/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>5256496

OP here,

Fish doesn't really go down to well early, and i mostly put some in my salad or have some for dinner so. Would prefer not to unless you have some amazing things for that.

wake up a few minutes early for some bacon n eggs. seriously, it's worth it.

you can make a crustless quiche ahead of time and cut it into portions and then heat it up as needed.
slice up some avocado and enjoy some homemade breakfast sausage (again, you can make ahead of time and portion it out) mix one pound of ground pork with 2 tbsp of this seasoning blend:
1 teaspoon sea salt
1 tablespoon fennel seeds, ground
1 tablespoon ground sage
1 tablespoon garlic powder
1 tablespoon onion powder
1/4 teaspoon white pepper
(or 1 teaspoon black pepper)
2 teaspoons dried parsley (optional)

Or make meatballs and freeze them into portions for breakfast.

>cutting on carbs
>willingly lowering energy levels and sustainence obtained from day's objectively most important meal

Porridge or bed, mum.
(psst, carbs secretely aren't bad)

>>5256550
This.

Low-carb diets are stupid. stupid, stupid, stupid. fat in your blood inhibits glucose from reaching the brain, which your brain relies on for its energy. your cells run on glucose, if they didn't then nature would not give an abundance of this for you to eat.

it is really hard to gain weight on carbohydrates because storing fat from glucose is extremely inefficient for the body.

never go low carb.

What's the reasoning behind low-carb diets again?

>>5256643
They feel like carbohydrates disturb insulin and blood sugar levels, which will increase appetite and will thus put you at risk of eating more.

>>5256650
You know, it seems like the self-control required to follow a diet in the first place would make the benefits of such a diet redundant.

>>5256721

Not really, it's obviously more pleasant to be less hungry if you're trying to restrict your calorie intake.

>>5256721
Exactly, I agree. We are supposed to be eating a lot. No, we aren't little piggies, we aren't greedy, and we don't lack self-control. we are just eating the wrong foods, the ones that will make us gain weight when eaten in huge amounts. fat. it's simple, when you eat 3,000 calories of fats versus 3,000 calories from carbs, you will gain weight since it is efficient for our bodies to store that certain macronutrient as fat.

dietary thermogenesis, look it up. that's how fruitarians are super skinny even though they eat twice, sometimes triple their BMR.

>>5256496
>I've been cutting on carbs lately but i'm trying to find some good breakfast alternatives. So far it's mostly fruit (sometimes with yoghurt) or eggs but I can't seem to enjoy those anymore. Is there anything else? preferably not toooo time consuming. I do have to get to work. Thanks in advance.

Prepare yourself to be amazed. This is the ultimate breakfast.

3 cups of frozen (or fresh) fruits
1 cup of greek yogurt
0.5 of juice
1 cup of milk

Pour everything into a blender and blend that shit until smooth. Enjoy.

You get your vitamins and some proteins, it's quicker than making toasts. You can drink it while driving your car or waiting for the bus.

>>5256496
are you on the fancy new fad diet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_faddism

>>5256650
>>5256643
Simple, refined carbohydrates go through the body quite quickly, spike insulin and spike blood sugar. This is why when you give some kids sugar-filled treats they'll get hyper as hell. And since there are insulin spikes, doing this repeatedly is what causes insulin resistance, which in turn causes diabetes. Since these foods convert fast and are usually bereft of fiber, they don't have the same "filling" effect as most other foods do. Fats and proteins require conversions to be used by the body, simple carbs however go through quite quickly. Traditional servings of white pastas are also quite large (a bowl of spaghetti at a "normal" size will have more calories than basically any other "normal" sized meal) so there are issues with obesity therein.

That said, whole wheat pastas and such are perfectly fine. They don't go through as quickly, there's no significant spike, etc. There's also generally a higher nutritive content (white pastas are nutritionally poor) so that's beneficial as well. That said, carbs are never "ideal"; they have no inherent function in the body besides energy, whereas protein and dietary fat intake both have a (positive) chemical influence on the body. The only exception is trans fats (banned in most 1st world area) and excessive saturated fat intake (from massive amounts of butter/fatty beef); other varieties of fat are generally healthy.

Also, >>5256591
Is bullshit. Your body is meant to burn fat for fuel. That's why we store fat. Ketones are used by all parts of your body, including your brain; this is why ketogenic diets are sustainable. Beyond that, the appeal to nature is directly false, because this kind of carbohydrate ingestion didn't start until quite recently (the last few hundred years) meaning it wasn't the case for the vast majority of our existence.
>Storing fat from glucose is extremely inefficient for the body
And that's just plain wrong.

>>5256791
>last few hundred years
grains have been a significant part of our diet for 15000 years

youre talking out your ass with some serious broscience

>>5256874
I was referring to the massive shift that took place around the industrial age and again (in the west) in the mid 1900's. If you want to get technical, wheat farming started about 12,000 (not 15,000) years ago and the human species has been around for around 200,000. That's about 6% of our lifespan as a species as we know it. And, again, the scale of grain consumption isn't nearly what it was then as it is now. The idea that we subsist primarily off of carbohydrates is fucking retarded, especially simplified carbohydrates. Removing the germ/bran to create "white" pasta didn't start until shipping became a major concern, which is extremely recently relative to our history (~1.5% of our lifespan as a species).

The idea that as a species, we survive purely off of massive amounts of carbohydrates is false. It's not backed by history and it isn't backed by biology or medicine. If it is, then how did we survive without carbs for tens of thousands of years? Why are carbs considered the leading cause of obesity? Why are scientists around the world saying that healthy fat consumption is an important aspect of health, but that carbs are not?

Fucking idiot.

>>5256912
Not in this thread, but I've been surviving off of mostly carbohydrates for about 2 years now. tell me why I never feel tired or groggy, why I lost 50 pounds within the first 7 (give or take) months (not counting calories... I've eaten a package of pasta in a sitting), and why nearly every single person living this low fat, high carb lifestyle reports the same things I'm saying?

>>5256937
tell me of one fat high carb, low fat person, tell me of (as the other anon said) a fat fruitarian, who have all been on this lifestyle long-term.

now tell me of someone who eats more than 20g of fat a day who is fat.

>>5256650
>carbohydrates disturb insulin and blood sugar levels, which will increase appetite
Shitty refined starches and white sugar will, yeah.

Things like whole wheat products and brown rice, though, have the exact opposite effect. They give you energy and keep you full forever.

Carbs are pretty much the dominant macronutrient in almost everything except for meat, dairy, and cooking fats/oils, so it's pointless trying to reduce them anyway

>>5256944
I handily exceed 20g almost every day and I have a 31 inch waist

checkmate atheists

>>5256912
fruit and vegetables are carbohydrates. even before cultivation of grains, the majority of our diet was carbs.

why are you talking about refined carbs? everyone knows that complex carbs > refined carbs and advocates whole grain options.

>>5256951
YOU may not be fat, probably because you are eating under your BMR. however, there are plenty of people who eat lots of fats a day who are obese or very overweight.

There are no people out there who have done the HCLF lifestyle long-term that are overweight or obese.

This morbidly obese guy lost 100 pounds on a fruitarian diet, eating however much he wanted (we don't know for sure if he calorie restricted, but if he got that big from eating, I do not think he'd have the willpower to calorie restrict).

>>5256937
Because we can survive off carbs just fine. This reply chain started back with the claim that "fat inhibits glucose from reaching the brain" and that your cells run solely on glucose. That's false. That is unambiguously, 100% false. Your body survives just fine on fats and, even in the absence of carbohydrates, amino acids (protein) are converted to glucose by the body. You don't need to eat bowls of pasta and rice to survive. Even claiming that is pure lunacy. It flies in the face of all conventional science. Eat carbs if you want to, don't if you don't. The only health concern is low protein/fat intake or insulin spikes from eating massive amounts of simple grains.

>>5256954
>majority of our diet was carbs
Caloric density in non-fruit is much higher. Fruit and vegetables were a fair part of our diet, so were nuts/seeds (which are fatty as hell with a decent amount of protein) and meats (protein/fat). And, even then, fruit was a much more limited part of our diet than pastas and rices are now. There's a reason we went about domesticating farm animals; we wanted meat. It wasn't a luxury, it was a basic part of our diet. It still is today.

Again, the point of my original reply (which seems to have been lost) is that
>consuming massive amounts of simple carbs is bad
>dietary fat/protein is good
>we don't need carbs in our diets to thrive; a low-carb diet is perfectly healthy and likely ideal due to higher intakes of nutrient-dense foods and useful dietary fats/proteins

>>5256961
holy fuck stop making shit up

>>5256982
>making shit up
But anon, I actually know how the human body works to an appreciable degree. Everything in that post is true. The only argument you can make is that domestication of animals wasn't purely for food (we needed them for labour) but the idea that food wasn't a factor is silly. We literally needed animal products to survive; one of the basic elements of ATP production (B12) can only be found in animals as it is produced by bacteria. It would be impossible to have a purely agricultural society without domesticated animals to milk and slaughter.

Beyond that, everything else I've said is true (like it or not). Fruits were a big part of our diet. They're also not calorically dense, whereas meat and nuts are; neither of those two contribute significant quantities of carbs. The idea that we survived purely off of carbs is silly and unfounded.

That said, the only people who have been able to detract from my argument have either come in as slightly hostile (but with legitimate questions which I have answered) or have come in with "STOP MAKING SHIT UP" because they dislike my answers. So I'm out; peace.

>>5256791

> Your body is meant to burn fat for fuel. That's why we store fat.

We store fat so that we don't immediately starve to death within hours of not eating. Dietary fat as an energy source is terrible, which is why athletes don't chug bottles of olive oil before races. "Low-carb athletes" are rare and ridiculed, and when interviewed always admit to things like how they have to drink sugar gel on race day to get their energy up. All those Kenyan runners, all those marathon cyclists, they're eating tons of grains and fruits because that's what the human body needs to function optimally.

We came from fruit-eating apes running on sugar, then developed extra amylase in our saliva and gut to digest starch more efficiently as well. Human civilization has always revolved around people eating large amounts of starch from things like rice, wheat, potatoes, barley, corn, etc. The populations that didn't eat like this died off or became insignificant. To say that humans "never in history ate so much carbohydrate" or that humans are designed to run on fat is ridiculous

>>5257000

>ne of the basic elements of ATP production (B12) can only be found in animals as it is produced by bacteria

Make up your mind. "It can only be found in animals" and "it is produced by bacteria" are two separate thoughts. The bacteria that produce B12 live in soil and streams, as well as in the human body

>>5256961

The most long-lived people on the planet eat a high carb, low fat, low protein diet. The only diet proven to reverse both heart disease (Caldwell Esselstyn) and diabetes (Neal Barnard) is a high carb, low fat, low protein diet. Low-carb is a fad started by fat, unhealthy people like Robert Atkins and Loren Cordain who have no true science to back up their claims. Atkins didn't even understand his own diet, he got his ass handed to him on a radio talk show

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBi2VABLNb0

>>5257000

>Fruits were a big part of our diet. They're also not calorically dense

I guess all those other frugivores will have to stop getting 90+% of their calories from fruit. Vegetables are even less calorie dense, let's go tell those 600 pound gorillas to eat meat and nuts instead, there's no possible way they could survive the way they are right now.

>>5257460
>>5257499
>>5257548

Goddammit you speak some truth.

Honestly there's no real reason you can't cook whatever foods you like and just heat them up for breakfast or eat them cold, why is there all this emphasis on "correct breakfast foods" anyway. It's absurd to think of eggs and bacon and cereal as stuff one can only eat at specific hours and soup as something that can't be eaten upon waking.

Break out of your 'social food acceptance' cage and eat whatever healthy foods you like at any time of day you feel hungry. Have a plate of poached eggs over steamed rice for lunch if you want. Have some healthy wholegrain cereal with fruit for dinner. Eat a chicken, cheese, and veggie sandwich for breakfast. Have a salad before work. People are too mentally constrained about food.