/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.11764906]

Why do they include calorie information in menus but never sugar or salt content?

Counting calories is a meme

[Anonymous No.11764915]

>>11764906
Obesity is the biggest concern for the average person so it makes more sense that that'd be the only thing they really list. A lot of people don't know how to translate grams into teaspoons or anything either so the numbers for that stuff don't mean much to them anyway.

I do wish more things would list sugar content though. I always hate buying something that doesn't list it and finding it's too sweet. Happens a lot with beer because there's no nutrition label, although I hope that'll change since Budweiser is starting to do it.

[Anonymous No.11764917]

>Calories only matter
>It doesn't matter where the calories come from

[Anonymous No.11764919]

>precise measurement of avocado
>lol half a medium avocado xd

[Anonymous No.11764921]

>>11764906
if you drink enough water your sodium intake shouldn’t even matter desu

[Anonymous No.11764925]

>>11764919
god damn it i wrote avocado twice

[Anonymous No.11764930]

>>11764919
Are you one of those autistic fucktards who sperg out when a recipe calls for a pinch of salt instead of exact measurements in tenth of a gram?

[Anonymous No.11764935]

>>11764930
only if i'm baking
but it's a retarded and purposefully misleading way of trying to prove your point

[Anonymous No.11764953]

>healthy fats bad too many calories
>processed chocolate spread good

[Anonymous No.11764956]

>>11764935
I don't understand what's so triggering about "half an avocado" unless you're on a strict cut and weighing absolutely everything you eat

[Anonymous No.11764967]

>>11764917
Calories in calories out dumbass.

[Anonymous No.11764971]

>>11764919
LOL can I save this picture?

[Anonymous No.11764984]

>>11764956
because the infographic is meaningless unless it's measured consistently and accurately

[Anonymous No.11764989]

>>11764967
Yes only dumbasses use that as a metric of health

[Anonymous No.11764995]

>>11764956
>>11764984
and because half an avocado probably weighs 75 grams so no shit 75 grams of fat is probably going to have more calories than 30 grams of fat and sugar

[Anonymous No.11764998]

>>11764989
it's the only metric for weight loss/gain. Which is the context of OP's pic.

[Anonymous No.11764999]

>*Viewing food in the contexts of energy balance and nutrient consumption is more useful

So why even bother with the picture?

[Anonymous No.11765000]

>>11764989
It's a low effort infographic targeting women on Instagram, not meant to be accurate anyway. Everyone gets the point

[Anonymous No.11765004]

>>11764998
>its the only metric for weight loss gain
Nope

>Which is the context of OP's pic.
Also nope. Literally says at the bottom.

[Anonymous No.11765012]

>>11765004
>Nope
You're retarded. Weight loss is only about calories.

[Anonymous No.11765045]

>>11764967
Listen mate, CICO is an alright way of dieting; provided you do it right. If you're eating 2000cal of sugar and fat every single day, it really won't matter how much CO you do. You're going to be an unhealthy fucker with debilitating nutritional problems.

CICO works best on a balanced diet. So if you're diet is consisting of many sugars, fats, and whatever, without getting necessary vitamins, minerals, proteins, grains, veggies, and so on, CICO can only do so much.

[Anonymous No.11765048]

>>11764906
I don't know what this image is trying to convey. The message at the bottom contradicts the DEMONIZED part

[Anonymous No.11765051]

>>11765012
>You’re retarded
From the neanderthal that can’t read one sentence in 100kb picture

>Weight loss is only about calories.
Different foods get metabolized differently. It’s not foolproof. Metabolism, absorption, and endocrinology as a whole are things for a reason

Dummy

[Anonymous No.11765054]

>>11764906
>Counting calories is a meme
I say fuck you.

[Anonymous No.11765059]

>>11764953
unironically this, you have to consider where your calories are coming from, not just that you're consuming more/fewer calories. fuck, people piss me off.

[Anonymous No.11765063]

>>11765045
>>11765051
literal dumbases.

[jevin No.11765065]

>>11764906
>Counting calories is a meme
no it isnt

[Anonymous No.11765070]

>>11765063
Yes people who think eating celery is like eating cotton candy is a dumbass

[Anonymous No.11765072]

>>11765070
strawman more retard.

[Anonymous No.11765075]

>>11765065
>2 untouched burgers
>2 untouched orders of nuggets
I can guarantee you she ate that 1 french fry for the shoot and gave the rest to the camera man. She probably purged after eating that 1 french fry, too.

[Anonymous No.11765077]

>>11765070
you can lose weight eating either or.

[Anonymous No.11765091]

>>11764919
kek that image you fucking idiot

[Anonymous No.11765093]

>>11765072
You don’t even know what strawman means you illiterate retard

[Anonymous No.11765096]

>>11764971
>>11764971
It's all yours friend :^)

> courtesy of a nice meme board member of >>>/s4s/

[jevin No.11765098]

>>11765075
she went to the doctor and they said she was overweight and shouldnt eat anything anymore

[Anonymous No.11765102]

>>11765093
Nobody said anything about celery or cotton candy. Other than the strawman he made up in his wittle retarded thoughtless mind.

[Anonymous No.11765123]

>>11764953
i mostly agree with you, but nut butter made with cocoa powder is mostly healthy fats. if they skipped the palm shortening it'd be better.

>>11764967
>what is satiety

[Anonymous No.11765189]

>>11764953
also dont forget, the sugar in juice vs sugar in processed shit meme

[Anonymous No.11765197]

>>11764919
how can his tail hurt if it's fucking entirely gone? does he have phantom limb syndrome?

[Anonymous No.11765205]

>>11764906
I'm sure eating 1/2 an avocado is still healthier than shoveling 30g of palm oil and sugar in your mouth.

[Anonymous No.11765207]

2018 and people still falling for the sugar is bad meme

[Anonymous No.11765212]

>>11765102
>Nobody said anything
Did I say someone did? Can I not say anything unless you bring it up first massa! No massa sir a strawman massa sir oh no yes it is sir massa!

[Anonymous No.11765220]

>>11764906
why not post calories from fat and grams of fat per serving

[Anonymous No.11765222]

>processed chocolate flavored product is better than an avocado because it has fewer calories

[Anonymous No.11765230]

>>11765123
>satiety
you won't actually feel hunger until you're 2 - 3 days into starving. everything before that is ignorable. this is a common mistake for fatties first trying to lose weight.

[Anonymous No.11765240]

SUGAR CHOCOLATE PASTE

BAD...BAD PALM OIL DESTROY FOREST, SATURATED FAT BAD

CHOCOLATE BAD GREEN SLIME GOOD

MY CELLS USE GLUCOSE BUT SUGAR IS BAD?

[Anonymous No.11765405]

>>11765222
it doesn't even
30g nutella has 81 calories
30g avocado has 48

[Anonymous No.11765474]

>>11764906
The entire point of calories is they tell you *independent of food source* how much food energy you're getting.
>Counting calories is a meme
It's the best and most foolproof way anyone can guarantee consistent, predictable impact on weight. The way people STILL doubt this incredibly clear and well established relationship between food energy and weight gain / loss is testament to the absurd lengths fat people will go to focus on absolutely anything other than their real problem which is caloric surplus.
Reminder it's calories that's the problem, not where you're getting them from.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
Reminder the biggest predictor for type 2 diabetes is your weight, not what kind of food you eat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635590/
>Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese: more than 85% of people with type 2 diabetes in southeast Scotland in 2005 had a body mass index (weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared) of over 25.
Reminder you lose weight even on a vending machine snack diet if you take care of calorie restriction.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
>Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
>His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
>The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
>For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day.
>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal.

[Anonymous No.11765556]

>>11765474
All points granted.
However, every pound of fat is 3500 calories. Let's say an obese person has 100 extra pounds of fat. Then he's consumed an excess of 350000 calories in a lifetime. If you do the math, after 10 years, that comes out to eating an extra 90 calories a day.
That means that to avoid becoming obese, you need to know your daily calorie intake to a precision of 90/2000, which is about 5%. I can guarantee you that the calorie content of foods is not measured to within a precision of 5% (most foods don't even report the least significant digit).

The moral of the story is that overweight people are not gorging themselves, they're slightly overeating on a regular basis.

[Anonymous No.11765649]

>>11764967
(You)

[Anonymous No.11765657]

>>11765556
>That means that to avoid becoming obese, you need to know your daily calorie intake to a precision of 90/2000, which is about 5%.
Well first of all that general concept only applies if you think you need to only do the absolute bare minimum of calorie reduction and not 1 calorie fewer than that. You don't need anywhere near that much precision unless you're as afraid of undershooting your ideal weight as you are of overshooting it, and I don't think most fat people would be upset if they ended up a few extra pounds below their target weight. If anything that just means you should err on the side of fewer calories a bit. That said though:
Your calorie requirements aren't static like that. You don't continue to gain the same amount of weight from the same amount of calories. You gain one pound for every 3500 calories per week over the amount of calories required to maintain your current weight. But if you're gaining weight in this way then the amount of calories required to maintain your new current weight will be more than it was for your past weight.
As an example, if you're a sedentary 150lb man you'll be able to maintain your 150lb weight with around 2,000 calories / day. Eating 2,500 calories for a week would let you gain 1lb. But if you do this long enough to get up to 200lb, your calorie requirements to maintain that new weight of 200lb are now more like 2,300 calories. And you would need to eat 2,800 calories for a week just to gain another 1lb over that 200lb weight.
So no, I don't think you need to worry anywhere near that much about precision in calorie counting because accidentally overeating 90 calories a day isn't going to make you gain extra weight indefinitely like that even in 50 years unless you're overeating 90 over 90 over 90 over 90 over 90 etc. You would need to keep overeating on top of your already existing level of overeating for that to work.

[Anonymous No.11765685]

>>11764906
healthy fat > palm oil and sugar

[Anonymous No.11765704]

>>11764967
CICO is right and as simple as it gets, but you're not going to feel great if you're only pumping sugar into your system. A balanced diet is worth it if you want to want to have a regular blood sugar level throughout the day without any sugar/carb crashes.

[Anonymous No.11765723]

>>11765240
it sure is easy to screech like a retard instead of putting something smart together like >>11765474

[Anonymous No.11766114]

>>11764906
I tried avocado for the first time last month
doesn't really taste like anything
I don't get it

[Anonymous No.11766126]

>>11765000
>>11764999
subsequent trips of agreement and truth

[Anonymous No.11766228]

>>11764906
Equal calories do not mean equal satiation or nutritional composition.

[Anonymous No.11766237]

>>11764967
Theres a difference between weight and health. People have been trying to explain that to you.

[Anonymous No.11766241]

>>11766237
>Theres a difference between weight and health.
Not many. as most debilitating ailments are weight related.

[Anonymous No.11766258]

>>11766114
make sure it's ripe, cut it in half, put a bit of salt and pepper on it, and eat it with a spoon

i don't understand how something my mum used to serve beside dinner is such a meme food now

[Anonymous No.11766264]

>>11766241
Cancer is not weight dependent, neither is heart disease, weight increases the risk but its not the ultimate factor

[Anonymous No.11766270]

>>11766264
heart disease is very much linked to obesity.
Everything causes cancer.

[Anonymous No.11766288]

>>11766270
Correlation != causation; people who are obese often develop heart disease, but not always.

One can't say for sure it's obesity causing heart disease; maybe it's just that obese people are more likely to eat a shit diet, and it's the shit diet causing the disease?

[Anonymous No.11766291]

>>11766288
>Correlation != causation;
But it sure makes you look. Look stop arguing with shitty hypotheticals, there is a direct link between obesity and heart disease.

[Anonymous No.11766292]

>>11766270
Yes. Obesity is a big risk factor but you can still easily develop heart disease without it.

[Anonymous No.11766303]

>>11766288
in this case theres a strong biological plausibility. Obese hearts have to work harder, more strain on the heart over years leads to heart disease. There's no real single observable event that gives you heart disease, and obese people often also have high blood pressure or diabetes which also affect the heart. You can definitely say obesity is a direct contributing factor to the development of heart disease though

[Anonymous No.11766358]

>>11765657
>You would need to keep overeating on top of your already existing level of overeating for that to work.
That was exactly claim. See:
>they're slightly overeating on a regular basis
The point is, there's something wrong with fat people that causes them to eat a slight amount more than they need to. I only raise the point because I find the characterization of fat people as gluttonous slobs to be very dishonest. Yes, they could just eat less, but, because of whatever it is that's wrong with them, eating a normal amount already feels like eating less than they should.

Fat people have a messed up thermostat. For normal people like us, we just eat the amount we think we should and we don't put on weight. Because of how slight the margin is on a daily basis (roughly 90 calories over what they should be eating), it shouldn't be considered a failure of morals, but a failure of bioregulation.

This links up with the OP in the following way: the claim is that what you eat is responsible for setting your thermostat. A fat person consistently overeats because they've eaten a selection of foods that causes their body to think it needs about an extra 5% on top of the calories it needs to sustain its weight.

[Anonymous No.11766359]

CICO is true, but doesn't tell the whole story. Fats are satiating. Sugar and starches are not. Say willpower all you want, humans are not rational creatures. Then there's the whole insulin situation.

[Anonymous No.11766365]

>>11766114
>I tried butter for the first time last month
>doesn't really taste like anything
>I don't get it

[Anonymous No.11766369]

>>11766365
except butter actually tastes like something you stupid nigger

[Anonymous No.11766388]

>>11766358
>I prorated the 90 calories to be over a lifetime.
People don't get fat "over a lifetime" if you believe that then you haven't been married. People get obese in a year or two.

[Anonymous No.11766400]

>>11766264
>Cancer is not weight dependent
Most cancer isn't something you can explain as caused by a particular environmental factor. That's not the right thing to be looking for in the first place. What you look for is whether being overweight increases your risk for cancer, which it very clearly does in the cases of endometrial cancer, esophageal cancer, gastric cardia cancer, liver cancer, kidney cancer, multiple myeloma, meningioma, pancreatic cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, gallbladder cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, etc.
>neither is heart disease
Holy shit, just stop.
>weight increases the risk but its not the ultimate factor
It's the largest, easiest to demonstrate factor there is. It's not like there's some secret other factor like a virus that'll be discovered in the future as the "real" cause of heart disease. There are people who are overweight and don't get heart disease because they die of other things first, or have genetic factors that allow them a bit more tolerance for metabolic abuse than others might get. None of that is exactly a ringing endorsement for obesity.
>>11766237
>Theres a difference between weight and health.
This is such a retarded fat person attempt at an excuse. Yeah, you can get scurvy if you don't eat any vitamin C for a very long time, to the point of abstaining from common shit like a McDonalds ketchup packet since that's how little you need to prevent scurvy. And if you're anorexic you obviously get health problems, which is another way of saying that calories and weight are again what matter, only in reverse this time. Consuming poison will negatively impact your health. Being exposed to carcinogens can result in you developing cancer. And that's about it for the health problems not related to being overweight / obese.

[Anonymous No.11766422]

>>11766358
>they're slightly overeating on a regular basis
There's nothing "slight" about not only overeating but having some sort of insane compound interest version of overeating where you constantly eat more than the already higher amount you ate the prior week. You can't use that as an argument the minor differences between calorie listings on food products and their actual calorie content are enough to make calorie counting not work. And it certainly isn't the "precision of 5%" you're claiming. If you ate 90 calories more than you should have because of food labels understating calorie counts, that's just ONE instance of 90 calories. Not every subsequent instance of 90 more calories over 90 more calories over 90 more calories ad infinitum. All your precision argument really proves is that calorie labels understating counts could result in you gaining a pound more than you were expecting. There is no fucking way you can reasonably blame calorie labels for you gaining *** "100 extra pounds of fat" ***, not even in a thousand years.

[Anonymous No.11766898]

>>11764906
>I am 5 and wut is glycemic index
Back to school cu/ck/.

[Anonymous No.11766942]

>>11765045
WRONG

you've been confused by all the marketing to make you believe you need a constant intake of micronutrients. calories in, calories out, when a man calculates how much food he needs to trek days through the freezing cold where nutrition is key to survival he doesn't sit there and checklist off your "vitamins, minerals, grains, veggies, and so on"

swallowed up morons

[Anonymous No.11766995]

>>11764967
that is true, but if you don't get the nutrients you need to FUNCTION with those calories, you'll have to eat even more calories that contain those. Also, there are things you need to get into your digestive tract to help keep it a little springy that has nothing to do with calories OR nutrients.

calories matter - a lot. But so do many other things.

It's that simple.

[Anonymous No.11767001]

>>11766369
Yeah, it tastes like avocado.

[Anonymous No.11767002]

>>11764930

>are you one of those people who likes genuinely useful metrics?

God forbid see you faggot cunt

[Anonymous No.11767003]

>>11764906

>calories from good unsaturated fats
>complex carbs in a fiber matrix bread
>2016 meme snack
vs
>calories from sugar and palm oil
>enriched refined flour bread
>2012 meme snack
big oof

[Anonymous No.11767025]

>>11767003
Why the image? Cucks and soyboys love them both.

[Anonymous No.11767041]

>>11767025
answered your own question

[Anonymous No.11767044]

>>11767041
No I didn't. That wasn't the implication of your text.

[Anonymous No.11767057]

>>11764995
no dickhead the infograpic is worthless because 2 different "medium avocado" are likely to be different sizes, if only slightly. this means the cal count is inaccurate

[Anonymous No.11767114]

>>11767044
>implying i'm >implying

[Anonymous No.11767120]

>>11767044
Ok then I'll answer it for you. The answer is: because cucks and soyboys love them both

[Anonymous No.11767134]

>>11765123
>what is satiety
An irrelevant emotion. You count your calories, macros, and micronutrients. You don't consume more calories than planned. Feeling hungry? Tough luck, drink water.

[Anonymous No.11767135]

>>11765240
>what is insulin
>what are nutrients

[Anonymous No.11767283]

>>11764906
They choose to go with the most important part to save on menu space. They're required to provide you with the full nutritional value upon request.

[Anonymous No.11767294]

>eat sugar bread
>get blood sugar spike for 15 mins
>feel hungry again after 30 mins
>eat again and gain weight

>eat fatty or protein bread
>no blood sugar spike to speak of
>stay stated longer
>dont eat more and lose weight

[Anonymous No.11767302]

>>11765212
you sound like a fag i know named Mark
everyone i know hates Mark
don't be a Mark

[Anonymous No.11767309]

>>11765045
>he thinks thermodynamics will suddenly stop working because his body doesn't have the daily recommended 5L of vitamin B12
sometimes i wish i could be as retarded as you. life would be so simple

[Anonymous No.11767327]

>>11767302
you sound like a cringey facebook meme from 5 years ago

[Anonymous No.11767335]

>>11766358
>fatty cope bullshit on /ck/
well colour me surprised

[Anonymous No.11767378]

>>11767327
>using facebook ever
don't reply to me again

[Anonymous No.11767380]

>>11766264
>neither is heart disease
i would laugh at that if my crippling obesity wouldn't cause my lungs to collapse and my heart to fibrillate

[Anonymous No.11767389]

Nutella has a shitload of cheap palm-oil.

[Anonymous No.11767400]

>>11764906
well the avocado has a better nutrition profile and isn't processed. Those are two things you should watch if you want to eat healthy

[Anonymous No.11767439]

>>11767400
Dosent change body composition tho

[Anonymous No.11767451]

>CICO is a meme!
When did tumblr take over?

[Anonymous No.11767455]

Someone eating garbage every day but weighs a normal weight is healthier than an obese person who only eats unprocessed "healthy" foods. How hard is this to understand?

[Anonymous No.11767578]

>>11767294
>feel hungry again after 30 mins
>eat again and gain weight
Can someone explain the logical connection between these two statements? You could just decide NOT to eat again if it doesn't fit within your daily calories, like a rational human being.

Oh, wait.
>fatties
>rational human beings

[Anonymous No.11767588]

>>11767578
Humans are evolved beings with hormones, not robots like you.

[Anonymous No.11767618]

>>11767588
>I must slavishly obey my base instincts
Humans evolved the ability to think on the consequences of their actions. Eating whenever your ghrelin levels tell you to, until you're a morbidly obese diabetic is negleting the part of you that makes you human. Therefore, fatties aren't human.

[Anonymous No.11767620]

>>11767588
Do you have no self control? Are you 12?

[Anonymous No.11767633]

>>11767618
>>11767620
What irony.
Why are you wasting your time on 4chan when you could be using your self control to do something useful with your time.

[Anonymous No.11767651]

>>11767633
I'm literally at work

[Anonymous No.11767659]

>>11767651
>job where you have time browse 4chan
Sounds like someone didn't use his infinite will power to study enough to find an actual career. Almost like you like procrastinating because your brain is so silly.

[Anonymous No.11767675]

>>11767633
nice deflection.
How about you answer the questions posed to you, fatty?

[Anonymous No.11767687]

>>11767659
>Sounds like someone didn't use his infinite will power to study enough to find an actual career.
What kind of shitty job do you work where you're not allowed to shitpost inbetween e-mails

[Anonymous No.11767697]

>>11767309
He said "unhealthy" not "fat", there is a difference.

all fat people are unhealthy, but not all healthy people are fat. If you can't understand that, then I'd say stop eating food with potassium in it, and die from hyperkalemia

[Anonymous No.11767699]

>>11767651
no you're not. you're literally posting on the 4chan(nel)

[Anonymous No.11767707]

>>11767659
I'm currently writing a report for my master's degree and I shitpost from time to time. Back to you, fattie.

[Anonymous No.11767713]

>>11767699
>no you're not
I'm at my desk right now

[Anonymous No.11767782]

>>11764915
>Beer
>sugar
I weep for you, burger. If you' ever visit civilization, I'll buy you a bratwurst and a real beer.

[Anonymous No.11767807]

>>11765207
Redpill me anon.

[Anonymous No.11767882]

>>11765474
While I agree with you, the last point is just bait. I doesn't matter what a single individual is doing when you're discussing population.
>>11767057
No that is really not the problem. Even if you get the average of all avocados as a measurement, the image is still a shit comparison. You have to keep either the mass of ingredients steady and measure calories or keep calories steady and compare mass. Something needs to be steady for the comparison to have any meaning.,
>>11766114
It pretty lucklaster desu. Make a mix with lemon/lime, red onion, salt and some heat from any hot pepper you like.
>>11766288
Only there is a causal link in animal models since you have absolute control over their diet and genetics.

[Anonymous No.11767889]

>>11767439
eating healthily does alter your hormonal profile for the better which aids in body composition

[Anonymous No.11767917]

>>11767713
so? that doesn't mean you're "at work" that means you're "at play" by posting
>>11767782
There was this guy with a stomach condition where if he would eat sweet things it would turn into alcohol in his body and make him drunk. He'd be over the legal limit if he had dinner with dessert and no alcohol while eating out.

[Anonymous No.11768303]

>>11764967
Then have nothing but a cup of oil per day

[Anonymous No.11768649]

>>11767455
>Someone eating garbage every day but weighs a normal weight is healthier than an obese person who only eats unprocessed "healthy" foods. How hard is this to understand?
Fat people literally believe you can be a healthy 300 pounder and some other guy maintaining a 150 pound weight is less healthy than they are because that normal weight guy drinks soda.
It's such a shamefully obvious avoidance attempt, but that's how they operate: Find and hammer on all the insane, rare exception cases they can think up and focus on the 0.0001% of reality instead of the 99.9999% of it. And even that's being too kind since a lot of the imaginary exception cases they dwell on don't exist at all rather than just being stupidly rare and irrelevant. It also doesn't help that they can't into math:
>>11765556
>Every pound of fat is 3500 calories. Let's say an obese person has 100 extra pounds of fat. Then he's consumed an excess of 350000 calories in a lifetime. If you do the math, after 10 years, that comes out to eating an extra 90 calories a day.
>That means that to avoid becoming obese, you need to know your daily calorie intake to a precision of 90/2000, which is about 5%.
>Overweight people are not gorging themselves, they're slightly overeating on a regular basis.
90 calories extra ("slight overeating") would be downing 2090 calories every day, which would never make you 100lb overweight. You would go from 150lb to 155lb at most, at which point eating 2090 calories would just maintain your slightly higher weight. You would need to be "imprecise" about 800 calories (40% of your calorie intake), not 90 (5%). If you accidentally eat 800 calories over the right amount every day that's not "slight overeating."

[Anonymous No.11768676]

Why isn't all food just the nutrition label across the whole surface area?

[Anonymous No.11768899]

>>11767807
I like sugar so it can't be bad

[Anonymous No.11769086]

>>11768676
A lot of wasted space for information most don't care about. Better to just provide the full nutritional value on a separate board or pamphlet for those few who care.

[Anonymous No.11769127]

>*Viewing food in the contexts of energy balance and nutrient consumption is more useful
So doesn't that prove the image wrong? I don't get this facebook meme

[Anonymous No.11769175]

[Anonymous No.11769189]

>>11767782
you know nothing about beer

[Anonymous No.11769639]

Counting isnt a meme it works op is tardmode

[Anonymous No.11769664]

>>11767782
It's not a problem with most beers, it's still easy to find beer without sugar, but sometimes I like to get a fruit lambic or something like that and the label will say "mildly sweet" but it's just like drinking a soda. I'd like to be able to directly see how much sugar is in a serving for cases like that so I can accurately know how much sugar is in it instead of relying on someone else's opinion.

[Anonymous No.11769682]

>>11764967
>what are nutrients

[Anonymous No.11769687]

>>11768899
Kek'd and checked.

[Anonymous No.11769693]

>>11766942
Ever heard of scurvy?

[Anonymous No.11769815]

>>11766942
We are not in 18th century Siberia

[Anonymous No.11769936]

>>11765474

Counting calories isnt a meme but macronutrients matter.

Not only for physical health but the amount of carbs/protein/fat you ingest can influence how much weight you can gain, even your eating periods.

2,000 calories of a balanced diet vs 2,000 calories of simple carbs/sugar, you will gain more weight due to the latter causing a much greater intensity in insulin secretion.

Thats not to say that you cant lose weight eating sugar but it will definitely make it harder, not the mention how sugar influences gut bacteria/ghrelin/neurotransmitters.

>>11764906
Hell you seem to have missed the entire point of this picture, the first is on brown bread (higher fibre content/complex carbohydrate (takes longer to break down and hence smaller insulin response = high glycemic index) with a topping that is calorically dense but also loaded with unsaturated fats/oils and some vitamins, antioxidants, fibre) vs white bread (simpler carbohydrate) with a topping that consists of palm oil and sugar (both calorically dense but have no real nutritional value)

tl;dr you can survive on sugar but you wont be healthy and it does have an influence on weight/fat loss

[Anonymous No.11770118]

>>11769936
>2,000 calories of a balanced diet vs 2,000 calories of simple carbs/sugar, you will gain more weight due to the latter causing a much greater intensity in insulin secretion.
You're differentiating between weight gain vs. weight loss, and I really don't see why it wouldn't matter for weight loss but would matter for weight gain. But most if not all of these studies are done on weight loss for obvious ethical reasons, so I can't say I have something available that specifically shows macronutrient ratio not changing the amount of weight gained.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7096307_Ketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets_have_no_metabolic_advantage_over_nonketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets
>Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets
>KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.
RE: Insulin, that matters if you're diabetic or "pre-diabetic." I don't think there's much evidence blood sugar spikes are going to cause you harm or change how the relationships between calories and your weight works when you aren't diabetic or overweight though. That's basically the definition of type 2 diabetes, when you're past the breaking point and your body begins not being able to deal with blood sugar spikes. And you generally need to gain a lot of weight first before you can reach that breaking point. It could have been the case that type 2 diabetes was best predicted by the kind of food you ate and not how heavy you are, but in reality it's the opposite.

[Anonymous No.11770130]

>>11764906
Bruh that is not 1/2 of an avocado on that toast

[Anonymous No.11770131]

>>11765474
Amen, fat people will come up with any excuse not to tackle their problems.

[Anonymous No.11770241]

>>11765474
that last one is literally one fucking guy that's not science holy shit

[Anonymous No.11770264]

>>11770241
Shut the fuck up, fatty. Mentioning the example of that nutrition professor losing weight on crap from vending machines doesn't invalidate the fifty actual studies everyone's walked you through multiple times now. There's literally nothing wrong with bringing it up.

[Bruce Springstein fucking suck(...) No.11770271]

>>11764919
Nice picture, mind if I save it?

[Anonymous No.11770394]

>>11766114
Avacado needs SALT

[Anonymous No.11770552]

>>11764906
Slice of wheat - 100-120 Cal
50g-65g (1/2 medium avocado) - 80-105 Cal

Stop lying.

[Anonymous No.11770608]

>>11767134
>being too dumb to make things easier for yourself

[Anonymous No.11770639]

>>11764906
The calories in that nutella
>shit
are all processed sugar and chemicals and additives, and youre gonna be hungry again real soon whereas the raw lovely avo has no preservatives or chemicals or fuck knows what else and is healthier n more filling

>fuck you n your bait thread do you work for gnutella?

[Anonymous No.11770939]

>>11764906
if you realized how much diabetes-causing sugar is entering your body from your food, especially from fruits, vegetables, and grains, you wouldn't want to eat them anymore. The globalists don't want you to stop eating those things, so they will never pass a law that exposes how bad this diet is for you.

[Anonymous No.11771483]

>>11770118
>https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7096307_Ketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets_have_no_metabolic_advantage_over_nonketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets

again you're missing the point, even that study highlights that the food itself used was balanced in nutrition following a regular diet and included fibre/complex carb foods.

you're neglecting the importance of low GI foods in insulin control, if you're OP, you're not getting why one is idolized and one isnt.

sure you can lose weight on a non-keto diet, but if you're losing weight eating 1500 calories of nutella or twinkles every day, your health is going to be awful and the presence of low GI foods WILL affect your blood glucose level and respective amount of fat gained/loss.

[Anonymous No.11771488]

>>11771483
Nutella is low GI, dude. Everybody knows that. It's part of why people abandoned it as a sensible metric.

[Anonymous No.11771524]

>>11767309
>talks about being retarded
>can't even read
You can be unhealthy even if you're not fat, you dense motherfucker
CICO works if all you want is losing weight, but try eating nothing but 1200kcal of sugars everyday, see where that gets you

[Anonymous No.11771658]

>>11767134
What is it called where you throw up the water you drink on an empty stomach? Genuinely curious. This will happen if I skip breakfast and wait too long to eat lunch

[Anonymous No.11771897]

>>11771658
That's not normal anon, get yourself checked

[Anonymous No.11772041]

Micromanaging your macro spread for general health is retarded. It's important to consider where your calories come from, but anything beyond "this dish probably has too much sugar in it" is moronic.

[Anonymous No.11772098]

>>11764967
Calories in calories out isn't wrong, its just an incomplete understanding of nutrition. A healthy diet is more than just not eating too much.
.

[Anonymous No.11772103]

>>11772098
Calories in calories out isn't supposed to even begin to touch on nutrition. It's only about weight gain or loss. Energy. Nutrition is a totally different subject altogether.

[Anonymous No.11772117]

Literally just been eating less calories than my maintenance intake for the last 2 months and have lost 20~ pounds, still having candy and sweets, burg every now and again. I assume many people are chubbies in this thread who are trying to over complicate weight loss. Burn more calories than you intake. That's it dummies. Like >>11772103 just mentioned nutrition is a different bag all together.
Sitting at a svelte 135-140lbs right now feels good, try it sometime. I can wear tight clothes and tuck my button up shirts in which I often do now. Get some exercise in too. It's not hard it's just an oz of self control and meal planning skills.

[Anonymous No.11772294]

>>11764967
But ONLY considering weight gain/loss. NOT health or nutritional value

[Anonymous No.11772392]

>>11764906
>Counting calories is a meme
its literally the only thing that really matters in diets.

[Anonymous No.11772403]

>>11770639
yeah the avocado tastes so shitty you totally lose any appetite, thats true, i give you that.

[Anonymous No.11772417]

>>11764906
>the breads are different
>amount of nutella and avocado is different
people who make these images should be shot

[Anonymous No.11772437]

>>11767633
YOU FAT FUCK

[Anonymous No.11772547]

>>11772392
Depends what you mean by diet. "Going on a diet" is retarded unless your definition is just cutting calories. "Having a good diet" is, well, a good thing that you should strive to achieve.

[Anonymous No.11772561]

>>11772392
Not really, if you were working out and looking to build muscle, yes you'd need set yourself calorie surplus but you'd also need the right amount macronutrients

[Anonymous No.11772821]

>>11764930
But pinch is a precise measurement. Have you been eyeballing it this whole time?

[Anonymous No.11773044]

>>11765054
left is soul
right is soulless

[Anonymous No.11773098]

>>11772821
I mean the point is really that they're talking about a different of 13kcal, using a specific amount of nutella, and then saying "uuuuh yeah like fuckin half an avocado"

[Anonymous No.11773105]

>>11773098
Meant for
>>11764930

[Anonymous No.11773112]

>>11765197
You just answered yourself, friend.

[Anonymous No.11773239]

>>11767697
> all fat people are unhealthy, but not all healthy people are fat
if all fat people are unhealthy then no healthy person is fat. are you okay, do you have brain damage?

[Anonymous No.11773240]

Why don't people understand that the calorie in calorie out method is meant for just losing weight? Whether the person decides to lose it in a healthy way or not depends on them.

[Anonymous No.11773257]

>>11765207
>T. Sugar company

[Anonymous No.11773276]

>>11764906
>Counting calories is a meme

Yes and no, but what IS a meme is when people spout off "laws of thermodynamics" as though all calories are created equal and treated as such by the body.

[Anonymous No.11773277]

>>11773240
Because people constantly use the word "diet" without clarifying wether they mean "a diet" or "your diet". They have pretty different meanings, but they end up getting conflated whenever this conversation happens so people just argue past each other.

[Anonymous No.11773352]

>>11773276
>when people spout off "laws of thermodynamics" as though all calories are created equal and treated as such by the body.
If you're not a diabetic and your body can still process sugar normally then a calorie IS going to be "equal" regardless of food source. That's the entire fucking point of having calories as a unit of measurement.

[Anonymous No.11773359]

>>11773352
How does fiber work then?

[Anonymous No.11773368]

>>11764906
Of course counting calories is bullshit, but that still doesnt mean Nutella or whatever that is isnt worse than something because it has less calories. It's about the entire picture of what you're putting in your body, if you're eating and drinking stuff that has a lot of calories but nothing your body actually needs (like Coke) its a problem

[Anonymous No.11773374]

>>11773359
Insoluble fiber has no (human digestible) calories. Not sure what your point is. You know the calorie labels are based on how many calories you will be able to digest with a human GI tract, right? Just because a ruminant with extra stomachs could get calories out of it doesn't mean that those cow digestible calories are listed in the food you're going to eat.

[Anonymous No.11773380]

>>11772547
Diet is the total composition of what you eat.

[Anonymous No.11773386]

>>11773368
>Of course counting calories is bullshit
It's not bullshit. It's by far the least bullshit thing in this thread.

[Anonymous No.11773387]

>>11773374
Are you sure? Because fiber is counted as a carb even though it doesn't count as one of those either.

[Anonymous No.11773403]

>>11773387
Fake news. Insoluble fiber isn't digested. It just has some potential benefits for normalizing your bowel movements by adding bulk to your stool.
https://www.webmd.com/women/features/net-carb-debate
>In an effort to cash in on the low-carb craze, food manufacturers have invented a new category of carbohydrates known as "net carbs," which promises to let dieters eat the sweet and creamy foods they crave without suffering the carb consequences.
>But the problem is that there is no legal definition of the "net," "active," or "impact" carbs popping up on food labels and advertisements. The only carbohydrate information regulated by the FDA is provided in the Nutrition Facts label, which lists total carbohydrates and breaks them down into dietary fiber and sugars.

>Any information or claims about carbohydrate content that appear outside that box have not been evaluated by the FDA.
>"These terms have been made up by food companies," says Wahida Karmally, DrPH, RD, director of nutrition at the Irving Center for Clinical Research at Columbia University. "It's a way for the manufacturers of these products to draw attention to them and make them look appealing by saying, 'Look, you can eat all these carbs, but you're really not impacting your health, so to speak.'"

[Anonymous No.11773421]

>>11773403
I'm not talking about shitty advertising campaigns. I'm talking about how within the FDA defined box, total carbs still counts fiber as a carb even though it isn't digested as you say. Why should we expect calories to be the same? How do we know all calories are actually equal?

[Anonymous No.11773434]

>>11773421
>total carbs still counts fiber as a carb even though it isn't digested as you say
***Insoluble*** fiber?
Why don't you post a specific example of what you're talking about here?

[Anonymous No.11773438]

>>11773434
Dietary fiber, which includes both.

[Anonymous No.11773440]

>>11773438
Well I didn't say anything about soluble fiber.
Why don't you post a specific example of what you're talking about here?

[Anonymous No.11773459]

>>11773440
Soluble fiber isn't digested either and still counts as a carb. Here is an example since you want one so badly.

I won't even get into sugars vs proteins.

[Anonymous No.11773460]

>>11773380
You're missing the point. When someone says "I'm going on a diet", they typically mean that they're going to temporarily change what they eat for some period of time in order to lose weight. For this, in < out is really all that matters for accomplishing your goal.

When someone says "I'm changing my diet", they typically mean they're changing what they eat indefinitely in order to improve their general health and nutrition. For this, micros and macro spread are the whole point.

The two phrasings imply completely different goals, and conflating the two leads to the retarded "arguments" you see in these threads.

[Anonymous No.11773485]

>>11773387
What does that have to do with anything? Insoluble fiber is listed as a carbohydrate (because it is), but it doesn't contribute to the calorie count because it has 0 calories because you can't digest it. Calories are a unit of energy. A molecule of sucrose has x calories because a healthy human digestive system metabolizes it into that much energy. The only way this would be significantly different for you is if you had radically different body chemistry. You don't.

Furthermore, the only problems you're really going to have is that potentially you might get *fewer* calories from food because you have some digestive or metabolism problem that prevents you from fully digesting food before you shit it out. Or you have a condition like diabetes where your cells can't use certain molecules properly. You're not going to magically get more calories out of food and get fatter even though you're barely eating anything honest!!!! That's what people mean when they fling shit about thermodynamics.

[Anonymous No.11773504]

>>11773485
Well if the label is showing that fiber is carbs even though they're not digested, why should I be so confident calories are being shown correctly?

[Anonymous No.11773508]

>>11773459
see >>11773485
When you do the math the fiber is not included in the calorie count.

[Anonymous No.11773509]

what the fuck is this entire thread

[Anonymous No.11773515]

>>11773504
Why are you implying that fiber is show incorrectly? Are you implying that something with dietary importance shouldn't be listed on the nutritional information because it isn't metabolized? What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.11773523]

>>11773515
That's not what I'm saying. Nor am I implying that. What I'm saying that the label shows aspects of the food that aren't digested. So how can we be sure that the calories are all equal?

[Anonymous No.11773553]

>>11773523
I can't follow that logic at all. What you're saying literally does not follow. I feel like you have some fundamental misunderstand of what calories and carbohydrates are.

Calories are literally equal by definition. They're a unit of measurement. 4.1868 joules. A given molecule is metabolized by the body into a specific amount of energy. It's basic chemistry. It's the same every time. There's a specific amount of energy in those bonds that is released when they're broken. Specific carbohydrates (sucrose, fructose, glucose, different starches, etc.) all have a specific calorie value associate with them. Fiber has 0. That's what is tallied up to calculate the total calorie count of the food.

Jesus, stay in school.

[Anonymous No.11773563]

>>11773523
>So how can we be sure that the calories are all equal?
How are you sure all inches are the same?

[Anonymous No.11773584]

>>11773553
I wonder if I'm replying to someone different than who I think I am. I brought all that up because up here: >>11773374 they claimed the FDA label only shows what is digested in the GI tract. That's why I was talking about fiber being digested or not. If the label shows what is digested, and I'm pointing out that the label shows both digested and not digested stuff, there is an inconsistency.

>>11773563
10 inch length of wood and 10 inch length of steel have dramatically different properties.

[Anonymous No.11773598]

>>11773584
>they claimed the FDA label only shows what is digested in the GI tract.
He said "calorie labels", not the entire nutritional information box you god damn brainlet.

>10 inch length of wood and 10 inch length of steel have dramatically different properties.
And they're both 10 inches. 10 calories of glucose and 10 calories of protein both provide 41.868 joules of energy. They may have different side effects on your health due to the process by which they're metabolized, but that's completely irrelevant to how many calories they provide.

[Anonymous No.11773604]

>>11773598
>They may have different side effects on your health due to the process by which they're metabolized

HMMMMMMMMMM

[Anonymous No.11773616]

>>11773604
Do you actually lack a brain, or are you just cherry-picking things out of context in a desperate attempt to avoid admitting you were wrong on the internet? It's okay, we're anonymous. I'm not gonna tell that guy you have a gay crush that you're a moron.

[Anonymous No.11773619]

>>11773598
>They may have different side effects on your health due to the process by which they're metabolized

See

>>11773276

The entire reason I got into this is because even though we measure by calories, the way the body treats different foods causes different things. I'm sorry you guys thought I was trying to redefine the fucking calorie, but that's a failure of understanding on your part not mine. All I was saying is that, like my example about wood and steel, the same measurement of different substances cause different things. Which now, finally, someone agrees with.

[Anonymous No.11773636]

>>11773619
You said that "thermodynamics" is a meme, which implies that you think calories produce different amounts of energy.

[Anonymous No.11773644]

>>11773636
The way it's used is the meme. Not the laws themselves, obviously.

[Anonymous No.11773662]

>>11773644
Yeah, no that's still retarded. You use a certain amount of energy. Food gives you a certain amount of energy unless you have some fucked up disease. It's the same for everyone because the chemical processes that make up our metabolism are the same. Some people have a slightly faster metabolism, meaning that the amount of energy they use to exist is greater than someone with a slower metabolism. That changes the "out", sure, but not the "in". Food may have side-effects. Vitamins are good for you, some things give you ass cancer. That doesn't change how much energy you get from them.

In < Out, you'll either lose weight, or die because your body can't metabolize your body fat for some reason and you don't have enough energy for your body to function. This is literally an objective fact.

[Anonymous No.11773726]

>>11773459
>Soluble fiber isn't digested either
It is if you have a colon and are talking about digestion in general including microbial fermentation and not enzymatic digestion exclusively. You get calories from soluble fiber. That's why I made the distinction with insoluble fiber.
>Soluble fiber dissolves in water to form a thick gel-like substance in the stomach. It is broken down by bacteria in the large intestine and provides some calories.
>Insoluble fiber does not dissolve in water and passes through the gastrointestinal tract relatively intact and, therefore, is not a source of calories.
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/interactivenutritionfactslabel/dietary-fiber.html
>Here is an example since you want one so badly.
Are you upset I wanted a specific example? I can't know what you mean or whether you're even referencing a real thing if I can't see an example. Like when you were referring to fiber in general and not insoluble fiber, or when you were thinking both kinds of fiber couldn't be digested. If I didn't try to steer you towards specifics we wouldn't even be talking about the same thing, and it's pretty hard to have a meaningful discussion when the people involved are operating with different assumptions or definitions for the same terms.
Anyway, your issue here comes down to what calculation method you use for calorie counts. The FDA officially allows you as a manufacturer to choose between six different methods. One method counts fiber in general as supplying 4 calories per gram. Another counts fiber in general as having 0 calories per gram. And yet another assigns a factor of 0 for insoluble fiber but a factor of 2 for soluble fiber, reflecting how soluble fiber results in a small amount of calorie intake through microbial fermentation in the gut.
The fact the FDA gives you six calculation options ought to tell you the issue you're bringing up is negligble in the truest sense of the word. It makes a small difference that can be safely ignored.

[Anonymous No.11773728]

>>11773662
Ok ok, lets go back to what I said.

> as though all calories are created equal

Since we've already been over that a calorie is a measurement not an indicator of substance, we know this is true. Are all inches created equal?
See wood vs steel again. It is not that the measurement is wrong or invalid, but that the metric isn't relevant in this discussion in the way it's intended. I will confess to my wording being weird, but at the same time people say "a calorie is a calorie" in a way that would never fly if people said "an inch is an inch".

> treated as such by the body.
We've already acknowledged that foods have different effects on the body. Further, per this page: https://www.precisionnutrition.com/digesting-whole-vs-processed-foods protein takes more to process. You already covered this with the CICO stuff.

You tried to call me out about the calorie having a set amount of energy. I've never disputed this. Instead you just took forever to get to the same point I was at while calling me retarded the entire time.

[Anonymous No.11773741]

I wish they included the lactose content. It's really not hard to measure and it's helpful to those of us who are lactose intolerant.
I mean, the difference between 1g of lactose and 6g of lactose is literally the difference between a fart and a boiling acid diarrhea with cramps.

[Anonymous No.11773744]

>>11773726
I should've used protein vs carbs anyway the fiber thing was a quick reply but not one that illustrated my point well.

[Anonymous No.11773756]

>>11773728
>A calorie is a measurement not an indicator of substance, we know this is true. Are all inches created equal? See wood vs steel again. It is not that the measurement is wrong or invalid, but that the metric isn't relevant in this discussion in the way it's intended.
Except calories are extremely relevant for weight and are the best indicator there is for impact on weight.
You're taking every little negligble exception case you can scrape together to try to invalidate how calories are very reliable as a metric for weight loss or weight gain. A calorie is a calorie and people who bring up thermodynamics aren't wrong because of your forced quibbling about a vanishingly small delta in calorie counts that will never in a million years cause you to be fat through misinformation.

[Anonymous No.11773776]

>>11773756
Give up, it's not worth it.

[Anonymous No.11773802]

>>11764906
I just don't like nutella, if I had to choose I'd pick the green spread.

[Anonymous No.11773816]

>>11773756
>A calorie is a calorie and people who bring up thermodynamics aren't wrong because of your forced quibbling about a vanishingly small delta in calorie counts that will never in a million years cause you to be fat through misinformation.

Well, you're just mad at me now. I've already explained all of this at length, it's not my fault you're not getting it, I've done my part. I've gone back to my original point and reinforced everything I've said but you're still stuck on "a calorie is a calorie" when I'm saying "a calorie of what?".

Have a good day dude. Hope you learn to read someday.

>>11773776
You're not worth it

[Anonymous No.11773832]

>>11773728
>Are all inches created equal?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.11773851]

>>11773832
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6IHloNKYrs

[Anonymous No.11773868]

>>11773816
>when I'm saying "a calorie of what?".
Energy. that's what calories measure, anon.

It doesn't matter if the calories come from spinach or fat, because calories are computed based on Atwater factors which take into account the inefficiencies and processes of human digestion.

The reason why you're asking "a calorie of what" is because you're an imbecile.

[Anonymous No.11773885]

>>11773868
>Energy. that's what calories measure, anon.
Shit. Yeah you're right. I should've said "a calorie from what". Not "of what".

100 calories from beef vs 100 calories from sugar will have a very different insulin response and will cause fat to be stored differently.

[Anonymous No.11773913]

>>11773885
>>100 calories from beef vs 100 calories from sugar will have a very different insulin response and will cause fat to be stored differently.

which is why 100 calories from sugar is a far lower mass of food than 100 calories from beef. The calorie calculation has already taken into account the difference in insulin response. That's how food calories are calculated. The calculation accounts for those differences.

[Anonymous No.11773918]

>>11773885
And you'll lose the same amount of weight on both, only the beef will be a bit faster due to the lack of insulin response. The point of "thermodynamics" is that if you follow CICO you *will* lose weight. It's not a meme you dumb prick. CICO is the sole determining factor on whether or not you lose weight. That's why people use the thermodynamics meme. They're not denying that some diets may be more or less efficient.

[Anonymous No.11774003]

>>11773918
It's a meme because people use it without understanding it. Many factors come up before thermodynamics when it comes to weight loss.

[Anonymous No.11774776]

>>11764906
fat and carbs at the same time are bad no matter what

[Anonymous No.11775088]

Calories are a myth anyway.
Calories do not become body mass, it's bullshit.

[Anonymous No.11775093]

>>11775088
>>the laws of physics don't apply to me

cool story bro

[Anonymous No.11775101]

>>11775093
If you burn a chip it doesn't turn into mass.
Explain that shit to me, retard.

[Anonymous No.11775117]

>>11775101
our bodies have a way of harnessing and storing energy, how do you think fat or glycogen are formed?

[Anonymous No.11775123]

>>11775117
Fat is formed from food, not from calories in food.

[Anonymous No.11775139]

>>11775123
you let them realize it was b8 too soon, but good job on the concept, 7.2/10

[Anonymous No.11775335]

>>11765012
>Weight loss is only about calories.
tell that to someone who has weight gain due to hormone imbalances like diabetes fuck sake you are a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.11775475]

>>11767782
No thanks, I'll keep away from the collapse of the EU and the hordes of Mudslimes

[Anonymous No.11776181]

>>11774003
No they don't. If you eat at a caloric deficit your body can pump out insulin all it wants. It cannot store what is there and it cannot produce heat or work without spending the necessary calories. It's simple addition and subtraction, a kid in elementary school could do it.

[Anonymous No.11776187]

>>11775335
>weight gain
>due to diabetes
I'm a type 1 diabetic and diabetes makes you LOSE weight because of all the sugar you piss out.

>hormone imbalances
Hormone imbalances like hypothyroidism lower the calories out part of CICO. CICO remains true, you just get to eat fewer calories because you have a lower metabolism. Has nothing to do with whether the calories are from carbs, proteins, or fats.

[Anonymous No.11776190]

>>11774003
No they don't. If you eat at a caloric deficit your body can pump out insulin all it wants. It cannot store what isn't there and it cannot produce heat or work without spending the necessary calories. It's simple addition and subtraction, a kid in elementary school could do it.

[Julie Andrews No.11776223]

>>11764906
the individuals who frequent those online communities which favor the avocado in that sense not only favored Nutella that same amount, but are NOT fucking idolized. i hope to see an end to this gay MS Paint text picture shit in YLYL threads, twitter/facebook comedy style bullshit that should have never existed

[Anonymous No.11776671]

>>11769086
Yeah and most people don't care about the dangers of smoking until they required plaintext + disgusting pictures.

Require all food to have plain black text on a white background with only enlarged nutritional facts plus a horrifying picture of obesity. People will start to care.