The croissant diet: a rage thread.

Seriously.

Yes, there is research that certain sat. Fats (namely static acid) can induce (transient) insulin resistance in adipose tissue which can ironically block fat uptake - IN MIIIIIIICE.

Let me let you in on a little secret: https://twitter.com/saladeaufromage/status/1280259904842993670

DOWN STREAM MECHANISMS DONT ALTER UPSTREAM LEVERS.

what does that mean?

It means IF you absorb less carbon energy from your diet than you oxidised you will lose weight by breathing out more carbon dioxide.

Attempting to "trick" the system by eating carbon energy in a form (SFA's) that is SLIGHTLY less efficient at being stored could confer a very modest advantage for a given energy intake, BUT IT WILL NOT result in fatloss independent of energy intakes.

Remember all that keto advice from the 2000's that argued that you could eat unlimited fat and not gain weight as long as insulin was low? (AKA the carbohydrate-insulin hypothesis)

Also remember all those months where you never lost a pound or even GAINED.

This is that again.

To put the rest of this thread into context, consider if you wanted to lose 20lbs of fat.

That is APPROX 70,000 calories. That's the equivalent of fasting for 35+ days straight for the average female.

Do you REALLY believe eating SFA's + carbs can magically offset that?

But most of us aren't fasting for 35 days straight, were spreading it out over months so it is more sustainable

Which brings me back to upstream vs downstream effects

I agree, based on the evidence it is likely SFAs+carbs had a modest metabolic advantage for a given energy load

But what will lead you to success over those many months of progress is routinely achieving a negative carbon balance (IE calories).

If you want to waste months trying to find shortcuts and justify croissants, its your life.

I'm going to be over here doing what produces results