/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>17061519
You're not supposed to drink a bottle a meal
One should last you a month

>>17061519
honey is sugar, same calories. The idea is your blood sugar doesnt skyrocket and crash nearly as badly so theoretically you dont feel like eating as much afterward. If you're eating anyway it doesnt matter what sugar you use as far as weight is concerned

>I switched from sugar to sugar and I got fat

>>17061519
Calories in, calories out.

>>17061519
You're supposed to reduce calories to lose weight, not replace them with different calories. Once again my hypotheses that fat people are fat because they are stupid and have no self control is confirmed.

>>17061570
People are indeed really, REALLY stupid.
But it doesn't help that there are a lot of youtubers who prey upon this stupidity for views, and give really, really bad advice.

>Agave is better for you than sugar
>Avocado oil is better for you than canola oil
>You will be healthier if you get the organic, nonGMO version of your favorite foods

So tons of stupid fat people go out and buy tons of overpriced organic snack foods and cant figure out why they're still fat

>>17061570
Big Honey has spread propaganda to say honey is better than sugar, giving the impression it has no calories or any of the unhealthy drawbacks that sugar does.

How are people this stupid?

>>17061519
Replace it with salt (calorie free) and the weight will fall off ya, just make sure to up your fluids to compensate or you'll overdose on sodium

>>17061519
So you're retarded?

stop eating sugar you fat sack of shit

>>17061567
what are hormones? the human body is not a bunsen burner
>>17061539
is it actually any different than white sugar? i doubt it
>>17061541
this
>>17061730
>or you'll overdose on sodium
youre kidneys arent that stupid just drink some water if youre thirsty its not that hard

Is it natural honey? Processed honey in superstores is fucking terrible, buy local.

if you're fat you probably burn more calories than at an average weight consider your body is lugging around an extra 100 lbs of lard. Unless you're deskbound all day.

>>17062102
Yes, but you'll develop potassium deficiency instead, because the human body struggles to selectively piss out group 1 metal salts.

>>17061519
Just eat less, Anon. Play replayable, addictive video games to distract yourself from hunger. Maybe try saving money for something so you spend less on fastfood.

do americans really?

>>17062102
>what are hormones? the human body is not a bunsen burner
So what, eat less fatty. Hormones won't make 30cal of carrots into 800 calories.

>>17061519
>fat
>also a massive retard
It's over for you op

>>17061652
Nobody spread propaganda saying honey didn't have calories. Fat fucks are just too retarded to blame themselves for not looking up calories of things they ingest.

but I bet it was a wild ride while it lasted

>>17061570
>hypotheses
so... what are the others?

>>17062102
>what are hormones?
You think like a french animator and it is to your detriment.

>>17062102
>is it actually any different than white sugar?
White sugar is sucrose: 50% glucose, 50% fructose. Honey is ~30% glucose, ~40% fructose and ~30% water.

>>17061519
are you american by any chance ?

>>17061519
how about just cutting sugar out entirely

>>17063512
Goddamn right.

>>17063737
I stand corrected but that is still a significant slug of fructose to your liver. even worse if you consume it in a drink. white sugar can be put in cold or hot drinks unlike honey and its cheaper.
>>17063459
>>17063607
youve missed the point. 100 calories of beef or 100 calories of coca cola. what do the calories have to do with it? the macro nutrients, fructose content, and glyciemic load are what matter all of which contribute all of which produce different responses pretty much irrespective of calories

>>17064376
you're still getting a max of 100 calories from either and 0 if you don't eat/drink it. You might not be healthy but you sure as hell will lose weight if you only consume 1000 calories of Oreos and coke per day and nothing else, assuming you're an average adult guy.

>>17062102
>what are hormones?
theyre what fatties use to cope about their inability to put the fork down

Sorry, I'm bored.
>>17064376
(to me) White Sugar and HFCS have a similar ratio of glucose to fructose. Some fruits and vegetables go way above that 50/50 ratio.
(to 3459 and 3607)
Playing devil's advocate here, If that 100cals is a consistent thing (consistently going over your output by 100 calories, consistently drinking that 100cals of cola at every meal) then issues will compound regardless of the process. It will be slow at 100cal per instance, and the breakdowns will be process dependent, but consistently overdoing anything to do with diet will probably lead to weight gain, arthritic disorders, type 2 diabetes, etc.
(in summary)
It's more complicated than just CICO but, even when not directly contributing to issues, it's usually a pretty solid diagnostic metric.

I swear this board has some of the dumbest motherfuckers on the whole site or maybe it's the scientific nature of the board, aside from tastes, that makes it so easy to see how dumb some people are?

>>17064450
Dave and Justin say that ye who has smelled it is most likely guilting of having dealt it.

>>17064427
>you're still getting a max of 100 calories from either and 0 if you don't eat/drink it.
and again you miss the point. i said 100 calories of x food versus 100 calories of y food. what do the calories have to do with how your body metabolizes. what matters is how you consume it hot or cold in drink or in food fructose different macros or GI load. calories has nothing to do with any of that.

>>17064445
>but consistently overdoing anything to do with diet will probably lead to weight gain, arthritic disorders, type 2 diabetes, etc.
how would "overdoing" it with high fat foods lead to type 2 diabetes? i guess the conventional wisdom would say if you eat a lot of fat you will get fat and then get diabetes. but thats ignorant of all the intervention trials where higher fat higher protein diets improve insulin sensitivity and reverse diabetes

>>17061519
you should go cold turkey on all sweet stuff. no sweet drinks, no candy etc. then after a while you get used to this and stop craving sugar. you notice how disgustingly sweet a lot of the stuff you ate was and you can't even stomach more than a little bit of it

>>17064642
No you don’t fucking liar.

>>17064642
that makes sugar sound an awful lot like an addictive substance that induces tolerance?

>>17064650
and yes it does happen. many such cases. fuck off sugar shill

>>17064617
Because the thread was about weight loss retard. However your body metabolizes food doesn't matter when we talk about CICO, we know the calories values are a theorical maximum calculated from burning food, we know the exact amount of calories doesn't matter on a day-to-day basis, we know everyone' body is different, we know eating only pure sugar isn't healthy. The vagueness of CICO doesn't detract from the principle of eating less calories than you spend. You being diabetic, macronutrient breakdown or honey having a different glycemic index is irrelevant to this subject. You can't gain weight from food you don't consume so just fucking eat less if you want to lose weight.

>>17064623
If you eat a lot of fat, at a gross caloric surplus, you're going to get fat as your bodies finds new places to store that energy, and while it might not lead directly to type 2 diabetes, you might expect a nasty, and possibly chronic case of gout at some point in your mid 30's.

>>17061539
>same calories
that's not the case, honey is an inverted sugar and it contains a relatively high amount of fructose, and as such it's much less caloric than table sugar per gram, and also sweeter

>>17061567
I wish I could just poop out the calories.

>>17064792
if you overfeed energy expenditure tends to go up to compensate. and once you stop intentionally overfeeding weight will likely return to near baseline. the reverse being calorie restricting where energy expenditure goes down. so maybe the body is trying to maintain a certain weight, or body fat percentage, or level of fuel availability.

>>17062102
>what are hormones
are you being facetious?
CICO is literally the first law of thermodynamics
>>17064376
>100cal of this != 100cal of that
wishful thinking, if your body is able to metabolize what you're eating then the effective caloric intake is the same and everything gets broken down into its most basic components to be rearranged into this or that that the body needs
>pretty much irrespective of calories
wishful thinking, unless you're talking about apples vs diesel

>>17064837
Yeah, that's why short-term diets always fail.

>>17064845
so how does one sustainably lose weight if your body compensates against caloric restriction?
>>17064844
what does thermodynamics have to do with human metabolism? and no i dont mean that the human body is breaking a law of the universe you schizo. different macros will result in differing metabolic rates. fructose and glucose are metabolized differently the calories are irrelevant for what your body will do with these different substances.

>>17064858
>so how does one sustainably lose weight if your body compensates against caloric restriction?
You permanently change your diet and/or life, ideally both.

>fructose and glucose are metabolized differently the calories are irrelevant for what your body will do with these different substances.
So? In the end you get some energy out of it, but you get none if you don't fucking eat it.

>>17064837
If you chronically or constantly overfeed, the body doesn't keep up on its own - that's why people are fat. If you chronically underfeed, the body eventually fails to compensate, and you lose weight. Which...
>>17064845
is why everyone's all about the "Lifestyle changes," even when they're just running face first into a crash diet.

>want to lose weight
>just serve myself slightly smaller portions
>lose 20kg in a year
Feels good man.

>>17064858
>what does thermodynamics has to do with metabolism
what happens is, when you eat food your body breaks it down converting its chemical energy into ATP, which will, in turn, be converted to mechanical energy via the contraction of muscles and a few other things, like making the sodium-potassium pumps in the brain work
your body, muscle, brain... require a certain amount of energy in the form of ATP to do all that, and it can either synthesize it from harvesting the chemical energy of the food you eat, or from harvesting the chemical energy of other available energy reserves, namely your fat and muscle tissue
if the food you eat doesn't have enough chemical energy for your body to harvest and do whatever it needs to do, move your muscle, make your neurons fire..., your body will harvest energy from your fat or muscle tissue, effectively making you lighter
if, on the other hand, the energy from the food you eat is excessive, some of the components of said food end up in your fat or muscle reserves instead of being harvested for energy
I hope it's clear now
>different macros = different metabolic rates
research on this is inconclusive, and according to the little we know our BMR hardly changes with a direct relation to our diet
https://www.health.harvard.edu/diet-and-weight-loss/does-metabolism-matter-in-weight-loss
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9746638/
>fructose and glucose are metabolized differently, and the calories are irrelevant to what your body will do with them
calories are irrelevant in so far as the metabolic pathways go - glucose will always be metabolized through a certain series of chemical reactions regardless of how much you eat, and the same goes for fructose (alcohol is an exception to this)
refer to the first paragraph of my post to know what will happen depending on how many calories you eat, be them from glucose, fructose or anything else that our body can metabolize

>>17064837
>if you overfeed, energy expenditure tends to go up
this is true to a very little extent, if it was true to the extent this post makes it out to be overweight and underweight people wouldn't exist

>>17064427
Your bro pseudoscience is nonsense. I cut nothing when I went to ketosis but drained pounds every month. The numbers only matter if the body uses them. Also calorie counts are not required to be super accurate and can't be. You can be off by 20% on a good day. A single number has only one Robeson like dimension of interactivity in your body. Kcal isn't the only factor to food and there's an entire for profit industry telling you it is. There's also multiple ones telling you to eat their crap regardless of calories and that's what you saw and are in social reaction to.

>>17064803
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/honey
https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/sugar
retard

>>17064803
>it's much less caloric than table sugar per gram
Obviously. Honey contains water, sweetie hun

>>17065212
>research on this is inconclusive
not inconclusive but inconsistent depending on the length of the study. if you look at a meta analysis of many of the clinical trials what you get is below. lower carb diets do increase energy expenditure but only after the adaptation period and the short term studies will show a slight decrease which would be shown to be evanescent in longer trials
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/151/3/482/6020167
>"Lower-carbohydrate diets transiently reduce TEE, with a larger increase after ∼2.5 wk. These findings highlight the importance of longer trials to understand chronic macronutrient effects and suggest a mechanism whereby lower-carbohydrate diets may facilitate weight loss."

>>17065212
also relevant
>It is where the calories come from that is crucial. Sugar calories promote fat storage and hunger. Fat calories induce fullness or ‘satiation’
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/49/15/967.full.pdf

>>17065302
Are you deliberately being retarded? I'm literally telling you the calorie count is a theorical maximum and that counting calories is vague.
>The numbers only matter if the body uses them
Yes, so the body can extract less calories from a given food than you'd get burning it and calculting the calories from heat, so you're off by a negative number. That works just fine for CICO for weight loss. You'd typically cut at least 500 calories, you'd have to wayyyy off on multiple days to fuck up your weight loss. What the fuck are you arguing about here? What is it that bothers you so much about the idea of eating less?

>>17065306
>100g of honey
>304kcal
>100g of table sugar
>387kcal
so as you can see from your links honey is indeed less caloric than table sugar

>>17065428
>you'd have to wayyyy off on multiple days to fuck up your weight loss
the whole obesity epidemic is about 20 calories a day over a few decades. if you just have to 'eat less' it doesnt seem to hard to eat 2 less almonds yet there are so many fat sick people and even more normal weight sick people. obesity is a red herring or a symptom and youre an unwitting tool of cocoa cola and other peddlers of poison masquerading as 'food'

>>17065302
>I cut nothing when I cut all carbs
I'm afraid you might literally be unable to calculate your caloric intake and estimate your daily energy expense

>>17065428
>hurr im not an alcoholic so we just gotta tell the alcoholics to 'drink less'
they know that and its not the right way to help people or think about the problem

>>17065447
same calories with less carbs = higher energy expenditure. this is a consistent finding and the effect survives meta analysis see >>17065333 which all CICOfags will undoubtedly ignore or use their favorite mental gymnastic technique to ignore

>>17065461
damn so you increased the out instead of decreasing the in, wow! Next you'll tell me that exercise helps despite not eating less

>>17065470
no exercise is probably harmful for weight loss. it certainly doesnt seem to be very helpful if you want to be charitable. and as predicted youve ignored the implications of that result probably because the cognitive dissonance is too strong.

>>17065479
how about I tie you to a tree and feed you a single chicken breast a day and we'll see what happen

>>17065439
>20 calories a day over a few decades
Lab animals getting fatter is a better argument.

>>17065495
how about rats getting obese anyway on a starvation diet or diets equal to that lean rats? also the question for the pic should be what are we eating more of. because its not meat and animal fats its carbs and sugars

>>17065486
i never said you couldnt starve yourself to a lower weight. but in normal conditions some people are failing to regulate their weight and this calorie thing doesnt make any sense. the counter argument is insulin resistance is driving the obesity or maybe the fatty liver

>>17061567
The people who say this always have no idea how the human body works and how your liver can process different sources of calories. If you're telling me that 2000 calories of ice cream, chips and waffles are going to have the same effect on my body in terms of muscle gain compared to 2000 calories of beef, broccoli and eggs then fuck off.

>>17065527
cocoa cola certainly likes the idea that all calories are created equal. nobody has done more research on sugar than the good folk at the Sugar Research Foundation. why would they lie? if youre dead you cant eat more sugar.

>>17065527
No one sensible thinks you can literally live on sugar, that's not what CICO is saying. CICO is like "force applied to ball = acceleration of ball", of course blowing on a ball for an hour is going to be different to shooting it with a gun even if the force is ultimately the same. That doesn't make it not true or useful for predicting outcomes.

>>17065576
>CICO is
energy in minus energy out equals delta e. there is an equal sign there it doesnt say E in minus E out causes delta E. if you had no understanding of basic endicronology you might try to apply this to human obesity and fail miserably at preventing it. wait a minute...

>>17061519
>not replacing sugar with pure Columbian nose candy
NGMI

>>17065576
>That doesn't make it not true or useful for predicting outcomes.
no but all the clinical trials showing it isnt useful does

>>17065333
this being the case the change would be no more than 135kcal per day for a significant reduction of your carbs intake, which amounts to 15-20min of light cardio
that's a hardly relevant change by itself
>>17065421
the portion you quoted here (from an editorial rather than a research paper) is literally unsourced
the article goes on to explain how the sugar intake correlates to diabetes and other diseases, and those parts are sourced
>>17065461
>same calories
yeah right
>this is a consistent finding
do you not know what consistent means?
at any rate that means your body needs more energy to do without carbs, aka more energy expenditure as you put of, aka more calories out
so CICO
>you've ignored the result
I've addressed it right here, you may not like the conclusion but it is what it is
>>17065479
>exercise doesn't been to be very helpful to weight loss
at this point I have to ask anon, how tall are you, how much do you weight, how active is your lifestyle, and what is your nationality?
>>17065518
>this calorie thing doesn't make sense
cheers, you're an idiot who doesn't understand basic physics

>>17061519
>>Replace sugar with honey to lose weight
The antics of the stupid never cease to amuse me.

>>17065636
>>same calories
>yeah right
i dont like it so it must be wrong.

>>17065588
Since when does = mean "causes".
>>17065608
Plenty of clinical trials show that different sources of calories cause different energy expenditure in the 10-20% range, sure. That doesn't make it not useful for the average person eating an average diet, which is exactly what calorie counts were designed around. Dogmatically arguing that it should be thrown out is flat Earth tier nonsense.

>>17061519
>>Replace sugar with honey to lose weight
>>Weeks pass
>>Gained weight
>>Google
>>"Honey is high in calories and sugar"
Live entirely off of milk and honey

>>17065649
>average person eating an average diet
the average person in the developed world is either obese and or diabetic and thats also why its not useful

>>17065636
>basic physics
not relevant. this is biology. physical laws are conserved but if you are intent on ignoring basic biology the obesity epidemic will continue to worsen as it has for the past 50 years

>>17065655
Overweight people in studies overreport their calorie intake by almost double the actual amount. I think a basic understanding of calories is useful, given we're arguing about this in a thread where the OP thought bee honey would be better for him than sugar.

>>17065510
>how about rats getting obese on a starvation diet
right, well, di they exist?
come on anon, show the class some evidence, some research paper, online reference...
>>17065527
go look at pictures of nigs working the fields day in day out
they'll mostly look lean and muscular
do you believe they only eat chicken breasts, white rice and broccoli?
after all that's what the average guy from western USA eats to hope he'll one day look like that
ice cream, chips and waffles aren't very nutritious, but if you ate copious amounts of those and the bars minimum amount of all the various aminoacids and vitamins you could gain muscle just as well
then again, without any amount of physical exercise to speak of no amount of chicken breasts will make you build muscle
>>17065608
most clinical trials show it can be applied effectively to diets, as rough as the estimates may be
this is a famous one, check it out of you didn't know it
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1454084/
>>17065647
>I like it so it must be right
anyway, the thing after "at any rate" in my post assumes that estimate to be either, so finish reading my posts before answering next time
>>17065665
>basic physics is irrelevant
huh, so this is the guy we're dealing with
>if you intend on ignoring basic biology
I did no such thing, if you thought I did you simply don't know how human metabolism works while you ignore things like >>17065495

>>17065684
>"the possibility of dietary nonadherence to the test diets. Participants in studies conducted at least partially outside of a metabolic ward could have underconsumed study foods or consumed foods off protocol. Dietary nonadherence would tend to inflate DLW estimation of TEE on a lower- versus higher-carbohydrate diet due to dependency of this method on estimated Food Quotient as a proxy for Respiratory Quotient.
tldr they controlled for this potential and the result remained the same lower carbohydrate diets at the same calories increase metabolic rate

>>17065700
i was literally the only reply to that pic. i could post the study on rats getting obese on a starvation diet but i doubt itll change how you think so why would i bother? your cognitive dissonance will just produce another nonsensical or nonstarter excuse

>>17065701
I'm not particularly disagreeing with you, but they did not control for it in that study, they just assert that it's likely to be a negative error. Most people acknowledge low carbohydrate diets reduce calories taken in, that's the CI part.

>>17065711
>I was the only reply
and what a reply you were
>I will carefully avoid doing the only thing that would strengthen my thesis at all cost
you do you anon

>>17065742
no im doing the only thing that will force you to come up with another excuse to recover your failed model and fragile ego
>"Even when maintained on 50 percent of normal food intake, mutants still become obese."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4066138/

>>17065733
its a different way of explaining what happened. CICO model would be they lost weight because they ate less. the insulin centric model would be they were less hungry and lost weight and ate less as a result. the reduced hunger was probably dependent on their previously dysregulated insulin levels being returned to somewhat normal levels. or at least thats my 85iq take on the theory.

>>17065769
and before i get straw manned. if you are losing weight you are by definition in negative energy balance but the question is what could most reliably produce that negative energy balance and i would say its cutting the down the carbs and particularly refined grains and sugars.

>>17065749
help I'm dumb how do I read that study?

>>17065769
>>17065783
Yeah, I think the main cause of contention is the explanations are aimed at different populations. CICO is absolute basic public education tier, whereas modern understandings of hunger are far beyond what most people are going to give a shit about.

>>17065527
Nobody's saying you midwit. CICO is relevant to weight loss. Wanna lose a pound in a week? Have a calorie deficit of 500 per day. That advise has absolutely nothing to do with muscle mass, which is a matter of micronutrients.

>>17065913
>Wanna lose a pound in a week? Have a calorie deficit of 500 per day.
its all so tiring...

>>17065928
Why? I have a masters in degree in biology. CICO is just an approximation, but it's accurate in most people's cases.

>>17061519
nigga are you fucking retarded?

>>17061519
regular honey makes me bloated

>>17066469
im mildly allergic to honey. (my whole mouth stings and my tongue swells up a bit and my lips hurt)

>>17065749
>excuses
do explain how any of the points I made are excuses
you haven't managed until now though, and you've ignored most of them, so at this point I assume you can't
>the first law of thermodynamics is a failed model
oh boy
>that article
it's about rats with genetic mutations, and it says nothing about the rats only being fed carbs and sugar instead of meat and animal fats, as you put it
so the first thing is relevant to how much energy the mutated rats' metabolism makes them burn, more CO as a result of the mutations, while common rats do get thinner when underfed, and the second thing you simply made up
I'll have to ask again anon, how tall are you, how much do you weight, how active is your lifestyle, and what is your nationality?
>>17065783
>what could reliably produce a negative energy balance
cutting down the carbs significantly would certainly help, though the amount of calories that you'd burn solely because of that is fairly small as I said earlier >>17065636
some light cardio every day would be faster to start with and be able to produce much greater results
>>17065824
it's so old and irrelevant so it was never digitized, so it's not on libgen or sci-hub, you'd have to find the journal it was printed in
>>17065857
>CICO is public education tier
imagine having had the chance of studying in an above average school, and this is what you make of it
>modern understanding of hunger
that's certainly going to be helpful to build a diet around, especially in the case of overweight people wanting/needing to lose sizeable amounts of weight, but it doesn't change anything about CICO, it mainly changes how much self control you need to stick to a diet

>>17061619
Eh, bad advice? Not necessarily, just misplaced.

> Medical advice for people who broke a leg: quit smoking.

Doesn't help squat against broken leg, doesn't mean it's a bad advice.

But yeah, for obesity the one fundamental rule#0 is calorie in < calorie out.
All the rest is subservient to that; tricks how to avoid psychological caveats, tricks how to stay sated despite going under calorie limit, tricks how not to fall into malnutrition as a side effect and so on. The problem is someone takes one of these "side advices" (often labelled as "the secret to losing weight") and applies it while completely ignoring rule#0.

>>17065527
>The people who say this always...
the people who copepost in response to CICO are always HFCS guzzling obeasts, prove me wrong mantits

>>17062121

>>17067277
As I predicted copium the post

>>17067330
Best post in this thread. I think you've addressed the crux of the issue.

>>17069400
feel free to point out where I'm wrong if you can think of anything

>>17069921
pretty much everything but its clear we will just go back and forth ad infinitum and neither of us will be convinced by the other so no point in arguing anymore.