Carbs and sugar?

Yes and no.

I made a reasonable statement on page one which Tigersworld choose to dispute. My statement wasn't about gaining weight or storing excess body fat on a deficit, it was simply that glucose can be converted to body fat in a deficit.

As tigersworld disputed that I assumed he thought that it really was impossible, albeit that the stored fat would be released at a later stage for fuel.

M27 did his usual jumping in on the back of a debate to try and prove me wrong and be generally condescending (which is cool), not sure he reads the previous posts before he does that though.

So are we in agreement that in a deficit glucose can be converted to body fat?

I guess I'm not allowed to give my opinion unless asked.

Please I welcome it!

My only issue is you chip in to the debate (which is great) and ten whine about the fact we are having a debate - when you are the one that chose to join in.

You either want a discussion or debate or don't!

No I don't whine about the debating. I simply point out that you like to debate in extremes and often debate not so much to prove a point but more to just create a debate.

Nope - tigersworld (on page 2) claimed that glucose being converted into body fat on a deficit was impossible.

My understanding of biology is that is not the case. My understanding is that it will be stored as an immediate reaction to excessive sugar on the blood stream (when not being burnt and glycogen stores full or less storage available than glucose in the system)and then, as you have said - released later (albeit the body fat used at a later stage may not be from the glucose that has just been converted to fat).

Apparently these guys have a different thought process and I'm keen to understand what that is?

Perhaps because in that particular short time-frame immediately after 1000 calories of anything, the body is not in a deficit *at that moment*. However, if the body is in a net deficit for the entire day/other period of time, the end result is essentially the same. Any excess that was stored because of the short surplus will be utilized during the overall deficit period.

Perhaps. No relevant cites to support my beliefs here. But hopefully true, otherwise, the IF people would not only not experience any meaningful progress, but also would have markedly poorer body composition as compared to their more frequently eating brethren. Anecdotally, I simply don't believe the latter to be the case.

ETA: Oh. I see that this has been resolved now. (You'd think I would learn to read to the end of a thread before responding. Well, you'd think incorrectly if you did.)

Agree with that statement above^^^

So do agree that the body in a deficit will convert excessive glucose into body fat once it has filled the glycogen stores - and this fat is to be used as fuel at a later time?

I'm still not sure if that is your understanding or not.

Oh and it takes 2 to have a debate - if my debating offends that much, walk on by.

That's the nonsense I'm talking about with you. You like to try and talk down as if people are ignorant.

I have already stated above what my stance is. You are pushing the issue further just to try and get some sort of validation for your ego. Regardless, you can think what you want about my knowledge and I will believe what I do about yours. And we will constantly disagree. Walking away and allowing people to spout of things with no clear explanation because they enjoy talking in riddles just to play games does a disservice to the individuals who aren't comfortable chiming in on conversations and prefer to lurk and try and learn.

Also, you never said it was being stored as fat for fuel for later. You are just now adding that in to complete your position on the subject. Which you could have done all along but decided to just give an opinion half way leaving that out to allow the rest to get debated to set yourself up to prove a point. Your original statement was far from that. You were assuming the entire time what people thought.