/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.12283484]

Is this true or just a meme?

[Anonymous No.12283496]

>>12283484
animals were never made to be eated

[Anonymous No.12283501]

Maybe for a 5 foot tall sedentary woman.

[Anonymous No.12283509]

>>12283496
Then why are they made of food?

[Anonymous No.12283542]

>>12283484
I mean if you want to lose weight the yeah 360kcals is better for that than 842kcals, but I highly doubt the one on the right is 842kcals unless that container is fucking hugh

[Anonymous No.12283693]

>22g protein vs 29g protein
>Fat 6 times higher even though sausage only doubles
The text is a blatant lie, unless the "weight gain" side is floating on a thick layer of oil.

"Weight loss" is not the same as "fat loss". You'll always lose weight cutting calories, but for the average non-obese person, that weight will be mostly lost muscle/bone (ironically making you look fatter).

[Anonymous No.12283701]

>>12283509
pfptpf

[Anonymous No.12283728]

>>12283509
well memed

[Anonymous No.12283768]

>>12283496
nothing was made to be eating u moron

[Anonymous No.12283777]

>>12283768
Seed husks were made to be eat so animals will poo them out somewhere and the seeds will grow in another place

[Anonymous No.12283799]

>>12283484
calories is just a guide adopted by nutritionists and doctors to measure the amount of energy we burn, it's simple chemistry and physics.

The reason they use it, is because it's a very accurate way to determine what should be going into the body and what should be going out. Since food can be consumed in small amounts from basically a grain of rice, to consuming a whole fucking picnic ham, there needs to be a measurement (how autistic doctors are) and calories are king.

Remember:
>The physics of calories. ... This calorie refers to the amount of heat needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water from 14.5 to 15.5 degrees Celsius. A calorie in nutrition is actually 1,000 of these small calories. Some researchers use the term kilocalories to refer to the nutritional unit of 1,000 small calories

If you sit around consuming calories and not raising the bodies temperature to burn them off, you'll get fat.

[Anonymous No.12283808]

>>12283693
>the average non-obese person
the average person does not work out and does not have a whole lot of muscle. don't fucking kid yourself

[Anonymous No.12283861]

>>12283484
that's my screenshot lol

[Anonymous No.12283872]

>>12283799
If I eat 1000 calories a day in bananas I will never get fat but if I do the same with hamburgers I always get fat so this isn't true.

[Anonymous No.12283897]

>>12283484
idk about you guys but I shit out a lot of oil.

[Anonymous No.12283921]

>>12283799
> it's simple chemistry and physics
Your explanation is simple chemistry and physics, but our bodies are anything but. We are not caloric black bodies. Hormones—especially insulin—have huge influence on how our body uses calories.

You can sit around all day (high body temp, at a calorie deficit) and still get fat. If insulin levels spike and muscles don't need repair, your body WILL send calories to fat reserves, even if it means you have no energy left for daily tasks.

[Anonymous No.12283995]

>>12283496
made by who?

[Anonymous No.12284005]

>>12283777
* no animals were made to be eaten

Many fauna evolved to be eaten

[Anonymous No.12284015]

>>12283484
yes, fat is /very/ caloricly dense. if that sausage is like 200 grams then that's about 60 grams of fat ticking in at 500 calories.

That's /without/ the calories from all the rice. You burn off carbs, then tend to store EXCESS(beyond +/- 20 grams of it per day) fat.

[Anonymous No.12284023]

>>12283995
Made by WHOM you godless illiterate

and atheists think they’re “””smart”””...

[Anonymous No.12284044]

>>12283484
i can eat two 842 calorie meals a day and I"d lose a ton of weight

[Anonymous No.12284051]

Many parasites have evolved to be eaten.

[Anonymous No.12284068]

>>12283484
i would guess one on right is more like 750

[Anonymous No.12284069]

>>12283872
bull shit

[Anonymous No.12284078]

>>12283501
It's not meant to show you an example meal, it's meant to show you the ratios of carbs-proteins-veggies for either goal, loss or gain. Use the most important organ in your body to figure this shit out, anon.

[Anonymous No.12284091]

>>12283496
You should go tell that to lions hunting down gazelles in Africa

[Anonymous No.12284102]

>>12283799

Man No. 1 eats 2,000 calories a day, all in raw vegetables and fish

Man No. 2 eats 2,000 calories a day, all in hamburgers, cheese, bread

Do they look the same after 1 year?

[Anonymous No.12284104]

>>12283484
The numbers are absolute bullshit but the basic idea is correct.

Eat more vegetables and less things that are not vegetables and you will lose weight.

[Anonymous No.12284126]

>>12284102

Same activity levels im assuming?

Second guy probably feels better cause of carbs

[Anonymous No.12284134]

>>12283921

>eating below TDEE
>still gain weight

How do you figure?

[Anonymous No.12284141]

>>12284102
>cow eats grass and other plant matter entire life
>somehow manages to get HUUGEEE

[Anonymous No.12284144]

>>12284134
Breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics, of course.

[Anonymous No.12284159]

>>12284144
Why is it inconceivable that some people absorb calories more efficiently compared to others? It's like expecting every car to have nearly identical gas mileage

[Anonymous No.12284165]

>>12284159
It's also a matter of how those calories are stored... surplus fat vs surplus lean mass

[Anonymous No.12284170]

>>12284159
Digestion is a completely different concept than saying you lose weight on a caloric surplus

[Anonymous No.12284173]

>>12284159
>>12284165
You can absorb and store at varying rates and measures, but after about a week you're going to normalize and continue to NOT break the immutable law of calories in < calories out. It's how reality works, but some fats are divorced from reality. See pic.

[Anonymous No.12284180]

>>12283777
Trips of truth

[Anonymous No.12284185]

>>12284141
Cows can process carbs out of grass. Most other animals can't. Including humans. Next.

[Anonymous No.12284193]

>>12284126
Yes, all else being equal.

[Anonymous No.12284196]

>>12284159

It doesnt fuckin matter. If you eat below your TDEE, you lose weight. If you eat more, you gain. Variance in metabolism or efficiency of caloric absorption are completely irrelevant once you figure out how many calories you need for maintenance.

>>12284165

What? Calories arent stored as lean mass, nigger. In fact, the more lean mass you acquire, the higher your metabolic rate to maintain that mass. The same is not true for fat; fat is energy reserves.

[Anonymous No.12284200]

>>12283921
Your body can't create calories out of nothing. If you are at a deficit, then it has to pull from the fat reserves. Hormones have a "say" in the matter, sure. Again, it is only a matter of time before physics and chemistry become the norm

[Anonymous No.12284226]

>>12283484
No, it's not true OP.
People have different metabolic processes and each with their own respective speed.
Eating less doesn't always mean less weight.
For some people it's unavoidable.
There are tons of people who are very slim and eat much more than some obese people do and have no problem burning the calories off much quicker than those that are overweight, which is the reason why they're not overweight.
Metabolism is genetic.

[Anonymous No.12284235]

>>12284226
Lol

[Anonymous No.12284251]

>>12284196
>What? Calories arent stored as lean mass, nigger. In fact, the more lean mass you acquire, the higher your metabolic rate to maintain that mass.
How do you expect to gain muscle you fucktard?

[Anonymous No.12284264]

>>12284196
>It doesnt fuckin matter. If you eat below your TDEE, you lose weight. If you eat more, you gain.
A bunch of geniuses up in here. The point being made is that some people relative to others in terms of physical mass can consume a greater degree of calories without suffering the consequences of gaining fat as quickly. See every turd with metabolic disorders who need to eat 20 meals a day to maintain body weight for extreme outliers as an example.

[Anonymous No.12284278]

>>12284251

Protein synthesis from consumed amino acids while eating at a caloric surplus? You eat carbs which triggers an insulin response, insulin tells your cells to absorb nutrients and aminos from your blood. Insulin is an anabolic hornone.

You think muscle is just “stored calories” the same way fat is? Why dont you explain to me how you think it works?

>>12284226

This is 100% wrong lol. Kys, fatass. Skinny people are skinny because they barely eat anything while fatties are consuming from the moment they wake up til they go to sleep.

[Anonymous No.12284283]

>>12284134
I didn't say weight, I said fat, as in adipose tissue. If you're sedentary, not obese, and live on 1000cals of high insulin-load shit a day, you will absolutely lose weight from muscles/organs/bones. You will also gain fat.

Assuming TDEE is a constant is flawed, as your body will simply reduce your energy expenditure if the insulin load is high enough. Eventually you'll be bed-ridden (then die).
What I'm describing is obviously an extreme cherry-picked example, but so is calories in < calories out.

>>12284173
You forgot that dying is always an option. When you're dead you don't consume any calories, maintaining the "immutable law".

[Anonymous No.12284295]

>>12283484
Are you stupid? Eat more calories = gain more weight. Eat less = lose weight

[Anonymous No.12284301]

>>12284283
Dying is always an option, you make a valid point. Has anyone explained that to Tess Holiday? She might be unaware.

[Anonymous No.12284314]

>>12284278
>You think muscle is just “stored calories” the same way fat is? Why dont you explain to me how you think it works?
Oh I didn't realize protein isn't considered calories. But let's double check what was said earlier...
>What? Calories arent stored as lean mass, nigger
Really gets the noggin joggin

[Anonymous No.12284316]

>>12284283

I apologize, i misread. CICO is still fine to structure a diet around.

[Anonymous No.12284333]

>>12284159
Because the food itself contains a set amount of calories. Some people might have inefficient metabolism and an easier time losing weight as a result, but as long as you eat at a deficit you will lose weight. That's not a probability question, it is a statement of fact. You cannot gain more calories than the food has to offer.

[Anonymous No.12284345]

>>12284333
Everyone already gets that concept except for complete retards. The whole issue is the variance in metabolic rates between people when they're the same overall mass... it's like how some people don't require as much sleep to be fully rested. The takeaway is life is unfair.

[Anonymous No.12284348]

>>12284314

Sorry, im half asleep and my reading comprehension has taken a hit. The way you phrased your initial statement was weird because the function of muscle isnt to act as an energy reserve, like fat is literally just stored energy.

[Anonymous No.12284379]

>>12284345
>The whole issue is the variance in metabolic rates between people when they're the same overall mass... it's like how some people don't require as much sleep to be fully rested. The takeaway is life is unfair.
The takeaway life is unfair for fatties that dont put down the fork

[Anonymous No.12284382]

>>12284379
No that's perfectly fair. Death to fatties

[Anonymous No.12284407]

>>12284345

Variance in metabolism is +/-~300cal

[Anonymous No.12284412]

>>12284407
Practically an entire McChicken

[Anonymous No.12284953]

>>12284173
i wish i could cram my cock in her mouth and just relentlessly hump away at her flesh hole until she passes out

[Anonymous No.12285066]

>>12283496
>Here is a picture of Bramble, a carnivorous plant, catching a sheep where it would have been slowly starved to death before dying and become nutrients for its roots were it not for the brave human coming to its rescue.
Even fucking plants want to eat animals

[Anonymous No.12285071]

>>12284102
Guy 2 isn't actually gonna have just 2000 cals because it's not filling, and will be more sedentary because he'll feel like shit from micro deficiencies.

[Anonymous No.12285101]

>>12284185
Cows ruminate cud for a long time and have multiple stomachs to break down cellulose in plant cell walls

>>12284102
Weightwise, yeah. Net caloric intake only matter for weight loss. #2 will probably have vitamin deficiencies

[Anonymous No.12285146]

>>12284345
The differences in BMR are due to the prior lifetime of diet, physical and mental activity. Two people who are both 6 foot 0 inch 200lbs males with the same muscle and fat comp- if one is eating 2 1000kcal meals and running 2 mile a day, his BMR will be higher than the guy eating 2000kcal spread throughout the day in the form of snacks and shit and lacking exercise. You can change (within genetic limits) your BMR by changing your lifestyle.

[Anonymous No.12285242]

>>12284023
Checkmate athiests

[Anonymous No.12285455]

>>12284102
in terms of weight, they be similar. of course man one will be healthier

[Anonymous No.12285748]

>>12284102
Why are fat fucks so obsessed with come up with minuscule examples to disprove the simplest way to adjust their diet?
>Losing weight is haaaaaaaaard, have to be a PhD in normalcy to even attempt :(((
>"Look at your calories, as a start"
>Woooow but what about eating 200g butter / day and lose weight?

It has never been about micromanaging your meal (why they are called macros), but rather given as a broad indication of your diet. Just like BMI. It's not about "but according to BMI, this bodybuilder is obese" when you yourself is some slob who would need the guideline if you're of average height.
You can balance daily intake and see if you should use 2 teaspoons of oils, compared to 1, if you can have a glass of soda, or a bag of chips, or a cake, but most likely not all 3.
>I have salmon cooked in some oil, with tomato, rice and a sauce
How much would adding more salmon be for weightloss compared to more oil or sauce or even tomato. THat's the idea. Not "haha, I found a bizarre example [American diet] to argue you are wrong ;) and I whouldn't care"

[Anonymous No.12285858]

>>12283693
>>that weight will be mostly lost muscle/bone
>This nigger actually believes this
Even people who don't work out still build muscle, unless they go full stephen hawking mode.

[Anonymous No.12285872]

>>12283921
You absolute fucking retarded amerilards, I swear to god.
There are two possibilities for what you're talking about, where because of retarded space magic fat can't be taken from fat cells.
Either you're not eating at a deficit, which would make you gain weight either way.
Or you literally killed yourself by eating like a retard. Death from starvation as a big lump of lard. Because you didn't have the energy to perform the basic functions needed to survive.

[Anonymous No.12285876]

>>12284102
>Do they look the same after 1 year?
The question is "do they weight they same if they started at the same weight?" And the answer is "yes." You don't lose more weight if you keep calories the same and only change the macronutrient ratio.
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.
Go do formal experiments that disprove the relationship between calories and bodyweight if you're convinced all these researchers missed something. You'll get a Nobel Prize (if you're right, which you aren't).
>Why are fat fucks so obsessed with come up with minuscule examples to disprove the simplest way to adjust their diet?
Because it's easier for them to be "skeptical" about calories and pretend their obesity is a complex problem without an easy solution than it is for them to take responsibility and eat less.

[Anonymous No.12285877]

>>12283701
sup bob

[Anonymous No.12285887]

>>12284102
guy 2 will probably suffer from serious nutrient deficiencies because he didn't eat a single piece of veg or fruit for an entire year lol

apart from that, yeah you can expect similar results

[Anonymous No.12285897]

>>12284345
This:
>>12284407
>Variance in metabolism is +/-~300cal
Everything fatties try to grasp on to paint CICO as flawed always ends up amounting to ridiculously small and irrelevant differences. Here's an idea if you're worried your calorie target isn't low enough because of "metabolic difference:" Pick a slightly lower calorie target. Wow, such a complex and multifaceted problem. Honestly if you're overweight it almost certainly wouldn't kill you just to stop eating altogether for a while as long as you take care of hydration, electrolytes, and vitamins. Your calorie count for losing weight is just an upper limit of how much you can get away with. You aren't forced to eat as much as possible while still eating at a calorie deficit. That's like paying the minimum back on money you owe each month. You *could* do that, but nobody's forcing you to do the bare minimum.

[Anonymous No.12285925]

>>12283496
My crazy friend has never heard of the food chain

[Anonymous No.12285929]

>>12285925
Don't kid yourself Jimmy. If a cow ever got the chance he'd eat you and everyone you cared about!

[Anonymous No.12285947]

>>12284379
>it's like how some people don't require as much sleep to be fully rested
I find this to be kind of bullshit. Back when I was living a more sedentary lifestyle I definitely didn't require much sleep, but once I got active my sleep requirement went up. It really depends on how much strain you put your body and mind through imo. Of course if you don't do jack shit during the day you won't need to rest as much.

[Anonymous No.12285951]

>>12285947
Quoted the wrong person. Meant for >>12284345