unfortunately you'll get ppl here who will disagree with you and blame it solely on seed oils or something retarded

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652923)

However, what people here do is equate these oils with the ultra processed food that often contains the oils. Those are two different things. The "seed oil" in the Oreo isn't what's making you fat. It's the Oreo that's making you fat.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652970)

Until about 10 years ago, almost all the fats found in Oreos were partially hydrogenated, producing trans fats (which could be labeled as unsaturated fats even though they behaved like saturated fats) via trans-cis isomerism. Since trans fats have been banned, industrial food-oil producers have turned to fat interestification to create triglycerides that would not be found in the sources the oils are derived from. Early looks at interestified fats seem to show they seem to promote inflammation and adipose tissue growth.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30813339/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653145)

shut the fuck up

show me HUMAN OUTCOME DATA that demonstrates "seed oils" are bad for you

EVERYTHING with human outcome data demonstrates they're health-promoting when consumed in isolation (not wrapped up on junk food) when replacing saturated fat

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653156)

Why don’t you walk me through how you think food studies in humans work.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653175)

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/3/136/htm

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2405457720302047

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4050683/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27737722/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5587404/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653169)

Why don’t you go eat a tub of 1990s margarine if you love unsaturated vegetable oils so much.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653232)

You also argued that ten years ago some vegetable oils were partially hydrogenated

I rightly pointed out that you’re a retard

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653243)

But seriously you think eating 3k calories of refined carbs will have the same metabolic impact of eating 3k calories of steak? If so you have a lot of learning to do.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652826)

also those trials are also just people saying what they did

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652828)

2. No they aren’t, as I just explained. Controlled trials where subjects were fed different diets assigned to them.

The study shows the impact on weight gain that different diets have even if the calories are the exact same. This means that determining whether a diet is advantageous based purely on its caloric content is faulty.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652850)

calories out is a separate matter that you are entirely ignoring, yes a diet of pure bread is going to make you fatter, because your fat ass won't burn as many calories for a variety of reasons, one being that you only eat bread

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652857)

I believe the calories in calories out meme is those trying to say eating whatever you want is fine so long as you track the calories, which has been disproven I’d say in terms of weight gain and body composition

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652895)

the confounding factors are what makes it seem this way to you

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652903)

I wonder if any studies have compared "pure CICO" with "linear net CICO", as distinct from "nonlinear" claims of complex dietary interactions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652829)

the nutritional literature absolutely supports the energy balance hypothesis

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652933)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29466592/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33479499/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652943)

If you're not addressing both, you're failing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45657003)

CICO will keep you in a normal BMI, but you’ll never really get cut with it unless you get lucky

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45652911)

body builders definitely count calories and eat a ton of protein. Eat a high protein diet that's calorically deficient. That's how you cut.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653001)

And anyways, isn’t your second statement exactly what I was saying (just dumber and less informed) and completely at odds with your “CICO is entirely correct” absolutism above? If it was CICO-only, why would eating a ton of protein matter?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653069)

Do I have that correct?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653167)

This comment on another person’s paper may have also addressed some of it, but it’s paywalled and I can’t read it. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2686143

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653316)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26278052/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45658978)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32699189/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45660501)

Yeah, obviously the more of something you eat, the more calories you consume, the more likely you are to gain weight.

But it should be even more obvious that it can't *only* be calories in calories out. It should be evident to even a 5 year old that your body isn't going to process eating ice cream every day vs gorging yourself in one sitting, or drinking sugar water vs celery, in the same way. Plus, everyone shits and everyone shits differently.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45653663)

i genuinely dont believe that if i sat and ate a 10,000 calorie cake right now that my body would digest and metabolize the whole thing. I think it would be like lol bro that was a lot of sugar and pass it through and id poop it out

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45657260)

100 calories of celery vs 100 calories of cane sugar will obviously be digested differently and have different net caloric effects, but either way you can absorb at most 100 calories from each. So if you eat say 1500 calories per day you will lose weight, even though you can lose more depending on the foods that make up that 1500

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45657455)

"100 calories" of corn will not be metabolized the same as 100 calories of sweet potatoes, despite both being complex carbs, due to bioavailability. Moreover, 100 calories of simple carbs will not be digested the same as 100 calories of fats; depending on insulin levels at time of consuming either, you will have radically different rates of metabolism (or fat storage).

Running a caloric deficit is a necessary but insufficient condition for optimal fat loss.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45670256)

of course it's not so simple as "calories in, calories out" as different calories are processed differently by different people. but it is physically impossible to run at a caloric deficit and gain weight.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5255189&forum_id=2)#45657025)