No it's not. The science and personal experience of many people prove it's not sustainable. Doctor (F)Atkins died of heart disease and obesity. His diet plan didn't work out well for him. It killed him.

There's no such thing as "sugar addiction". Another falsity.  

Let's go by our own experience.

What's your body fat percentage, Ladislaus?

What's your body fat percentage, forlorn?  

Let's see how well your diets are doing you. I'm not talking about brief periods where you subject yourself to calorie restriction while going keto.

Btw, there is no calorie restriction with a high carb/sugar and low fat/oils/animal protein diet. High calories still result in low body fat, especially if you're physically active. The more active, the less body fat, all other things being equal.

About 10% last I checked, that was quite a while ago. Yeah bro you got me beat I'm well impressed, except I'm not actually dieting and trying to achieve a goal. That's just what I'm naturally at eating whatever I want, and I don't claim to eat healthily at all. If you can be single-digit bf % on your diet that's great for you, but most people who are single digit bf% are bodybuilders who are eating mostly protein, so pretty much the opposite of your diet. Therefore the idea that your diet is the only way to achieve single digit bf% isn't very accurate.

If there's no such thing as a sugar addiction then what do people get addicted to in Coke? It's pretty much all sugar. 

I'm interested in seeing your studies on calorie restriction not mattering for high carb diets though. People often say that weight loss/gain is just a matter of calorie in vs calorie out, and I've often distrusted that, but I've never actually seen a paper on it.

but most people who are single digit bf% are bodybuilders who are eating mostly protein, so pretty much the opposite of your diet.

Those bodybuilders are on steroids, AND they're abstaining from fats. So half of what you stated (abstaining from fats) supports my argument that a low fat diet helps keep body fat percentage low, and the other (flawed) half of your posit is their illicit practice of steroids in order to build muscle and burn more fat. That's not an affirmation of efficacy of a high animal protein diet. High testosterone burns body fat. If high animal protein, alone, was enough to build the type of muscle they wanted, they wouldn't need steroids. You lose, again.

Therefore the idea that your diet is the only way to achieve single digit bf% isn't very accurate.

It's the best way.

There are people with an abnormally high metabolism who can eat fats, oils, and excess animal protein all day long, but still keep a lean body. It's very rare. I'm not one of those persons as my opponents would like to wish because that wouldn't lend support to my promulgation of a high carb/sugar and low fat/oil/animal protein diet. The fact is I've strayed away from a high carb/sugar diet on several occasions while eating a lot more fats & animal protein, and I gained 30-35 pounds of mostly fat, all while mostly still being engaged in the same physical activities. But it wasn't a problem because each time I soon went back to a high carb/sugar and low fat/oils/animal protein diet, and I lost all of that body fat. It wasn't until I learned about the sugar studies that such diets resonated with me, although I instinctively knew about it.

If there's no such thing as a sugar addiction then what do people get addicted to in Coke? It's pretty much all sugar.

It's called addiction to caffeine. Also, there is high fructose corn syrup in soda, not regular corn syrup. The former is a destroyer. The latter is completely fine (barring any adverse effects from GMOs). You lose, again. 

I'm interested in seeing your studies on calorie restriction not mattering for high carb diets though. People often say that weight loss/gain is just a matter of calorie in vs calorie out, and I've often distrusted that, but I've never actually seen a paper on it.

You and Ladislaus have already demonstrated that you don't want to know the truth. You still reject it in spite of the evidence brought to you. I've already posted vid of a doctor who cited scientists and another doctor. I've, also, posted a number of studies on a different thread that support my argument. Go look for it. 

Bottom line, ANY fat that you eat, you wear that same fat. No matter how little or large the consumption. That fat is immediately stored as fat in the body. The argument that you burn fat for energy if the person  restricts carbs/sugar is flawed because sugar is a far more efficient fuel for the body and brain. The physical and mental performance gains and endurance is far more from burning carbs/sugar than burning fats. The fact is it takes a lot longer to burn the fat. Example: a person on keto (high fat, low carb/sugar) diet runs at less speed and distance than a person on a high carb/sugar diet, and that person on a high fat and low carb/sugar diet will bonk ("hit the wall") much sooner than a person on a high carb/sugar and low fat diet, all while the person using the sugar as fuel isn't storing much body fat because his diet is low in it. To replenish fuel, the person simply eats more carbs/sugar. Try eating fats when you're nearing the threshold of exhaustion, and see where it gets you. Nowhere. You'll still bonk, and you'll still have body fat because the remaining fat in the body didn't get burned as fuel.

Bottom line, ANY fat that you eat, you wear that same fat.

That's nonsense.  So if I eat pork fat in bacon, that means I have pork fat underneath my skin?  No, the body first breaks the fat down during digestion, turns it into various other compounds and then the excess is what gets converted back to human body fat.

You've just completely discredit yourself on this issue:
https://healthyeating.sfgate.com/consumed-fat-converted-fat-body-6862.html

After ingestion, lipids (dietary fats) are broken down into glycerol and smaller chain fatty acids by lipase, a pancreatic enzyme. This process is known as lipolysis. Next, these compounds are converted to triglycerides, which travel to your muscles, liver and fat tissues where they're once again broken down into glycerol and fatty acids. Some are used for energy and other biochemical processes. The excess is stored as fat in adipose tissues.
...
Contrary to popular belief, eating fat doesn't make you fat. It all comes down to your daily calorie intake. This nutrient provides 9 calories per gram. If your caloric intake exceeds your caloric expenditure, you'll end up gaining weight. However, the extra calories can just as well come from protein or carbs.
High-fat diets can actually help you lose weight as long as you stick to your daily calorie goals. Your blood lipid profile and cardiovascular health may improve too. High-carb diets, on the other hand, have been linked to a higher risk of mortality.

Quid, how do you explain people’s successes on the keto diet? I know someone who literally only eats meat, and fat. They lost 30lbs.

Yes, and I know a few people who reversed Type 2 diabetes on low-carb diets.

Those bodybuilders are on steroids, AND they're abstaining from fats. So half of what you stated (abstaining from fats) supports my argument that a low fat diet helps keep body fat percentage low, and the other (flawed) half of your posit is their illicit practice of steroids in order to build muscle and burn more fat. That's not an affirmation of efficacy of a high animal protein diet. High testosterone burns body fat. If high animal protein, alone, was enough to build the type of muscle they wanted, they wouldn't need steroids. You lose, again.

HBV protein is still needed to build muscle. All those "vegan bodybuilders" are still on roids as well as a million supplement tablets and soy(!) to replace the protein they're missing out on.

It's called addiction to caffeine. Also, there is high fructose corn syrup in soda, not regular corn syrup. The former is a destroyer. The latter is completely fine (barring any adverse effects from GMOs). You lose, again.

Only has high fructose corn syrup in America and a few other countries, yet addiction to Coke and similar drinks is not exclusive to them. And if sugar wasn't so addictive they wouldn't be putting it in literally everything, even things meant to be salty(like crisps and chips).

You and Ladislaus have already demonstrated that you don't want to know the truth. You still reject it in spite of the evidence brought to you. I've already posted vid of a doctor who cited scientists and another doctor. I've, also, posted a number of studies on a different thread that support my argument. Go look for it.

And there are thousands more scientists saying the exact opposite. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm asking for one study.

Bottom line, ANY fat that you eat, you wear that same fat. No matter how little or large the consumption. That fat is immediately stored as fat in the body.

False. All fat you eat is broken down. Those constituent molecules may later be reformed into fat, but that's only if they aren't used up for other purposes first.

The argument that you burn fat for energy if the person  restricts carbs/sugar is flawed because sugar is a far more efficient fuel for the body and brain. The physical and mental performance gains and endurance is far more from burning carbs/sugar than burning fats. The fact is it takes a lot longer to burn the fat. Example: a person on keto (high fat, low carb/sugar) diet runs at less speed and distance than a person on a high carb/sugar diet, and that person on a high fat and low carb/sugar diet will bonk ("hit the wall") much sooner than a person on a high carb/sugar and low fat diet, all while the person using the sugar as fuel isn't storing much body fat because his diet is low in it. To replenish fuel, the person simply eats more carbs/sugar. Try eating fats when you're nearing the threshold of exhaustion, and see where it gets you. Nowhere. You'll still bonk, and you'll still have body fat because the remaining fat in the body didn't get burned as fuel.

Yes sugar is more efficient fuel, but that also means it takes less effort from your body to break it down. So your body expends less energy digesting it and also the energy from the sugar is gotten immediately instead of being slowly released over a longer period of time as with more complex carbs and other biomolecules, meaning you get a quick rush that fades quickly. Not to be confused with being "hyper" which is myth.

Well no shit carbs are better for energy. That is their entire purpose, their niche. It's like me saying protein is much better for growth/repair of muscles than carbs. Well, uh, no shit. They teach that to 6 year olds. So you need both.

Tell me something I don't already know. I explained it in a way the average layperson can understand it. The concept is still the same but in colloquial terms. The exact science isn't necessary to explain to people who lack the background. Now, you're grasping at straws to try to discredit me because you have no real argument to validate your overweight lifestyle.

What you said wasn't a "simplification", it was a blatant lie. Saying the fat is immediately stored at fat in the body is just not true and would mean that all the fat you eat you gain as fat. Just complete nonsense. Even if you were completely sedentary you still would only rebuild a tiny fraction of the fat you consumed and broke down, and if you were active you'd rebuild next to none of it.

What you said wasn't even any quicker or simpler either, so clearly you're just backtracking to avoid admitting you were wrong. 

Red herring fallacy

You were implying carbs can replace protein. They cannot. Once again you go off topic, make a completely false statement, get corrected, and then yell "red herring" so you can just ignore the correction.

Learn to read. I said the addiction is to caffeine. I only added the big difference between HFCS and regular corn syrup to highlight the former is harmful while the latter is safe.
says the guy who hasn't posted one empirical study thus far, and who ignores the fact that modern "science" in the West is largely fraudulent these days.

What's wrong with fructose anyway, I thought you were pro-sugar?

I already posted the vid of a real doctor citing another scientist and another doctor.

Yes so all science in the West is fraudulent except the two doctors(one of whom is a Jew) in your video. And neither of them addressed the point about calorie restriction not being necessary in high carb/low fat diets.

Here's another thread I posted with numerous, solid, real empirical studies:  
https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/rice-fruit-diet-reverses-ecg-changes-in-hypertension-an-archaeologic-dig/

The word calorie is not even mentioned once in any of those studies. I asked for the calorie study in perfectly good faith, saying I actually agreed with you there but I wanted to see what proof you'd found. And now you're just trying to waste my time with unrelated links in the hope I forget about the whole thing. Why, did you forget you never had proof? If you do, then post it.

The point is that fat still gets stored as fat. The intermediate process in academic. Thanks for reinforcing my argument.

Again, false. Fat just provide components which CAN be used to make new fats in the body. You don't have to eat fats for your body to make fat. Again, you make a completely false statement and then backtrack without admitting it.

That's a good thing. Thanks for supporting my argument, again.

Burning less calories is not a good thing if losing weight or maintaining a low weight is what you're after.

Thanks for supporting one of my arguments, again. Keep going, brah. You're getting there.

Pity you couldn't even finish the paragraph. The release of energy is not the only thing your body needs food for, dingus. Carbs are also better at providing energy than water, do you stop drinking water too?

Bodybuilders literally do not touch fat.... I’d suggest you guys watch the generation iron docuмentaries.

Yes it's a well known fact that fat doesn't build muscle, which is all they care about. They don't go around stuffing their faces with carbs and sugar either. They eat pure protein, and any food you find protein in will have a lot more fat than carbs btw.