have been told that fats and meats are going to kill us all and we need to eat more carbs. A note - type II diabetes/obesity also rose in the same manner as the increased use of carbohydrates.

Hope no one gets pissed over this and instead considers what I have posted and research it for yourself. Hunan nutrition is an ever changing thing and what we knw 30 years ago is almost meaningless. There is still so much to learn and understand that none of us are experts.

 

[WhiteApe]

OK, I am bored watching football today so here we go........

Have to agree with you when you are right.

In fact, I got ready for several powerlifting contest eating Shipley's donuts, ice cream and fried chicken including chicken fried steak. But it wasn't a bodybuilding contest and I was certainly not trying to get ripped, just put on as much weight as I could. So I guess in a way these fucking foods (krispy cream donuts and popeyes chicken) have their place. In bodybuilding......I would have to see that to believe it.

Now on the calorie thing......I know that has been debated for a million times and I honestly hate getting involved in it because diet becomes a religion. But in a real world, a calorie is not really "a calorie" when it comes to body weight, body composition, health, or practical outcomes. Remember the law of individuality. While 1 kcal of protein, fat, carbohydrate, or alcohol always provides the same amount of energy when burned in a bomb calorimeter (or on paper in a closed metabolic ward), the human body is not a bomb calorimeter. Different macronutrients and foods trigger very different physiological responses. Here’s why the “calories are calories” idea falls apart in practice.

We know the TEF play a part in how different foods effect our individual metabolism. So calories from protein are not the same as calories of carbohydrate.

• Protein: ~20–30% of its calories are burned just digesting and metabolizing it
• Carbohydrates: ~5–10%
• Fat: ~0–3%
• Alcohol: ~10–15%

Notice ever the figures in TEF are not exact because the law of individuality sets in and the amount of fat in protein and the GI of carbs plays a huge part. All different types of oil differs in response. So fat heavy proteins should not increase the metabolism like a non fat source. Low GI carbs do have the same response as high GI carbs. Shorter chain fatty acids raise metabolism more than longer chains.

How our hormones (ie insulin) react when neutrients enter the blood stream also play a big part. Remember, we are all individual. So its not a one size fits all formula where a colorie is really a calorie. For instance:

• FTO gene (the “obesity gene”): certain versions make people store more fat from carbs.
• PPAR-gamma variants: increase fat-cell formation and fat trapping when carbs/insulin are high.
• AMY1 copy number (salivary amylase): people with few copies digest starch slowly --> bigger blood-glucose and insulin spikes -->more fat storage.

Our individual needs for carbohydrates vary greatly depending on our activity level. Sedentary people with little muscle mass fill their tiny glycogen tank in one meal --> every additional carb gram after that is converted to fat or raises triglycerides. However, a 200-lb weightlifter stays shredded on 500+ g. Simply because the muscle glycogen stores are much larger and the need for carbodydrate to fill these after training is much greater. So bodybuilders understand how many grams of carbs they need to fill muscle glycogen stores so the excess does not spill over and stored as fat.

So how our individual body partitions nutrients is also a factor. For most of us, being overfed fats (w/carbs/pro) generally are predominantly stored as fat. Depending on our individual response, carbohydrates can be stored as glycogen, converted to fat via de novo lipogenesis, or burned off. Because of individual differences in insulin physiology, fat-cell behavior, and energy partitioning. Over feeding with protein, 0–10% stored as fat, the rest raises energy expenditure and lean mass. Again, this is all very individual.

So while some of us love the carnivor diet, some don't get such good results. My only comment on it is with the price of meats, its priced itself right out of my food basket. I get the cheapest frozen chicken I can find and the cheapest frozen shrimp. When they come down on the prices of the rest I may change my eating habits. But I have always been genetically lucky and have a very hard time gaining weight and do not store much fat. I started off as a 6'1" skinny kid and had to stuff myself for decades to ever get up to a respectable weight. I still fight with it and miss one mill and I am down 5 lbs. My wife breathes and gains weight.

I agree with you again on the food guide pyramid. This is what one of the contributing fastors that has lead to a nation of obesity since the early 1970's. As you can see in the graphy below. The food guild pyramid was developed by the USDA in 1991 and pushed off on America in a time when we have been told that fats and meats are going to kill us all and we need to eat more carbs. A note - type II diabetes/obesity also rose in the same manner as the increased use of carbohydrates.

Hope no one gets pissed over this and instead considers what I have posted and research it for yourself. Hunan nutrition is an ever changing thing and what we knw 30 years ago is almost meaningless. There is still so much to learn and understand that none of us are experts.

View attachment 18390

Wonderful and well thought out. A couple comments from me.
1. I believe that high carb can work and high fat can work. The issue is most Americans do both with low protein. And lack of exercise.
2. with what we know from item 1 we have to ask the question, is the food pyramid messed up or is the real issue with it that no one actually follows it?

 

[Bigtex]

Wonderful and well thought out. A couple comments from me.
1. I believe that high carb can work and high fat can work. The issue is most Americans do both with low protein. And lack of exercise.
2. with what we know from item 1 we have to ask the question, is the food pyramid messed up or is the real issue with it that no one actually follows it?

First off thanks!

Yes high carb can work, but it depends entirely on who you are, your goal, and how you structure the carbs. Particularily in lean, insulin-sensitive people (top ~30–40% of the population). These people have naturally low fasting insulin, great glucose disposal into muscle. Second, hard-training strength/power/endurance athletes. Michael Phelps for instance ate ~12,000 kcal, 60–70% carbs (pasta, pizza, rice). Third, muscle gain (bulking) phase for ectomorphs or “hardgainers” usually require a lot of carbohydrates. About 30%-50% of Americans fall into this catagory. However, ~50% who are insulin-resistant or sedentary, high-carb is usually the fastest way to get fatter and feel terrible.

Yes, a high-fat diet/keto works extremely well — often better than high-carb — for a huge number of people and goals. It’s not magic, and it’s not for everyone, but the evidence and real-world results are overwhelming at this point. I went to a cardiologist that suggest I start a keto diet. Done it befor eand its not for me because it limits food selections way to much for me.

I think what fueled the food guide pyramid is we assumed fat has more than double calories/g that carbs and protein so to keep from getting fat, we need to quit eating so much fat. We also assumed that dietary fat was a direct link to CHD through some half backed studies. Many proteins contain fat so we were told to quit eating so much meat. Unfortunately this was not was not driven by new randomized trials on humans because there were very few back then. It seems to have been driven by politics, ideology, bad epidemiology, industry pressure, and one very influential senator, Senator George McGovern. McGovern McGovern was the chair of the Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. This Committee releases the Dietary Goals for the United States which was to reduce saturated fat dramatically, reduce red meat, eggs, whole milk, butter, and increase carbohydrates to 55–60% (explicitly: more breads, cereals, pasta, rice). As you might have figured, the "carbohydrate industry"—particularly the sugar sector—did exert pressure that influenced the low-fat, high-carb shift in the 1970s. Particularily the big grain producers (e.g., wheat, corn, or cereal companies) who directly lobbied the McGovern Committee to push for more carbs. So it never was about health, it was about politicians making money from the carbohyudrate industry lobbiests.

 

[CJ Smalls]

OK, I am bored watching football today so here we go........

Have to agree with you when you are right.

In fact, I got ready for several powerlifting contest eating Shipley's donuts, ice cream and fried chicken including chicken fried steak. But it wasn't a bodybuilding contest and I was certainly not trying to get ripped, just put on as much weight as I could. So I guess in a way these fucking foods (krispy cream donuts and popeyes chicken) have their place. In bodybuilding......I would have to see that to believe it.

Now on the calorie thing......I know that has been debated for a million times and I honestly hate getting involved in it because diet becomes a religion. But in a real world, a calorie is not really "a calorie" when it comes to body weight, body composition, health, or practical outcomes. Remember the law of individuality. While 1 kcal of protein, fat, carbohydrate, or alcohol always provides the same amount of energy when burned in a bomb calorimeter (or on paper in a closed metabolic ward), the human body is not a bomb calorimeter. Different macronutrients and foods trigger very different physiological responses. Here’s why the “calories are calories” idea falls apart in practice.

We know the TEF play a part in how different foods effect our individual metabolism. So calories from protein are not the same as calories of carbohydrate.

• Protein: ~20–30% of its calories are burned just digesting and metabolizing it
• Carbohydrates: ~5–10%
• Fat: ~0–3%
• Alcohol: ~10–15%

Notice ever the figures in TEF are not exact because the law of individuality sets in and the amount of fat in protein and the GI of carbs plays a huge part. All different types of oil differs in response. So fat heavy proteins should not increase the metabolism like a non fat source. Low GI carbs do have the same response as high GI carbs. Shorter chain fatty acids raise metabolism more than longer chains.

How our hormones (ie insulin) react when neutrients enter the blood stream also play a big part. Remember, we are all individual. So its not a one size fits all formula where a colorie is really a calorie. For instance:

• FTO gene (the “obesity gene”): certain versions make people store more fat from carbs.
• PPAR-gamma variants: increase fat-cell formation and fat trapping when carbs/insulin are high.
• AMY1 copy number (salivary amylase): people with few copies digest starch slowly --> bigger blood-glucose and insulin spikes -->more fat storage.

Our individual needs for carbohydrates vary greatly depending on our activity level. Sedentary people with little muscle mass fill their tiny glycogen tank in one meal --> every additional carb gram after that is converted to fat or raises triglycerides. However, a 200-lb weightlifter stays shredded on 500+ g. Simply because the muscle glycogen stores are much larger and the need for carbodydrate to fill these after training is much greater. So bodybuilders understand how many grams of carbs they need to fill muscle glycogen stores so the excess does not spill over and stored as fat.

So how our individual body partitions nutrients is also a factor. For most of us, being overfed fats (w/carbs/pro) generally are predominantly stored as fat. Depending on our individual response, carbohydrates can be stored as glycogen, converted to fat via de novo lipogenesis, or burned off. Because of individual differences in insulin physiology, fat-cell behavior, and energy partitioning. Over feeding with protein, 0–10% stored as fat, the rest raises energy expenditure and lean mass. Again, this is all very individual.

So while some of us love the carnivor diet, some don't get such good results. My only comment on it is with the price of meats, its priced itself right out of my food basket. I get the cheapest frozen chicken I can find and the cheapest frozen shrimp. When they come down on the prices of the rest I may change my eating habits. But I have always been genetically lucky and have a very hard time gaining weight and do not store much fat. I started off as a 6'1" skinny kid and had to stuff myself for decades to ever get up to a respectable weight. I still fight with it and miss one mill and I am down 5 lbs. My wife breathes and gains weight.

I agree with you again on the food guide pyramid. This is what one of the contributing fastors that has lead to a nation of obesity since the early 1970's. As you can see in the graphy below. The food guild pyramid was developed by the USDA in 1991 and pushed off on America in a time when we have been told that fats and meats are going to kill us all and we need to eat more carbs. A note - type II diabetes/obesity also rose in the same manner as the increased use of carbohydrates.

Hope no one gets pissed over this and instead considers what I have posted and research it for yourself. Hunan nutrition is an ever changing thing and what we knw 30 years ago is almost meaningless. There is still so much to learn and understand that none of us are experts.

View attachment 18390

I think you touched upon what I consider the biggest misconception in the CICO arguments. I believe that it would better serve the average person to say that "foods are not created equal". But a calorie is a calorie, it's simply a unit of measure. An inch on a tape measure is the same as an inch on a yardstick, but a tape measure is not the same as a yardstick. That's why you choose the right tool for the job.

While a 150 calorie serving of apples and a 150 calorie serving of gummy bears do indeed contain the same amount of potential energy, the nutrients provided and how the body responds to each is different.

Two diets, both calorie and macro equated, one whole nutritient dense foods and the other a SAD/junk foods diet, will produce different results in health and probably body composition, due to their different nutrient profiles, etc...

But when you get into performance, especially highly glycolytic activities, the paradigm shifts, and that "junk food" suddenly becomes ideal, the gummy bears are now more appropriate than the apple.


*side note, and I'm not saying that the caption in your graph isn't true, I'm only suggesting that it MIGHT not be true, that it is not proof.

The graph can't say definitively that carbs are the cause of the rise in obesity, because it shows that overall calorie consumption has increased. Would the graph be any different if carbohydrate consumption remained static during that time period while fat consumption increased? Unclear.

 

[gunslinger]

I think you touched upon what I consider the biggest misconception in the CICO arguments. I believe that it would better serve the average person to say that "foods are not created equal". But a calorie is a calorie, it's simply a unit of measure. An inch on a tape measure is the same as an inch on a yardstick, but a tape measure is not the same as a yardstick. That's why you choose the right tool for the job.

While a 150 calorie serving of apples and a 150 calorie serving of gummy bears do indeed contain the same amount of potential energy, the nutrients provided and how the body responds to each is different.

Two diets, both calorie and macro equated, one whole nutritient dense foods and the other a SAD/junk foods diet, will produce different results in health and probably body composition, due to their different nutrient profiles, etc...

But when you get into performance, especially highly glycolytic activities, the paradigm shifts, and that "junk food" suddenly becomes ideal, the gummy bears are now more appropriate than the apple.


*side note, and I'm not saying that the caption in your graph isn't true, I'm only suggesting that it MIGHT not be true, that it is not proof.

The graph can't say definitively that carbs are the cause of the rise in obesity, because it shows that overall calorie consumption has increased. Would the graph be any different if carbohydrate consumption remained static during that time period while fat consumption increased? Unclear.

Exactly. I have found for myself that I can eat a very small amount of calories and gain fat if these calories are coming from carbs. I can eat a massive amount of protein and and fats and actually lose weight even when eating 5 times the amount of calories. Most people can. One of my female friends is 5'9" and walks around at 145 pounds while eating just over 4,000 calories per day and little psychical activity other than 1 hour with the weights per day. My son went from 250 pounds eating about 3,000 calories per day to 175 by increasing his calories to around 4,000 per day but going from mac and cheese and potatoes to meat only. Again zero increase in activity because he is a truck driver.

I have tried to explain this dozens of times on this very board only to be met with dip shits yelling "thermodynamics!" at the top of their lungs.

 

[genetic freak]

When you talk about carnivorous or keto or any diet you have to think about the quality of food in the US. Assuming In your in the US. We allow corporations to do bad things to our food to get a increased profit. Our chicken and beef almost don't qualify as chicken and beef in my eyes. In the EU they regulate this and protect the people instead of the profit.

I can remember the very first time I went to whole foods and bought a few $50 chicken breasts. Took it home and cooked it up. As soon as I bit into it there was a strange but familiar flavor. It took me a minute but it was the actual flavor of chicken. Something I hadn't tasted since I was a child. These bloated steers and chickens that can hardly walk now can not be healthy for us. Don't get me wrong, I eat the hell out of them but if people wanna blame cancer on a diet we really should be looking at the food we are eating instead of the diet.

This is 100% true. I have clients who travel for business or leisure to Europe and when they ask me about their nutrition plan, I just tell them to eat whatever they want. Not once has one of them actually gained weight eating food in Europe. NOT FUCKING ONCE! They eat all the food they want and come back leaner than when they left. Food quality is just so much better.

 

[Bigtex]

Basically what you say is true except this....the analogy “an inch is an inch” is perfect for physics, but wrong for human physiology. The statement treats calories as perfectly interchangeable units of energy that the body uses with 100% efficiency regardless of source. That’s simply not true. A 150-calorie apple literally delivers fewer usable calories to your fat cells than 150 calories of gummy bears. The difference can be 20–40 kcal per 150, which is 500–1,000 kcal/day on a typical diet — enough to explain most “metabolic damage” or “why can’t I lose weight eating 1,500 kcal of clean food” stories.

When it comes to the hormonal partitioning of nutrients. Two diets that are calorie- and macro-matched but differ in food quality do not produce the same body-composition or health outcomes in most people. Examples:

2015 Hall et al. metabolic-ward study: same calories/macros, but swapping whole foods for processed caused measurable differences in energy expenditure.

https://www.cell.com/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00350-2

2019 Kevin Hall “ultra-processed” study: when people were allowed to eat ad-lib from matched-macro trays, the ultra-processed group ate ~500 kcal/day more because of faster eating rate and lower satiety — despite identical macros on paper.

Ultra-Processed Diets Cause Excess Calorie Intake and Weight Gain: An Inpatient Randomized Controlled Trial of Ad Libitum Food Intake - PubMed

We investigated whether ultra-processed foods affect energy intake in 20 weight-stable adults, aged (mean ± SE) 31.2 ± 1.6 years and BMI = 27 ± 1.5 kg/m². Subjects were admitted to the NIH Clinical Center and randomized to receive either ultra-processed or unprocessed diets for 2...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So even when you perfectly match calories and macros, the source still changes energy expenditure (TEF + NEAT), nutrient partitioning (muscle vs. fat storage), hunger and spontaneous intake.

Now I sure agree that for highly glycolytic performance (sprints, HIIT, cycling time trials), intra-workout gummy bears or dextrose absolutely can outperform an apple. Your statement is 90–95% correct and far better than what 99% of people (including most doctors and dietitians) believe.

As far as the graph, it did not show an increase in calory consumption but a decrease in fat/protein consumption combned with and increase in carbohydrate com=nsumption. According to scientific data, the explosion post-1977: Both conditions (obesity/type II diabetes) tripled+ starting ~1978–1980, directly after the low-fat/high-carb guidelines. The 73% obesity jump (1976–1988) and 44% diabetes jump mirror food supply changes (e.g., carbs ↑13%, sugars ↑25%). (Primarily NHANES (measured heights/weights for accuracy) and CDC National Diabetes Statistics Report.) The graph was made by Dr. Robert Lustig, who is a low-carb researcher. Here is what the graph actually shows based on data from USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) Food Availability (per capita) data, adjusted for waste.

Macronutrient	Grams per day (1971–1974)	Grams per day (1999–2000)	Absolute change	% change
Carbohydrate (red line)	~190–200 g	~310–320 g	+120–130 g	+60–65%
Fat (blue line)	~75–80 g	~75–80 g	Almost flat	~0–5% increase
Protein (green line)	~70–75 g	~75–80 g	Slight increase	~+5–10%

1977 McGovern Report & 1980 Dietary Guidelines: “Replace fat with carbohydrates” Thus, for 40+ years we were told Americans got fat because we started eating more fat. “The obesity epidemic is from too much fat and too many calories. So basically Americans ate much fewer calories in fat and protein and replace it with carbohydrates. Because of the McGovern Report in 1977, the food industry (General Mills, Kellog etc) mass produced low-fat and fat-free products (cookies, yogurt, crackers, cereals) that replaced fat calories 1-for-1 with sugar and refined starch. This graph shows that the obesity epidemic was driven by carbohydrates — not calories per se. the increased consumption of carbohydrates caused an increase consumption of refined carbs + sugar, chronic hyperinsulinemia, fat cells sequester calories, hunger and low energy expenditure.

 

[WhiteApe]

@gunslinger There are many interesting anecdotes. I personally think many different "diets" can work and satiety, adherence, and consistency play a large role.

For Clarification I define the following as:
Keto - high fat, low carb, moderate protein. Plants/fiber are still a large part
Carnivore - no plants
Meat based - Isn't keto but still allows plants and limited starchy carbs

Carb cycling "works" for me, but it is difficult to adhere to. Being lower in fat most days can make my cravings for fattier food knock me off my day. And because I have high carb days, the days where I am basically meat based, I sometimes binge on carbs in the evening and then that whole day was ruined. I know it's mostly mental but the back-and-forth thing kind of sucks.

Questions:
1. How has your performance been affected? Endurance, Strength, Size, etc
2. How's your GI tract? How long did it take to be okay?
3. How long to lose the carb cravings?
4. Any bad BO or "keto breath"?
5. What issues did it fix and did any new issues arise?

Thank you, sir.

 

[WhiteApe]

Macronutrient	Grams per day (1971–1974)	Grams per day (1999–2000)	Absolute change	% change
Carbohydrate (red line)	~190–200 g	~310–320 g	+120–130 g	+60–65%
Fat (blue line)	~75–80 g	~75–80 g	Almost flat	~0–5% increase
Protein (green line)	~70–75 g	~75–80 g	Slight increase	~+5–10%

1977 McGovern Report & 1980 Dietary Guidelines: “Replace fat with carbohydrates” Thus, for 40+ years we were told Americans got fat because we started eating more fat. “The obesity epidemic is from too much fat and too many calories. So basically Americans ate much fewer calories in fat and protein and replace it with carbohydrates. Because of the McGovern Report in 1977, the food industry (General Mills, Kellog etc) mass produced low-fat and fat-free products (cookies, yogurt, crackers, cereals) that replaced fat calories 1-for-1 with sugar and refined starch. This graph shows that the obesity epidemic was driven by carbohydrates — not calories per se. the increased consumption of carbohydrates caused an increase consumption of refined carbs + sugar, chronic hyperinsulinemia, fat cells sequester calories, hunger and low energy expenditure.

I believe this ties into a point I was trying to make earlier when I questioned actual adherence to the food pyramid. If I am reading the table correctly, Americans did NOT swap carbs for fat. They continued to eat the same amount of dietary fat but threw a bunch more carbs in on top of it. So, I question again. Is the food pyramid incorrect of did Americans only take from it the fact that they should eat more carbs.

Note: Not saying the food pyramid is right or wrong. Just questioning if it deserves all the blame when the chart above shows that we didn't even adhere to it.

I personally do not care how people eat as long as they can find a way to be less fat and healthier. Obesity and the downstream effect (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc) has our medical system overwhelmed and insurance is pretty much unaffordable at this point due to all the care that is needed to treat the symptoms of obesity.

 

[Bigtex]

Exactly. I have found for myself that I can eat a very small amount of calories and gain fat if these calories are coming from carbs. I can eat a massive amount of protein and and fats and actually lose weight even when eating 5 times the amount of calories. Most people can. One of my female friends is 5'9" and walks around at 145 pounds while eating just over 4,000 calories per day and little psychical activity other than 1 hour with the weights per day. My son went from 250 pounds eating about 3,000 calories per day to 175 by increasing his calories to around 4,000 per day but going from mac and cheese and potatoes to meat only. Again zero increase in activity because he is a truck driver.

I have tried to explain this dozens of times on this very board only to be met with dip shits yelling "thermodynamics!" at the top of their lungs.

Same here. Ii was consuming 5200kcal with around 55% carbohydrates. I was gaining weight. I changed this to a Medeterranian diet with a much more moderate intake of about 33% and all of them coming from low GI sources. Fat is about 25% and protein and about 1.5g/lb. The net result is weight loss instead of weight gain, taking in the same amount of calories.

 

[Bigtex]

I believe this ties into a point I was trying to make earlier when I questioned actual adherence to the food pyramid. If I am reading the table correctly, Americans did NOT swap carbs for fat. They continued to eat the same amount of dietary fat but threw a bunch more carbs in on top of it. So, I question again. Is the food pyramid incorrect of did Americans only take from it the fact that they should eat more carbs.

Note: Not saying the food pyramid is right or wrong. Just questioning if it deserves all the blame when the chart above shows that we didn't even adhere to it.

I personally do not care how people eat as long as they can find a way to be less fat and healthier. Obesity and the downstream effect (heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc) has our medical system overwhelmed and insurance is pretty much unaffordable at this point due to all the care that is needed to treat the symptoms of obesity.

Fat was almost flat (75–80 g → ~78–82 g) which was dramatically down (42% - ~33%). Protein showed a tiny increase (~70 g - ~78 g). Carbohydrates had a massive increase from 42% -52–55%. Every single one of the extra ~400 kcal/day — came from carbohydrates (refined flour + added sugars). So yes there were extra calories taken in but had the increase been in protein we know the extra calories does not cause the same effect. Instead of the low fat message we were given, the explosion of cheap, hyper-palatable, low-fat/high-carb processed foods (fat-free cookies, sugary cereals, soda, pasta, bagels, etc.) caused people to eat more total calories than ever before, while the macronutrient that increased was the one most likely to drive fat storage in the average person: refined carbohydrates. Had we left it alone or maybe even pushed eating more protein, this may not have never happened. The food guide pyramid is wrong because it has us consuming themajority of our calories from carbohydrates. Wash't so long ago that Jose Antonio (PhD, Nova Southeastern University) had led several landmark studies showing that overfeeding on protein (~800kcal +) does not lead to fat gain—and often improves body composition—in resistance-trained individuals. These studies directly challenge the "a calorie is a calorie" dogma by demonstrating protein's unique metabolic effects (high TEF, poor storage as fat, and partitioning toward lean mass).

The effects of consuming a high protein diet (4.4 g/kg/d) on body composition in resistance-trained individuals - Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition

Background The consumption of dietary protein is important for resistance-trained individuals. It has been posited that intakes of 1.4 to 2.0 g/kg/day are needed for physically active individuals. Thus, the purpose of this investigation was to determine the effects of a very high protein diet...

jissn.biomedcentral.com

The Effects of Overfeeding on Body Composition: The Role of Macronutrient Composition - A Narrative Review

International Journal of Exercise Science 10(8): 1275-1296, 2017. Compared to investigations on hypocaloric diets, the effects of chronic overfeeding have been less studied. It has been posited that consuming calories in excess of daily caloric requirements will result in a gain in body weight...

digitalcommons.wku.edu

I definitely agree with you, I don't care how people eat.