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.

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

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.

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.

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

Pity you couldn't 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.

Asking a question is not the begging the question fallacy.

No one said animal protein is all they use,

I really can't be bothered responding to the rest when the very first line of substance you gave, after all the "nuh uhs!"

as is standard for your posts, was a complete and blatant lie.

I said that none of your studies mentioned the word calorie, an objective fact. And you go "nuh uh". You can check your own thread moron, see for yourself that I already know your own studies better than you. I asked you for a study showing how calorie restriction didn't matter on a high carb diet, you provided me with a list of studies where NOT A SINGLE ONE even mentioned the word calorie, and now because you're too lazy or perhaps too ill-willed to check your own thread and correct yourself, you're just denying an objective, verifiable fact. Anyone here can click into your thread and cntrl + f calorie to quickly check for themselves and see you're a blatant liar. Not worth the time arguing with obstinate ignorants who spit on the truth. Despicable.

Once again proving you can't even read your own links. It clearly says begging the question is assuming the premise is true because the conclusion is true,

i.e what you did earlier in the whole Christ is Catholic debate.

I responded to everything you've already said, but I don't want to continue to argue with someone who's willing to blatantly lie.

And yet you've been unable to point out a single lie of mine.

I don't see what you're trying to do here. You're not fooling anybody. Everyone can click on your link and see that there is no mention of calories. Who are you even trying to fool by insisting on a lie that everyone can fact-check?

I want to point out ANOTHER logical fallacy here. Water doesn't cause a person to get fat. People can drink as much water with electrolytes as they want, and they won't gain a nano particle of fat on them. Fat causes fat. Water simply hydrates.

NNNNNNNNNNNEXT !!

Nope. Admit it. You illogically compared water to fat. Water doesn't cause fat deposits in the body and morbid diseases (barring legionaire's disease, hepatitis, etc), but fat does, indeed, cause it. Fat consumption causes fatty deposits in cells. Water simply rehydrates the body. A person can drink 100 gallons of water and not gain a nano shred of fat, but he can eat one bite of a taco with meat and cheese oily sauces, and fat will deposit in his body. Water is necessary for survival, and frequent consumption of water is necessary for normal human physiology. A person can abstain from fat and still live, because fat synthesis still occurs and even fruits and veggies can have enough of it to suffice for the body.

"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?"