/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>5591963
>again

Why? did it not work the first time?

>>5591967
It worked, but then I had to give some important exams and I let myself go, intentionally.
I lost 10kg in a couple of months last year through it.

>>5591963
Keto is fucking stupid, why cut out an essential part of a healthy body? Just eat less. Most people and cultures who are thin/fit and healthy live on a mainly carb based diet.

>>5591986
As I said, it worked.
I've tried other diets, none were as fast.
You're welcome to try it my friend.

>>5591990
I don't need to try it as I'm underweight and I love carbs, I'd never give up my delicious pastas, breads and potatoes.

Well, guys and gals?

>>5592003
Then why are you even joining in on this conversation? It clearly doesn't concern you.

>>5591963
Breakfast of champions:
Eggwhite omelette, spinach and mushroom
Spicy V8, with squeeze of lime
Ricotta sweetened with splenda, vanilla extract or orange zest

>>5592101
I'd rather eat fried cheese than ricotta, but thanks. Also, why egg white omelette instead of the real deal?

lean turkey meatballs wrapped in lettuce

acorn squash

yogurt

hard boiled eggs

pork rinds with garlip dip is a favorite of mine

seriously eggs in every form

Tuna salad with either lettuce or a few crackers

Are you doing 40 or less carbs or as less carbs as possible, OP?

>>5593061
Oh, and fish with garlic vinegar is fucking GOAT

after re-reading the OP I realized you were looking for recipes while I just suggested a bunch of shit, but there you go anyway

>>5592101

>spleda

>>5593063
That's good too, thanks

I'm not even convinced you lost what you said you did on keto. Most weight loss from keto is water weight which you will put on once you back to eating carbs. Keto isn't a healthy diet. If you just ate a balanced diet at a reasonable caloric deficit and you exercised you would speed quick and healthy weight loss.

>>5593491

but anon that takes effort. why won't you let me blame all my problems on those evil carbs

>>5591981
I've lost 25 kg in the last 3 months, without doing any keto shit.

Just eat less.

>>5593523
Jeebus. How many calories were u eating and did you do exercise?

>>5593491
That depends. People who are diabetic, or prediabetic can benefit from this.

>>5593523
That is a unhealthy rate of weight loss about 4 pounds a week. You were eating a 2000 calorie defecit how did you do it? 3500 = 1lb. 3500x4 = 14000. 14000/7= 2000 caloric defecit. A 2000 caloric defecit is really impossible for someone that is not super duper fat like 300+ pounds. If i tried that i would be eating under 500 calories a day. Damn bruh.

All these people saying keto is unhealthy... long-term, yeah, for most people. But low carb in general isn't unhealthy at all. You don't need very many carbohydrates to thrive, and low carb generally leads to better health markers all around (including lower triglycerdies, better cholesterol ratios, and yes, often less stored body fat).

There's a reason your body can store a relatively small amount of energy as carbohydrates but virtually infinite amounts as fat. Fat is the body's preferred fuel source. Most people don't have to go into ketosis to be healthy, of course, and I personally wouldn't recommend it unless (like someone else said) you have diabetes or prediabetes, but low carb is not bad for you.

To be clear, my definition of low carb is about 60-100g per day depending on size and activity level for the normal person. If you're very active every day (professional athlete/bodybuilder, not just normal levels of activity needed for general fitness), THEN low carb becomes pointless and potentially harmful.

>>5593546
>unhealthy rate of weight loss

Lol. You know what else is unhealthy? Being a fatass. The whole concept of "you're losing weight too fast" is usually an excuse for fatties to eat more. So long as he is not honestly starving and is getting all the proper nutrients I don't see the problem.

Also keep in mind that if he/she was very fat to begin with, the weight really rolls off at first. I've had several friends who were above 300 lbs (one nearly 400) and when they started diet and exercise (nothing extreme, mind you) the weight loss at first was easily 4-5 lbs a week for the first couple months. Of course as their size dropped the weight loss rate dropped as well, but assuming that guy was pretty big to start with it seems quite reasonable.

>>5593491
Tell me more about how people thought in the 1960s.

>>5593646

The laws of thermodynamics and mass balanced haven't changed since the 60's bro. Eat less and exercise more has always worked, and always will work. It's conservation of energy.

>>5593644
>not taking a basic anatomy class that discusses the physiological changes of losing weight

kek

>>5593644
There is no way you can get all the proper nutrients in under 500 calories.

>>5593691

That's true. I certainly wouldn't recommend cutting cals that low. But food is only part of the equation, there's also exercise. Also there tends to be a lot of water weight loss at first as well.

>>5593523
I did say that it's the best diet I've ever been on, which implies I've tried cutting calories and the like. Can you read?

>>5593491
>I'm not even convinced you lost what you said you did on keto.
Sorry.
>Keto isn't a healthy diet.
Too bad my medical exams disagree with you.

I ate a lot and lost a lot, end of story.

>>5593837
Your anecdote is meaningless.

The hallmarks of a keto diet are high protein high fat. High protein diets strains and can even damage the kidneys. Fats, especially the saturated kind that most keto fags gorge on, is still regarded as artery clogging. The lack of carbohydrates (vegetables, fruits, legumes) leads to constipation, dehydration, and mineral deficiencies that can cause dangerous and sometimes lethal arrhythmias. Not to mention, tricking your body into thinking its starving can lead to muscle/organ atrophy and insulin resistance (Tom Hanks famously attributed his diabetes to his starvation diet during the filming of Cast Away). The list goes on. I'm not a nutrition major but I'm sure they could school you even more.

Put a slice of tomato and some garlic in a portobello mushroom, top it off with some cheese and oregano or sage, and broil it for a few minutes.

4 of them are just about 6 carbs, and will probably give you a ton of vitamins and shit you're missing and taste like a half of a pizza at the same time. Plus you don't need to have any cooking sense for it to work. Just wait until the cheese looks like it belongs on top of a pizza, and you're done.

>>5593881
>High protein diets strains and can even damage the kidneys
I doubt anyone could consume enough protein from actual food to damage their kidneys while eating at a calorie deficit, or even without going far over their BMR.
>The lack of carbohydrates (vegetables, fruits, legumes) leads to constipation
You can still eat non-soluable carbs from fiber, like those found in pretty much everything green and with leafs.
>and mineral deficiencies that can cause dangerous and sometimes lethal arrhythmias
Supplements exist. Also eat green shit.
>tricking your body into thinking its starving can lead to muscle/organ atrophy and insulin resistance
You are by no means tricking your body into starving, you're just nudging it in a different metabolic direction.

Also, I'm not claiming keto will make me lose weight faster, but it does help a lot with discipline. The more restrictive a diet is and the clearer and more constant the reward the more likely it is to succeed for me. Also keto seems to have cured my ADD, so there's that.

>>5593881

Keto/low carbers don't listen to reason though. They don't even realize how every "carbs make you fat" steak oil salesman is obese, and how every country in the world that has a high carb, low fat diet is full of thin people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zVxA6yipv4

Atkins died in his 70s with obesity and heart problems, Weston Price died of a heart attack in his 70s. Stephen Byrne, despite being a physically active personal trainer, died of a stroke at age 41.

>implying carbs make you fat
Nigger what the fuck? I eat literally nothing BUT carbs and the occasional slab of steak and im skinny as fuck.
The kind of carbs you eat matters you fucking mongoloid potato.
I get them from sugars, fruits, vegetables and very rarely pastas/breads and ive been the same weight for years.

>>5593924

>You are by no means tricking your body into starving, you're just nudging it in a different metabolic direction.

That's what ketosis is. It's a starvation response. No animal in the world lives in a state of ketosis, even carnivores are adapted to produce more glucose from the protein in their diets to avoid ketosis. You've been sold on a diet that makes you sick and gives you chronic low blood sugar.

>>5593644
>So long as he is not honestly starving and is getting all the proper nutrients
Starving and getting proper nutrition does not go together, anon.

>>5593924
All I know is that you can achieve the same results without the keto if you just ate clean, calorie counted, balanced meals with exercise. I've lost about 100lbs now (360lb to 240~). I ate oats and fruit for breakfast, sandwiches/wraps, brown rice/potatoes sparingly, and fruits for snacks. I just calorie counted and did 40 mins of cardio a day. No fad shit. Just calorie counting (measuring almost everything) and exercise.

>keto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKRr94ssnQo#t=2m58s

>>5593940
>clean, calorie counted, balanced meals with exercise.
I do all of that on keto.

>>5593977

>clean, balanced meals
>keto

Doesn't match

>>5593979
Green shit, meat, and water. Good enough.

>>5593905
OMG ANON LOOK AT ALL THAT ALUMINUM FOIL!! YOU SHOULD BE HANGED FROM AN OAK TREE FOR PRODUCING SO MUCH WASTE!!! DONT YOU KNOW THAT SHIT WILL NEVER BREAK DOWN IN A LANDFILL!! ILL NEVER UNDERSTAND YOU AMERICANS AND YOUR OBSESSION TO DESTROY THE ENVIRONMENT. YOU COULD HAVE AT LEAST USED HALF THAT MUCH!!! THINK OF THE BIRDS AND THE TREES

>>5593992
>not reusing your foil

>>5593881
>Tom Hanks famously attributed his diabetes to his starvation diet during the filming of Cast Away
Strangely enough, many doctors will recommend keto for people in the early stages of type 2 diabetes instead of medication. Type 1 is a different story.

>>5593999

>many doctors will recommend keto for people in the early stages of type 2 diabetes instead of medication

Who and where? High saturated fat consumption is one of the causes of type 2 diabetes and dietary cholesterol is known to be even more dangerous to diabetics than people with normal carbohydrate metabolism. I've only seen doctors recommend diets that include plenty of complex carbohydrates that promote increased insulin sensitivity.

>>5593491
Keto is incredibly healthy, you're just a retard. I've been on it for years.

>>5594013
>i've been smoking for years it's incredibly healthy
>i've been eating 2 cans of tuna everyday nothing happened its healthy

>>5594013

>I've been smoking for years, it's really healthy! *cough cough* Please believe me!

>>5594029
>>5594030
The difference being lung cancer, reduced oxygen, and mercury poisoning are all signs of poor health.

>>5594051

As is acidic, ketone-filled blood, impaired insulin function, arterial plaque, osteoperosis, and dehydration

>>5594068
>As is acidic, ketone-filled blood
I don't have this problem because I'm producing insulin normally.
>impaired insulin function
If this were the case than the above would be a problem.
>arterial plaque
Doctor says my blood pressure and cholesterol are normal, so chances are I'm not affected by this. If this changes, I'll change my diet.
>osteoperosis, and dehydration
I don't have either of these problems. If I do in the future, I'll change my diet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTuK6QKBvcc

>>5594068
>impaired insulin function
Ketones stimulate insulin release you dummy.

>>5594081

>I'll change my diet when it's too late

Also, what exactly are your cholesterol levels? "Normal" is not a good thing in the western world, it's normal to die of a heart attack here.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112130653.htm

The long-term effects of this kind of diet always show to be detrimental to health

>>5594068
>As is acidic, ketone-filled blood,

ketoacidosis is only an issue for diabetics who are ALSO retarded and careless. not people with working pancreatic functions who eat. also, "ketone filled blood" is not a thing. ketone levels in adults fluctuate based on fat burning and dietary fat intake; excess ketones are expelled through bodily fluids as is acetone.

>impaired insulin function
do you think that intentionally avoiding the energy storage function of insulin is the same thing as being unable to produce insulin? i'm confused.

>arterial plaque
all peer reviewed research shows the opposite: that arterial plaque from diet is formed almost exclusively from the same-meal *combination* of high carb and high fat intake.

>osteoperosis
you are confusing ketogenic way of eating and veganism.

>and dehydration
the reduction in broader bodily water retention is in no way related to functional dehydration unless the individual fails to drink normal amounts of hydrating fluids and/or complicates his/her hydration issues with diuretics or water-leeching substances like vitamin c or creatine. this can be remedied by simply drinking any hydrating fluid.

>>5594128

>The long-term effects of this kind of diet always show to be detrimental to health

no, they don't. they never have. there is no serious body of peer reviewed research in opposition to ketogenic therapy or the broader atkins approach which specifically urges dietary moderation of carbohydrates, vastly increased intake of green vegetables and whole grains, and elimination of stimulants and preservatives. it is incorrect to suggest that people following a ketogenic way of eating are eating zero or very low carbohydrate intake for long periods of time and, similarly, that they would in any way benefit from ceasing the general way of eating following the strictly ketogenic period.

>>5593928
>every country in the world that has a high carb, low fat diet is full of thin people.
Are we going to talk science and results, or do you prefer to claim that correlation implies causation?

>>5593928
you are either laughably ignorant or a very poor troll. your video is especially amusing considering the enthusiastic promulgation of vegetarian and vegan low-carb diets by the atkins group.

1 Tbs honey roasted peanut butter (Walmart makes some if you can't find any)
1.5 Tbs coconut oil

Mix together, freeze a little, eat

I only do this because I have a hard time getting my calories and fat up where it needs to be.

>>5594813
honey peanut butter has too many carbs and sugars
nigga you dumb

>>5593491
You're not convinced he lost 20 pounds over several months on a caloric deficit, but you are some how convinced that that other faggot lost 55 pounds without a sweat in 3 months? Are you fucking high?

>>5594813
I like this one. Peanut butter and coconut oil bars!

>>5594893
>several months
I did say a couple (little less than two).

>>5594291

If you want science, let's look in a medical textbook

http://books.google.com/books?id=0jtNQqfNz80C&pg=PA291&lpg=PA291#v=onepage&q&f=false

A high-carbohydrate, low fat diet is not metabolically adequate for causing fat accumulation. You need more dietary fat to put on fat. I know "correlation isn't causation" is like the low-carb motto to explain why all observable data seems to go against what the low-carb dogma says, but the science of this kind of thing is pretty well understood.

Ah yes... delicious keto and healthy pizza! Eat up!

>>5593992
lol'd

>>5595475
Is that a giant fucking burger with cheese and pep on it?

>>5595376

if you don't know what you're doing i feel sorry for you

if you're doing it on purpose i feel sorry for you

in either case i feel sorry for anyone who has to read your fucking nonsense

>>5595606

Are you okay? Is being confronted with established medical facts causing you to have a breakdown?

>>5595599
Pretty much. A meatza uses ground beef instead of crust.
That whole thing is meant to be 3-4 meals, btw.

>I'm on a keto diet

>>5593491

water weight is lost after a few days on lowcarb or keto diets. when the body depletes all its glycogen ( which is stored with water ) reserves stored in the muscles and liver it starts burning fat as a main fuel source. keto and lowcatrb works because the body had no other options left for energy. it must burn fat foe energy.

even vegans can follow these diets if they put aside their irrational fears...

>don't eat lowcarb! muh animals! muh feelings!

>>5593928

oh its a coincidence that diabetics that control diabetes with diet via the glycemic index lose weight ( no weight watchers didn't invent it ) without needing insulin? because cutting carbs absolutely doesn't work right?

why are he Inuit who still follow the ketogenic diet of their ancestors still healthy while others of their kind are overweight, diabetic and dying young?

Atkins died from a head injury. the faggot vegan Dr from PCRM ( a group of vegans with connections to PETA and are not recognized by the American Medical Association ) abused his power as a doctor and released his medical records to the media without permission and lied about his death.

>>5593940
different people respond to different diets differently, what might work for you might not work for some one else, get over it.

>>5593984
aren't you not allowed "green shit" in a keto diet?

>>5595685
>>5595685
I'm pretty sure you can make keto freindly crust that isn't just meat though, people only do that as a lazy way out and those people are usually doing the diet because "OH FUCK YEAH, I CAN EAT LIKE EPIC MEAL TIME ALL THE TIME AND LOSE WEIGHT!!!"

>>5591986

protein and the triglyceride portion of fat is convertible to glucose. keto and low carb is about cutting carbs and controlling the flow of glucose into the blood stream. the body is never deprived of glucose on these diets.

>>5593940

if you want to eat steak then eat it. stop being a jealous bitch.

>>5595990
>even vegans can follow these diets if they eat meat
then they wouldn't be vegans anymore

>>5596028

tofu, avocados, macadamia nuts ( incredibly high cal and high fat and low freaking carb ), salads with full fat dressings....

there's more foods besides the above that vegans can eat and still be vegan.

finally all those fat vegans can lose weight!

>>5596004
>because cutting carbs absolutely doesn't work right?

A lot of people should cut carbs because they are fat but keto absolutely sucks ass for anybody who is physically active. Keto is only good for people who are seriously overweight and lack self control.

>>5596034
oh, the part saying they should get over >muh animals! muh feelings! made me think that the poster was saying then should just suck it up and eat meat

>>5593546

don't believe the diet industries bull about pounds per week. they invented it to keep people buying their products.

>>5596043
>keto is for people who lack self control
By the same logic, all diets are for people who lack self control. They wouldn't be dieting otherwise.

>>5596012
No. That's wrong. You're not allowed to eat simple carbs, like bread and sugary shit. Vegetables are fine.

>>5596016
And they can. And they do. Unless you're a major fat as fatass with ravenous hunger, you will not overeat on keto. Only way that'll happen is if you basically just sit on your arse and drink oil while chewing on some nuts. It works.

>>5593546
That is because you don't move enough, and barely have any muscle mass. DYEL?

>>5596091
That is true but a lot of fat people eat too many french fries or sugary drinks and desserts. By eliminating those things by default you give fewer ways for people to eat too much.

>OP asks for keto recipes
>thread is clearly not for people who break out the pitchforks at the sound of the word 'keto'
>still seeing complaints about "pretentious ketofags invading every thread and spreading their dogma"
>wat

>>5596216
You fatty go eat 4000 calories of burgers.

>>5591963
Same here, i've been on a 1000kcal defecit and i'm losing weight very slow so i'm gonna start keto.

>>5596537
You are not losing weight because your body is going into starvation mode. You guys are so impatient and think a 1000-2000 defecit is better than 500.

>>5596540
500kcal defecit when i weighed 335 at the doctors i ended up at 332 the next visit 30 days later. I'm desperate really, tired of being trapped in this prison. Considering doing an ECA stack too.

>>5596580
Oh i didn't know you were 300+ you should easily be losing weight at 1000cal defecit. If you aren't you should add like 3+ days of short cardio. Make sure you are counting calories right and measuring things like peanut butter correctly.

>>5596587
Yeah i'm using myfitnesspal and a digital food scale.

>>5593932
are you fucking stupid? op is obviously trying to lose weight.

So, I work at noodles and co. and the amount of carbs that I eat is incredible. I'm also really curious about kento-based recipes to make while at home, in case you guys ever wanna stop shitposting.

>>5591963
>Give me your low-carb recipes!

steak

>>5596580
It.
Takes.
Time.

You didn't put on all that weight in just a few days or months, so why do you expect to lose it all that quickly?

Unless you're using steriods, it's going to take a lot of effort and dedication. Doesn't matter what type of diet you're on. If you're losing weight the proper way, it's going to take awhile to come off, but it will come off.

>>5596872
500kcal defecit should be about 2lbs a week. I didn't even get 1lb/week

Is being able to eat muh bacon and muh meats in any quantity the reason why these shit diets so popular? Just cut your intake to 1500 calories or less and try to eat a balanced meal, not hard at all.

>>5597116

balanced diet you said?

>b-but low carb bad! g-go vegan! eat lots of pasta!

>>5597116
see >>5591990
you
fucking
dolt

>>5597116
This is it.

Keto's home is on reddit, home of MUH BACON!!!!111

It's fucking retarded bullshit. Atkins under another name, and I can't wait for the media to start calling it out for its bullshit so this stupidity can end.

I'll challenge any keto fuckhead to beat me in a century.
>>5597534
I ate 300 gram (dry weight) of pasta, with a tomato and garlic sauce for lunch, and I have under 5% bodyfat.

80/10/10 vegan is the most sustainable diet for the planet, and for longterm health.

>>5597625
>>5597625
>I have under 5% bodyfat.

gr8b8m8

>>5597632
4.8%, although I'm increasing this to between 6 and 8 by making creamy avocado pasta sauce for autumn cycling.

>>5597625

ketodiets are used in medicine to control seizures without drugs. if its bad why would doctors use it to help patients?

enjoy your colorectal cancer vegtard your kind has the highest rates of it....

>inb4 b-but veganism is anticancer!

>>5591963
Keto does not work. You only lose water weight and weight lost through a deficit. Just eat less.

>>5597788

5 to 6 pounds is lost after glycogen reserves in the muscles and liver are depleted. the amount t of water varies depending on your muscle mass. after those reserves are depleted the body burns fat for fuel.

now go sit on a cucumber vegtard.

>>5597712
I'm going to get bowel cancer, but you're the one eating red meat, eggs and dairy?
You're fucking deluded.

Vegans, and vegetarians have lower rates of cancer.

>>5597805
How am I meant to cycle long distances without glycogen reserves?

>>5597534
>sweet potato
>low carb

>>5597817

enjoy your butt cancer.

ketones.

>>5597712

>enjoy your colorectal cancer vegtard your kind has the highest rates of it....

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479227

>Multivariate analyses showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal ischemic heart disease (IHD)
>Cancers of the colon and prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88 and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher risk of bladder cancer.
>Intake of legumes was negatively associated with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
>Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than nonvegetarians.

I'm sure there's a study somewhere out there that shows one group of vegans had higher colorectal cancer rates, but that isn't the norm by far, and you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot by mentioning it since every other cancer is much more common in people who regularly eat meat

>>5597820
I'm not him but that looks like a salmon steak bro.

>>5597827

what mechanism in vegan diets kills cancer cells?

ketogenic diets kill cancer by starving the cancer cells to death and feeding the healthy cells with ketones a source of energy a cancer cell cannot use.

all I ever see from vegans are claims without hard evidence.

tell how a vegan diet kills cancer.

>>5597861

>what mechanism in vegan diets kills cancer cells?

The fact that plant foods have natural cancer-fighting compounds and a lack of carcinogenic compounds that would cause cancer cells to form in the first place

>ketogenic diets kill cancer by starving the cancer cells to death

Besides that you're going to have glucose in your bloodstream whether you're eating carbohydrate or not, keto will raise cholesterol levels and cancer can feed on cholesterol as well.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4359117.stm

I wouldn't worry about cancer on a ketogenic diet though because you're more likely to die of heart disease first

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTuK6QKBvcc

>>5597861
A ketogenic diet kills all cancer!? STOP THE PRESSES! WHY AREN'T WE REPORTING THIS!?

Anyone thinking of going on a ketogenic diet, I recommend watching the three videos on this page.

http://plantpositive.squarespace.com/blog/2012/3/26/tpns-58-61-ketosis-is-natural-natural-is-good.html

>>5597876

what are the names of these chemicals? where is the proof they kill cancer?

keto and lowcarb diets lowers cholesterol.

>>5597826
Would all the Tour De France cyclists be better off using ketones instead of glycogen?

Should I tell Nibali to stop eating pasta?

>>5597899

it has been reported but vegtards and PCRM keep screaming muh animals! keto is bad! protect the animals!

>>5597915
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm done with your trolling.

>>5597901

>what are the names of these chemicals?

There are thousands of phytochemicals in plant foods. Not all fight cancer, but many do. They also decrease inflammation, prevent oxidative stress, help maintain proper blood glucose levels, protect against demention, etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_phytochemicals_in_food

You know how everyone's always telling you to eat fruits and vegetables? It's because of those phytochemicals. You eat blueberries, you're getting anthocyanins. You eat carrots and sweet potatoes, you're getting beta-carotene. You eat red grapes or drink red wine, you're getting resveratrol.

>keto and lowcarb diets lowers cholesterol.

Losing weight can lower cholesterol, but dietary saturated fat and dietary cholesterol do in fact raise blood cholesterol levels. This is why it's important to look at the long-term and not just short-term weight loss results.

>>5597923

Hell, even the "anti-nutrient" phytic acid in grains, legumes, and nuts/seeds that the paleo folk always warn you about is known to be a powerful cancer-fighting agent

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12594974

>101 posts
>not a single recipe
Thanks /ck/

>>5598056

well you do know one of the mods here is some biased vegtard that allows provegan noncooking related threads that violate the rules and is known for banning anyone that starts a anti vegan thread?

ck is full of douchebag vegans.

OP I know why your thread went to shit, you said so yourself:

>Summer's here

>>5597116
enjoy your fucking trainwreck of a metabolism, some of us exercise

>>5597788
Keto works perfectly you lose weight through a deficit and can maintain your deficit much easier because you are never hungry. RETARD

Found a nice recipe if you're craving some cheezits

Take a baking sheet and line it with a silicon baking pad, or parchment paper thats sprayed with a bit of oil

portion out discs of 1-2 tbsp of your favorite hard cheese(cheddar, parm, etc) and bake at 375 for 10-15 minutes until the outer edges turn golden brown. let cool for a bit and use a knife or offset spatula to lift off the baking surface. doesn't take many to fill you up either.

It would be great if we can have some proper research into these diets without the often purposeful spread of misinformation and people screaming "Carbs are the proper energy source, because we've always done it!"

Closest I've seen was that BBC doc about Atkins. They just found that the dieters ate less and didn't get any cravings, probably because of the meat in the diet.

>>5598756
tarvation mode is a myth you dickless handitard

>>5596012
Green shit has next to zero non-fiber carbs. Eat as much as you want as long as its green and has leafs.

>>5600241
Yeah, A few runner beans and some sprouts is great with your meat.

Bump and anybody know a good low-carb alternative to pizza crust? I've tried ones based on cauliflower and flax meal and they've tasted like shit.

>>5601100

I think its cauliflower, Parmesan and eggs. never heard of flaxseed in those recipes.

Healthy Pizza Recipe - How to make a Low Carb, Hi…: http://youtu.be/U_GHm-ugxdY

to all vegtards! help this man! he's clearly emaciated and dying from a low carb diet! omg! he eats meat!

/sarcasm

>>5601185

>>5600018
while in ketosis protein is a secondary satiation mechanism to food energy from fat: one only requires enough protein for the liver to synthesize requisite glucose.

proper peer reviewed research has been ongoing for decades and has consistently and holistically supported ketosis as the default human metabolic process.

>>5601194

now he's one step away from being an actual vegetable.

>>5597899
peer reviewed papers have been published and substantiated which prove the efficacy of ketogenic therapy in slowing cancer growth by starving the glycogenic energy mechanism that allows cancer proliferation. they focused on a few specific types of cancer and research is ongoing.

>>5601207
oh my god

>>5601199

interesting. didn't know that.

>>5601211
medical research typically only makes news when it first makes it into a journal and that is a very political process which research of many types must endure.

even if it makes news there's a lot of political wrangling in the layman discussion of diet because of the moral question of eating semi-conscious creatures. the human body makes no such judgment and, for example, neither does the major promulgator of the ketogenic way of eating: the atkins group. they publish significant amounts of well researched vegetarian and vegan ketogenic materials.

>>5595475
That looks AMAZING. Do you bake it? At what temperature, for how long? Or is it supposed to be cooked in a pan? Because as far as I can see, there's not really a way to flip it...

>>5600736
rip in pieces dr chilly

>>5601185
>I think its cauliflower, Parmesan and eggs.

Sounds like the one I tried. It wasn't very good.

I guess I'll have to try a burger base or something. Kinda wanted to cut down on the meat though.

>>5601199

>proper peer reviewed research has been ongoing for decades and has consistently and holistically supported ketosis as the default human metabolic process.

This is the conclusion you come to when the only research you do is reading low-carb blogs. There is no animal on the planet that lives in a ketogenic state. Animals adapt many mechanisms to avoid going into ketosis because ketosis is not a good, healthy metabolic process. Ketosis occurs during starvation, diabetes, and chronic alcoholism. Watch these three videos for a better understanding of ketosis.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbWydBBCOKk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlquN_z99jw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBHxOqmjkow

Then you can understand why only crazy fringe internet health gurus tell you to go on ketogenic diets

>>5596440
Yeah the lack of recipes on this cooking forum is crazy.

>>5602122

i feel sorry for you. i hope things get better.

>>5594276
dude get out of this board, the vegans have overrun it.. they don't listen to reason. also we have enough research done now that clearly shows arterial plaque is caused by oxidized fat which in turn creates inflammation in your fucking arteries. guess what faggot, your vegetable oils aren't heat stable and will oxidize and fuck your shit up. "heart healthy" my ass. learn some chemistry and understand why saturated fats like lard and ghee were and still are superior to everything else. if you eat 0.7g of protein for each of your lean body mass and you consume less than 100g of carbs and more than 100g of fats as a dietary meal plan daily, you'll be a very healthy individual, part of this is because once your body adapts to fat the pathways of energy production change and it turns out fat is superior to carb in every fucking way - you're dealing with cancer? well better go keto my friend because that'll starve those fucking cancer cells; they feed on iron and sugar.

but back to you bro, get out of here. /ck/ is full of retired druggies and hippies that follow nutritionfarts.org and never do their own fucking research on the subject.

>>5604076

>your vegetable oils aren't heat stable and will oxidize and fuck your shit up. "heart healthy" my ass. learn some chemistry and understand why saturated fats like lard and ghee were and still are superior to everything else

Before you invest yourself too deeply into unaccepted theories you read on "alternative nutrition" websites, educate yourself on the mainstream viewpoint and why the American Heart Association supports replacing saturated fat in the diet with poly-unsaturated fats

http://plantpositive.squarespace.com/41-pufas-oxidize

>>5602122
>Then you can understand why only crazy fringe internet health gurus tell you to go on ketogenic diets
>quote plantpositive

heuheuheu it's summer guize, better get your high sugar coke out and choke on dat carbs

>>5604087
what website is this bitch using to track her food?

>>5604086
My MD checks for inflammation markers. Why would she do that? Fuck off with some guy on the internet, like I'm gonna listen to stupid shit on /ck/. For all I know the guy could be a troll, what credentials does he have? Just saying bro, I was on the SAD with tons of carbs every day and my hs-CRP, LpPLA2 and Fibrinogen were highly elevated. Boom 1 year later I'm on a high fat, below 100g carb diet and I'm totally fine. I learned a lot about healthy cooking and how to get healthy fats with a broad variety of vegetables in. Notice I'm not an athlete.

>>5604087

What about plant positive goes against mainstream, accepted scientific facts? I don't even know what you're trying to say

>>5604091
>mainstream accepted scientific facts
You mean the same guys that said saturated fats were great a few decades ago?
>implying nutrition isn't a scientific field that is ever changing
>implying all studies are published and disclosed, even those that show contrary conclusions of what was set out to be concluded
guess you haven't heard of www.alltrials.net yet, have you?

>muh mainstream science
>hurrdurr

>>5604090

>My MD checks for inflammation markers. Why would she do that?

Because chronic inflammation isn't good

>I was on the SAD with tons of carbs every day and my hs-CRP, LpPLA2 and Fibrinogen were highly elevated. Boom 1 year later I'm on a high fat, below 100g carb diet and I'm totally fine.

From what I've seen of studies supporting low carb diets, this seems to be the scenario every time. Going from the standard american diet of junk food to virtually any other diet will show improvements. Your short-term anecdote isn't valuable information, especially when you consider that people have also gotten similar results doing basically the opposite approach you took. Caldwell Esselstyn and Dean Ornish are the only doctors in the world that have been able to consistently show reversal of heart disease in patients, and they do it with a diet very high in unrefined carbohydrate and very low in fat. No study has ever been nearly as successful with a high fat diet.

>>5604096
>unrefined carbohydrate
care to elaborate? I mean I see where you coming from and it seems logical I guess now that I think about it, anything's better than the SAD but what are you telling me to eat then? Don't eat potatoes, pasta, bread, fruit? That's what I ate with of course bacon, ham, soybean oil, margarine etc. and the occassional frozen veggies mix. You're being a bit vague and you're saying to eat carbs, well duh. I ate carbs and that's where I had my shitty test results.. hence why I went the opposite direction: saturated fat/cyclic ketogenic diet.

Lol this low carb BS.. I've lost 20 lbs in the past 4 months on a high carb low fat diet.

Bodyfat dropped from 25% or even a little bit more to now 13.5/14%. All while maintaining almost all of my muscle mass. If I was obese before and just wanted to lose weight without caring about muscle, then I would have just lowered my calories even more and seen even more weightloss.

Enjoy your lack of energy and depression.

>>5604103

Unrefined carbohydrates as in whole food sources of carbs. Whole grains rather than refined grains, beans, peas, lentils, sweet potatoes, and fruit. Fiber-rich foods that are consistently shown to be good for health, rather than soda and cake which obviously everyone agrees are bad for you. Every time I look at a study comparing high fat to low fat diets, I check to see the nutrient table that breaks down the composition of the diets and not only is the representative "low-fat" diet rarely low-fat (just lower fat), but the fiber content is always between 15 and 20 grams, which is half the bare minimum RDA for fiber and simply isn't possible to be that low on a diet of whole plant foods, indicating that the high carb group is essentially a straw-man diet composed of refined junk food. This is one reason why there seem to be so many studies that, the way they're presented, show a clear benefit to high fat diets over high "carb" diets, yet every health institute recommends getting most of your calories from carbohydrate. This is because the people who run those health organizations don't recommend eating white bread and white rice for your meals and there's overwhelming evidence to support the idea that whole grains, legumes, fruit, etc are massively beneficial to human health

>>5604121

insoluble fiber scrapes your ass a new one.

good luck with your future butt cancer.

hurr durr I supplement my vegan diet with whole grain everything even though I get more than enough from salads. you can never have too much insoluble fiber!

40 years later....

dr says you have butt cancer...

b-but that's impossible!

http://www.theveganrd.com/2012/05/when-vegans-get-cancer.html

>I've lost three friends to colon cancer. Two were vegetarians who died in their early 50s, and one was a vegan who died in his early 40s. It definitely feels a little surprising when vegans die from this disease.

Just tell yourself, "Its just a coincidence."

I've seen people in lowcarb forums refer to friends they knew from college who were vegans or vegetarians that died of butt cancer.

Just tell yourself, "Its just a coincidence."

>>5593611

Fat isn't the body's preferred fuel source - it's the backup reserve.

>>5592101
You sweeten your ricotta? Eat that shit as is you pussy.

>>5604729
>>5604744
>>5604798

Nobody made the claim that no vegans on any form of vegan diet die of anything, but there is a reduced risk of dying from many cancers, colon cancer included, on a proper vegan or vegetarian diet. You seem hysterical.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172115
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677895

>>5604904
you can add: there's no battle between vegetarianism/veganism and ketogenic ways of eating.

when one paper says "eating a high fat low carb diet with moderate protein" improves x and y function and starves certain types of cancer cell proliferation it isn't discriminating about the sources or types of fat.

a separate study may show that the human animal benefits significantly from a moderate amount of saturated fat in the diet; again, it does not discriminate about the source.

an other study may discriminate about the source by showing the benefit of mammalian sourced lipids in providing certain vitamin complexes; this discriminates the source but does not preclude similar bioavailability from a non-animal source.

many years ago best science indicate that a high carb very low fat diet was the only "heart healthy" way of eating; we now know differently and may again have to adjust our concept of what "heart healthy" means as more good research is completed. only a decade before the "low fat" craze began our best science believed heart attack victims should recuperate with little to no strain on the heart which, quite frankly, doomed most of them to chronic heart failure and early deaths.

the moral imperative of veganism is an aggravating factor in the politicization of human nutritional science--and not only on the internet. medical journals and even important institutions such as the AHA are feeling the political influence of veganism much in the same way that the FDA feels the influence of the grain lobby. this doesn't make veganism an incorrect dietary choice for human beings any more than it invalidates the broad health-positive effects of ketogenic therapy.

there simply is no battle.

>>5604993

There actually has been a study that separates people following a low-carb diet based on animal fat versus a vegetarian low carb diet

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989112/

>A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates.

>many years ago best science indicate that a high carb very low fat diet was the only "heart healthy" way of eating; we now know differently and may again have to adjust our concept of what "heart healthy" means as more good research is completed.

So far it's still only been high carb, low fat diets that have shown consistent clinical reversal of heart disease, with the second best results being from diets like the mediterranean diet which still put emphasis on whole grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables but with more fat, mainly from plant sources. That diet has been shown to slow down the progression of heart disease, but not cure it like the low fat diets of Ornish and Esselstyn. If you read their work and listen to their lectures and presentations, you can understand that low fat is a necessary part of reversing heart disease altogether.

>medical journals and even important institutions such as the AHA are feeling the political influence of veganism much in the same way that the FDA feels the influence of the grain lobby
>the grain lobby

What are you trying to imply here?

>>5605055

you shared a study confirming some positive CVD markers from a low carb plant focused diet and may have inadvertently contradicted yourself. i recommend recent research into LDL molecule size and its effects on heart health as an informative adjunct to the study you linked. it will provide a more holistic understanding although we're still relatively intellectually impoverished in nutritional science.

if scientific history should teach us anything it's to know how little we know and to feel uneasy about certainty. you would do well to adjust your choice of language.

>What are you trying to imply here?

it's a statement not an implication: the grain lobby has heavy political influence on the FDA and has for a long time. an amusing example: deep fat fried potato chips--a posterchild of arteriosclerosis--are labeled "heart healthy" while walnuts, which have in fact been shown to be heart healthy by peer reviewed science, are legally disallowed from printing the same. i realize that may sound a bit funny if you don't follow these machinations regularly but it is an ongoing problem.

please be careful about words like "necessary" while recommending dietary advice over the internet.

>>5605104

>you shared a study confirming some positive CVD markers from a low carb plant focused diet and may have inadvertently contradicted yourself

Compared to an animal-based low-carb diet and the "standard american diet," but that doesn't mean it's still a great diet.

> i recommend recent research into LDL molecule size and its effects on heart health as an informative adjunct to the study you linked.

I have. It's another one of those unaccepted theories that you read on certain unconventional health websites.

http://www.clinchem.org/content/52/9/1643.long

>For the practicing clinician, however, the major argument for extending measurement of subclasses into the mass market is the hypothesis that one subclass is more atherogenic than another. Because evidence clearly indicates that all Apo B–containing particles are atherogenic(8), this reasoning is akin to the argument that an Uzi submachine gun is more deadly than an M16 or an AK47. Obviously all are potentially lethal, and although this assertion may interest gun aficionados, it matters little to law enforcement or to general public safety if the sole objective is disarmament! As has been demonstrated in clinical trials, if Apo B, or non-HDL-C or even LDL-C is decreased sufficiently, there will be a reduction of all types of particles, even if some are decreased slightly more than others, with a resulting beneficial impact on atherosclerosis and CAD. To suggest that shifting the focus from one particle to another without impacting the total circulating Apo B burden or reducing it will decrease CAD risk is, to use the gun analogy, like believing public safety will improve by switching gun users with Uzis to AK47s.

>deep fat fried potato chips--a posterchild of arteriosclerosis--are labeled "heart healthy" while walnuts, which have in fact been shown to be heart healthy by peer reviewed science, are legally disallowed from printing the same

Where do you see potato chips being labeled heart healthy?

>>5605123
>>5605104

And how are potatoes a grain? And walnuts are allowed to be labeled heart healthy, as are other nuts. Grains though are widely recommended because they're inarguably beneficial for heart health and overall human health

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18954578
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17449231
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17954802
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556684
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16084154
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15585760
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14980987
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469984
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10479204
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20375186

Where do you get your information?

>>5605126

i do feel very sorry for you indeed. i hope that one day you're able to separate your outward agenda from your inner moral imperative.

>>5605134

Can't we have a discussion about this stuff?

>>5605141
nope

>>5605055

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/09/08/brand-spankin-new-study-are-low-carb-meat-eaters-in-trouble/

http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/09/new-study-shows-that-lying-about-your.html

pretty much all the studies you post are bad science.

suck it vegtard. suck it long. suck it hard.

>>5605506

I suppose I shouldn't have posted that study, although I didn't put too much thought into it since it didn't have anything to do with my point, I just thought it was interesting. I'm wondering why you spent 2 hours trying to find an explanation for that instead of everything else I said though. Why are whole grains bad? Why do you think there's a worldwide conspiracy to include them in peoples' diets? Why do you think the multi-billion dollar meat, dairy, and egg industries are totally innocent and without power? Why do you think concepts like large and small LDL are a valid concern that everyone else is ignoring?

>>5605598

two hours? I just got here.

>>5605606

I can tell by your writing style and hostility that you're the same guy who comes into all of these threads, gets given huge wealths of knowledge, and then ignores them and says something like "i feel sorry for you. you don't even know." and then comes back later after looking around at more low carb websites to say "BUTT CANCER" until someone points out that vegans and vegetarians generally have lower rates of "butt cancer" which is mainly attributed to high meat intake and low fiber intake. I'm not even mad at you, it opens up an opportunity to talk about these things so anyone who wants to learn can get some tips on healthy eating

>>5605598
>Why do you think there's a worldwide conspiracy to include them in peoples' diets?

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by laziness." Wheat and potatoes are easy to farm in massive quantities, so that's what everybody ate for generations. People popping up and saying "actually that shit's bad for us" is going to rock the boat.

You see the same thing in other places like education. Studies showing that the previous system is actually counter-production and people swarming in with "But we've done it this way for YEARS, therefore it works!"

>>5605638

>People popping up and saying "actually that shit's bad for us" is going to rock the boat.

Thing is though, the people saying this don't really have evidence for it. The paleo community isn't known for their massive contributions to medical research, it's just a theory they came up with and they try to find evidence to support their ideas but the evidence just isn't there. Everyone knows refined grains are bad for us, but until studies start existing that show whole grains to be bad, or at the very least stop unanimously showing whole grains to be good, we don't regard that idea as scientifically valid

It's not about politics or sticking to old traditions, it's simply the fact that every time we study whole grains, they show conclusively to be healthy. Same with vegetables, same with fruit, same with beans. These are food groups for which the data is overwhelming positive

>>5605638

those foods are seasonal dipshit. humans were never meant to eat carb dense food all year round.

enjoy your butt cancer.

>>5605617

your studies are all based on questionnaires and observational science with criteria setup by biased scientists that is not backed up at all by experiments.

that means my observational science is just as credible.

enjoy your butt cancer.

>>5605682

Please don't ignore data that you don't want to believe. If you have studies that show whole grain consumption to be detrimental, I'm more than willing to read them

125 grams a day of carbs is not low carb but you fucking vegans keep passing off studies with such criteria as proof low carb doesn't work....

anyways....

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2014/06/grains-endocrine-disrupters/

>inb4 b-but it doesnt fit my opinion therefore nnot valid science!

>>5605727

That article is about as scientific as this one

http://www.icr.org/article/8215/

The closest to "whole grains are bad" I can see from even the most paleo guys around is really just "people with gluten intolerance shouldn't eat gluten," which doesn't even include all grains. It's also funny that William Davis sells a book that claims to help you lose weight, and yet he's fat. Just like Robert Lustig, just like Robert Atkins, just like Sally Fallon, just like Jimmy Moore. Obese, self-proclaimed weight-loss experts who get rich selling diet books that tell people what they want to hear about food.

>>5605753

that's not fat. only a fucking emaciated vegan would call that fat.

>>5605766

>he's not fat, he's just fluffy

Don't forget to buy his latest book©
For your health©

>>5605781

that's still not fat.

>>5605791

Oh, okay

>>5605791
Come on, man. That's fat. It's anecdotal evidence, but that doesn't change the fact that he's a fatass.

3/4 - 1 1/2 pounds of steak a day fried in butter
6 - 12 eggs a day however you want
green salad

>>5605795

its not fat. I bet though you're an emaciated vegan with beanpole arms.

>>5593546
naw man.
I ate too much.
I could eat 1 kg of bread and more than 100 grams of chocolate in a single day, plus a load of other shit.
I went on a diet of around 1000-1200 calories a day(the amount could vary based on what i needed) but still eating everything, pasta, chocolate, fruit, nuts, meat, legumes, vegetables, I'm not excluding anything.
Except bread, because it gives me cravings and leads me to overeat.
And my diet now is much more nutritionally rich than in the past, when I basically ate few types of food but binged on them.

And it works specifically because I lost weight fast. I tried the "don't lose weight too fast" diets, and they always failed because you get frustrated at seeing that you don't lose weight. Plus the idea that we need to eat a lot is terribly flawed.
I lost the first 8 kgs in 8 days, then the loss went slower, and now I'm at less than a kg a week. Considering that I'm still overweight the amount I'm eating now could ell be what I need to eat once I reach my target weight.

>>5605805
I'm an emaciated anorexic/low-carber with beanpole arms, thank you very much.

>>5605781

Wheat Belly Live - My interview with Dr. William …: http://youtu.be/DfY0qnH-m8I

he became a diabetic AFTER becoming a vegetarian. interesting video.

>>5605815

time-stamped pic or stfu

>>5605823
That would prove nothing other than things which you already believe. No photo would prove that I'm a low-carber.

>>5605821

Being a vegetarian doesn't make you immune to diabetes of course. He talks about eating refined grains, which everyone agrees are bad for you. I'll even assume his anecdote is true, and I'll go ahead and agree with him that people shouldn't eat refined wheat. What point were you going for though?

>>5605832

a few gram of fiber doesn't protect you from diabetes. it's the superstarch in wheats that bad for you. its worse than table sugar.

white bread or whole grain doesn't make a difference.

>inb4 observational study link without experiments to backup the observations with hard evidence.

>>5605845

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16469984
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16400060
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24158434
http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797(13)00085-9/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22132324
http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n1/abs/1602902a.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17760498
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14747241

You can ignore the data if you want, but it still exists

>>5600018
>t would be great if we can have some proper research into these diets
proper research is what let us know that keto diet is bullshit and carbo are good for us.
You are the one spreading misinformation.

>Myth #2: Fiber reduces blood sugar levels and prevents diabetes, metabolic disorders, and weight gain.

>Reality: That's a blatant deception. If you consume 100 g of plain table sugar at once, the blood absorbs all 100 g of sugar almost as soon as it reaches the small intestine, where the assimilation takes place. If you add 30 g of fiber into the mix, the fiber will first clog the stomach for a while. Second, it will partially block intestinal absorption, which, in turn, will extend the rate of sugar assimilation into the blood, from, let‘s say, one hour to three.

>But at the end of those extra three hours the blood will still absorb exactly the same 100 g of sugar—not an iota more, not an iota less. If you are a diabetic, the only difference will be that you‘ll require more extended (long-acting) insulin (for type 1 diabetes) or larger doses of medicine (for type 2 diabetes) to deal with slow-digesting sugars, and your blood glucose test will not spike as high after the meal.

>But you‘re fooling no one but a glucose meter. In all other respects, the damage will be all the same, or even worse. That's because the carbohydrate load on the cells, liver, pancreas, and kidneys from extended sugar digestion, elevated insulin, and high triglycerides (assimilated fatty acids) is much higher. And that‘s even before taking into account the negative impact of fiber on the digestive organs, or hyperinsulinemia and triglycerides on the heart, blood vessels, and blood pressure.

>Once inside the large intestine, most of that fiber will get fermented into volatile gases (cause bloating, cramping, and flatulence); short-chain fatty acids (at 2.5 to 4 calories per g, in excess cause anal itching, diarrhea, and hemorrhoidal inflammation); and alcohols (at 7 calories per g). Most of those substances get assimilated into your blood as fast as bacteria can make it happen.

>Now, on top of nauseating gases and extra calories from fatty acids, you are also getting hit with alcohols, including methanol, which is quite toxic even in trace amounts. So if you still can't pin down the causes of that nagging migraine, or lousy sleep pattern, or anxiety, or depression, or fatigue, then just shut down that little distillery inside your gut. 'Sober up,' and enjoy some peace and quiet.

sounds really healthy.

>>5605881

Green text means it's true

>>5605893

yes.

>>5605881
>>5605887

Why do you keep going to "alternative nutrition" websites for information and acting like everything they say is fact? The reason they're "alternative" is because they aren't accepted by the mainstream. You can make up anything and put it on a website and claim it's true and that everyone else is wrong, but that doesn't make it true. If they were true, at the very least you could find a study that showed people getting their carbohydrates from beans and whole grains and developing type 2 diabetes

I've always wanted to know: what makes whole grains healthy, exactly? What nutrients do they provide which make them this sort of superfood?

>>5605904

why do you have to have the last word? why have you been up all day posting in the same thread?

>>5605904
because proper science doesn't agree with him because of the conspiracy of the vegetables and grains multinationals obviously.

>>5605917

Their fiber and beta-glucan content lowers LDL cholesterol, their phytic acid is a powerful cancer-fighting antioxidant, as well as lignans. Different types of grains also have different phyotchemical compounds, mainly phenolics, like the avenanthramides in oats

>>5605922

lowcarb is closet to the original human diet. early man did not have agriculture. that means he didn't eat grain. how could low carb be bad for us?

>>5605933

I don't think you've done enough research to know what the original human diet was. Regardless, if virtually all data shows grain consumption to be good, why would you possibly say it's bad? You need a better reason than "we didn't eat it 100,000 years ago." Nothing you eat today existed in the same form back then either

>>5605943

the first humans farmed grain?! I am shocked.

>>5605961

Does the diet of people who lived to be 35 really matter? We don't base our diet recommendations on archaeology, we base it on science

>>5605964

everything you believe is based on soft science. in other words bullshit....

>>5605968

that's because vegans won't study the effects of different diets on monkeys and dissect them.

>>5605968
>>5605976

Are you responding to yourself to agree with yourself now?

>>5605981

baseless accusation

What you need to avoid a processed starchy carbs and glucose. Fructose is fine so fruits are good. Vegetables except most common potato varieties are all fine (sweet potatoes and yams aren't bad).

Plus plenty of any kind of protein and not too much dairy while avoiding transfats. It's really not a bad diet. Certainly not unnatural. The controversial part is that it's not about calorie counting and doesn't consider animal fats bad.

>>5602178
>forum
I remember my first months on 4chan

>>5605968
This. Many science 'facts' 50 years ago would sound like the dark ages to us now and doctors are still wandering in the dark with how the human body is meant to work.

Take that documentary film, Supersize Me. The guy had full medical monitoring and experts who 'knew' what a McDonalds diet will do to him, only to be surprised and baffled when he displayed a lot of other syndromes too.

Maybe a guy can live on bread forever but if it were that easy, nobody would be fat. Haven't had such trouble with sticking to the Keto diet.

>>5606004

>Many science 'facts' 50 years ago would sound like the dark ages to us now and doctors are still wandering in the dark with how the human body is meant to work.

Can you give some examples so I know what you mean?

>>5606002
I don't know who you are but don't talk to me like that on this forum. Where i am from we do not tolerate disrespect from other human beings. So please keep the disrespect to a minimum.

>>5606007
What would that prove? That science is never wrong, ever?

>>5606014

I just want to know in general what you're referring to

>>5605930
Alright.
Whole grains are different from refined grains because they contain these nutrients, and these differences are sufficient to justify making whole grains the backbone of one's diet; since refined grains do not contain these nutrients, we do not recommend that people make these the backbone of their diets and, in fact, recommend that against consuming them in the first place.
My challenge for you is simple: given the fact that many other foods have a similar or greater number of unique nutritional qualities, justify your belief that whole grains are not merely a health-food, but should compose the backbone of the diet, as refined grains and starches do. I believe that whole-grains have many nutritional qualities which make them good, but, weighing their unique qualities against those of other foods (e.g. mushrooms, various nuts), I do not believe that they are indispensable in the diet.

>>5606020
Please excuse the errors, I didn't really proofread that very thoroughly

>>5606020

I would say that you could do well with other foods, like beans as some cultures have or sweet potato like they do in okinawa and peru. I don't think it's viable to obtain the bulk of your calories from mushrooms and nuts though, but of course I do recommend having nuts and mushrooms in the diet. Whole grains are a good base for a diet because, as it seems we both now agree, they are good for you and there's no reason not to eat them. Vegetables and fruits are hard to obtain adequate calories from and so are better used to supplement a diet that obtains most of its calories elsewhere. Ideally you would have some of everything though. Grains, beans, vegetables, fruits, nuts, mushrooms, sweet potatoes. If you don't want grains, fair enough, eat more beans and sweet potatoes. I think doing so would be arbritrary though

>>5606048

Fat and protein can be the bulk of those calories.

>inb4 cherry picked ancel keys seven country study.

>>5606080

They can, but then you die prematurely of cardiovascular disease and cancer. Despite what you may have heard in sensationalist media, Ancel Keys' six country study was not cherry picked. The lipid hypothesis is still in use today because it works, and it's been demonstrated to work and snowballing data for decades to the point where it simply can't be proven wrong now. Much like evangelical Christian groups still try to poke holes in evolution, we have people who try to confuse ignorant people who aren't scientifically educated into believing the basis of all medical knowledge was based on "bad science" that only they were smart enough to see through

>>5606048
Just FYI:
>>5606020
This is me.
>>5606080
This is not me.

https://www.swissmilk.ch/fileadmin/filemount/santos-12-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis-of-clinical-trials-of-the-effects-of-low-carbohydrate-diets-on-cardiovascular-risk-factors.pdf
I'm surprised nobody's even mentioned meta-analyses yet

>>5606206

Meta analysis tend to lose their luster when you actually read the studies they chose, and even moreso when you see names like "Krauss et all" in the studies list

>>5606099

His study excluded the high fat low sugar countries with good health. the data was cherry picked you vegan idiot.

>Keys collected data on deaths from coronary heart disease and fat consumption from 22 countries. Despite the fact that 22 countries provided statistics, Keys cherry-picked the data from the 7 countries which supported his theory that animal fat was the main cause of coronary heart disease in order to publicize his opinions.

22 countries and he cherry picks 7. Why?

>>5606251

He excluded countries with data that couldn't be used. Several countries' diets during the study period changed due to World War II, Mexico hadn't developed an official death record system, France had a different way of categorizing death from heart-related diseases, etc.

>>5606273

Citation needed. What about the other 20 countries left?

>>5606302

I know you hate it, but it's easier to post this page with everything organized and laid out

http://plantpositive.squarespace.com/blog/2014/6/28/how-time-magazine-sacrificed-its-standards-to-promote-satura.html#_edn6

It's especially useful because you can see what Keys himself said in response to critics of his time.

>>5606343

That's an opinion piece. No citation for the cherry picked data. Just claims without footnotes.

>>5606351

What do you mean? It's an analysis of the data and the response to the data with citations to support it

>>5606354

No citations just claims.

>>5606356

Except for the citations

>>5606361

Opinion is not citation....

>>5606369

Right, but then there's numbers in brackets that refer to a list of citations at the bottom of the page. I don't understand what you're doing right now

>>5606372

You've been up 12 hours replying to the same thread. Are you on meth?

>>5606379

So I take it you're dropping the cherry-picking claim now

>>5606383

No. I don't trust your source. Are you a Tina smoking faggot? Is that why you're obsessed with this thread? Is that why you're skinny as a rail?

>>5606383

Put down the pipe and go to sleep.

>>5606389
>>5606398

>>5606402

That's ok you can have the last word.

>>5606379
>>5606389
>>5606398

Not him but

>Refuses to acknowledge sources.
>Pushed to acknowledge them.
>Switch discussion to 'why are you so interested anyway?'

Vegans spends over 12 hours arguing. Winner?

Based on time stamps in this thread this vegan idiot has been arguing with more than one person in the same thread all day long.

>>5606407

It's just easier for the guy to believe that all of modern medical practice is one big conspiracy and that doctors with decades of experience treating and researching heart health are all as clueless as any random guy off the street. In his mind, Ornish and Esselstyn curing heart disease with a diet less than 10% fat and 70+% whole food carbohydrates didn't happen, Atkins didn't die obese with heart disease at age 72, Weston A. Price didn't die of a heart attack at age 77, and Ancel Keys didn't live to 100 either

To him, this guy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Roberts

With over 50 years experience in cardiology, over 1500 published articles, who is the current editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, knows less about heart health than a 27 year old blogger like Denise Minger. The world's foremost experts are all "behind the times" and only people running obscure web blogs about paleo and low carb principles know the truth about diet and health, and it happens to be the opposite of what everyone else says. Also, they want you to buy their new book

>>5606439

Atkins died of a head injury.

>>5606439

Adam Yach and Steve Jobs didn't feed their cancer with high carb veganism.

>>5606445

He had a (second) heart attack and hit his head. When admitted to the hospital, he was noted for his history of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and hypertension. His wife refused to allow an autopsy.

>>5606450

I agree they shouldn't have believed that adopting a vegan diet after being diagnosed with cancer would cure their cancer

>>5606466

Because that's unheard of in 72 year olds.

>>5606466
lel who cares if he died at the ripe age of 70 whatever from a high fat diet.

keto should only be used for short periods of time for quick results. this shit aint a fucking lifestle

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4230348/ns/health-fitness/t/atkins-medical-recordsspark-diet-controversy/

The group claimed the Atkins diet led to weight and heart troubles for its 72-year-old creator. But his allies countered that he had gained more than 60 pounds through fluid retention in the eight days he spent in a coma before dying last April.


“Critically ill patients, when sustained on fluids in the hospital, gain weight,” said Dr. Stuart Trager, chairman of the Atkins Physicians Council, a group affiliated with the Atkins diet empire. “He was grossly swollen, so much so that his family and associates barely recognized him.”

The medical examiner’s report also noted that Atkins had a history of heart trouble, including congestive heart failure and high blood pressure. The Wall Street Journal first reported on the records on Tuesday.

Result of viral infection?
The doctor’s heart troubles had been previously known publicly, and the council asserted Tuesday that they were a result of cardiomyopathy, or an enlarged heart, which it said stemmed from a viral infection, not diet. Trager said Atkins weighed 195 pounds when he was admitted after slipping on an icy street and hitting his head.

>>5606476

It's pretty common in older people who follow bad diets high in saturated fat

>>5606489

http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/atkinsdiet/a/dratkinsdeath.htm

>His coronary arteries were reported to have been checked at that time and found to be free of blockages

>>5606486
Have to wonder what were in the fluids too. Any sugars would have really messed him up.

>>5606500

true. done low carb before and if I decide to splurge and drink a real soda I will get dizzy and nauseous. the first thing they did to atkins was hook him up to some form of sugar drip.

>>5606486

Even when he was alive, you could see he was clearly overweight. He and his wife could use their millions of dollars from book and supplement sales to pay people to cover up his ill health, but you could see the man was in bad shape. His wife's refusal to allow an autopsy for public viewing is pretty telling. Didn't want people to stop buying those "how to get heart disease: the Atkins way" books.

>>5606495

"lowcarbdiets.about.com"

I don't see anything redeeming in that article. His personal cardiologist said "everything's fine." Well that's cool that the guy on his payroll said so, but why was he so unwilling to let someone who he couldn't pay off examine him? Why did his hospital admission report have to leak rather than be freely available?

>>5606507

>"Be thin and healthy like me. Buy my books"

>>5606486
>Trip over curb and hit head.
>Whilst in hospital, get stuffed to the gills with crap that isn't compatible with your diet.
>Bloat the fuck up and die.
>They blame your death on the diet and now not even low-carbers will use your name because of the dirt on it.

>>5606507

I hope you die of cancer you piece of shit. I sincerely mean that.

>>5606524

I know you do, Johnny. I know you do

>>5606507
I guess the other consideration is that he didn't follow his own diet very well. Would suck that he's not setting an example but the guy was old and probably didn't want to spend the rest of his days eating berries and chicken salad all the time. Same as somebody on low-fat.

Things seem so centered around lab results and the death of one man. What about other people who took the diet?

>>5606537

Atkins isn't a lone example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PutaZQN8R34

Video's a bit juvenile, but it's entertaining and makes a point. Unless all the low carb gurus eat a high carb diet and all the high carb health professionals eat a high fat diet, I think we can take SOMETHING from the comparison considering these are the people who would be following their diets as closely as possible and over long periods of time

>>5606547

are you two fucking each other?

>>5606557
top m8, kek

EGOR = Vegetarian + Starchivore.

VEGOR SAYS,
“Eat all plants, no animals, no oils, period.”
“Eat 80% starches & 20% fruits and vegetables.”
“Eat all you like, for the rest of your life.”

Because fuck protein that's why.

>>5606617

enjoy your butt cancer

>>5605781

confirmed for Mexican cunt.

>>5606643
Accurate. Too many people think low-carb means munching down buckets of bacon all day.

>>5606663

Mexican stronk.