When you're so scared of a bully that you think "settling it for a day" just means you're gonna get jumped in the parking lot ... You lost that fight before it even started.

Have some courage man.

Even a mouse will jump at a cat if they are pushed into a corner.

It's better to walk home with a broken nose but being able to look at yourself in the mirror without hating yourself, then looking each day into the mirror and just hate yourself and your life.

Our shit-gremlin takes a tour of the kitchen if she finds it open and empty.

We caught her plundering biscuits twice to this day.

Not just thermic effect, glyconeogensis is also is a notable impact.

Carbohydrates can be directly digested directly into glucose, if you do not have enough carbohydrates in your diet, your body can synthesize it.

We're not talking a massive expense, but it's still there.

Your calorie intake is the amount of calories you consumed, subtracted by the calories needed to digest that.

That's what I'm trying to say.

At the end of it, yes it boils down to the caloric deficit - but the caloric deficit is the result, it's not the process.

If these two groups had the same calorie intake, then the study went off effective calories not the numbers on the label of whatever you ate.

Additionally, when people reduce carbs usually they just increase fat which digests even easier then carbs.

Proteins take roughly 20-30% of the calorie input to digest, carbs are closer to 5-10% and fats are 0-3% to digest.

And atop that, you are tangling up more energy and resources to trigger the glyconeogensis process, so you are at even lower efficiency.

Low carb, low fat diets work incredibly well because of that. Aside from protein being hard to digest, you also expend energy to turn it into glycogen.

Good for weight loss, awful for muscles.