/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.4880079]

I'm on a slow-carb diet, /ck/, and really struggling. Everything is bland and gross even after the insane craving for carbs goes away.

Here are the rules:
>Rule #1: Avoid “white” starchy carbohydrates (or those that can be white). This means all bread, pasta, rice, potatoes, and grains. If you have to ask, don’t eat it.

>Rule #2: Eat the same few meals over and over again, especially for breakfast and lunch. You already do this; you’re just picking new default meals.

>Rule #3: Don’t drink calories. Exception: 1-2 glasses of dry red wine per night is allowed.

>Rule #4: Don’t eat fruit. (Fructose –> glycerol phosphate –> more bodyfat, more or less.) Avocado and tomatoes are excepted.

>Rule #5: Take one day off per week and go nuts. I choose and recommend Saturday.

Foods that're emphasized are eggs, chicken, spinach, beans, and lentils.

You mostly eat proteins and vegetables. Tomatoes and Avocados are allowed. No dairy aside from Cottage Cheese because everything else provokes an insulin response.

I've been on the diet before, and lost 30lbs in one month. So I know it works. I just need more variety and flavor to keep on it. The main issue is cost. I can't afford 3 bags of chicken breasts per week on top of all the beans and fresh vegetables, even if that crap did taste good.

[Anonymous No.4880094]

>>4880079
>chicken breasts
chicken thighs were here. OP is a fgt.

[Anonymous No.4880097]

Sooo...why don't you just season your fucking food?

Also, low-carb diets should have 70-80% fat to 20-30% protein ratio.

The diet works because you're not eating fake food, i.e. processed shit. No insulin is produced so your body burns the fat it has stored instead of all the sugar and carbs you take in on a daily basis.

But yeah, you're basically complaining because you don't season your food.

[Anonymous No.4880101]

>>4880094
Srsly. Diversify yo protein, nigga. If you think chicken, especially breasts, is the be-all end-all of good meat, you dumb.

[Anonymous No.4880103]

So your on that 4hr body thing, switch to cheaper cuts of meat ie chicken thighs, pork shoulder, whole eggs. Switch to frozen veg. What style/region of cooking do you like?

Roasted rosemary chicken thigh with green beans sauteed in olive oil garlic with a squeeze of lemon is always good

[Anonymous No.4880108]

>>4880079

>avoid carbohydrate sources that CAN be white

That's a pretty dumb rule. Avoid white flour, eat whole wheat. Avoid white rice, eat brown, avoid.... yellow pasta, eat whole wheat, etc. That's how most of society ate throughout history

>don't eat fruit

Next to vegetables, the healthiest food on the planet. If fruit made you fat, fruitarians wouldn't be losing dramatic amounts of weight by eating thousands of calories worth of fruit.

>taake one day off per week and go nuts

This shouldn't be a rule, all that does is takes you a step back.

>eggs and chicken emphasized

Those are two things you want to avoid

Where did you hear about this diet?

[Anonymous No.4880121]

>>4880108
>That's a pretty dumb rule. Avoid white flour, eat whole wheat. Avoid white rice, eat brown, avoid.... yellow pasta, eat whole wheat, etc. That's how most of society ate throughout history
This isn't paleo, which still has issues with that. The issue is insulin response. Which evokes equally well from those carbs.

>Next to vegetables, the healthiest food on the planet.
Again, fructose provokes insulin response. The logic is no fruit was in season 365 days a year in the past. It wasn't a regular dietary staple, but it is highly recommended on the weekly cheat days.

>This shouldn't be a rule, all that does is takes you a step back.
Ferriss argues, with research data, that a cheat day not only prevents metabolic downregulation, but that if you do it right and work out before meals and eat in volume, you should gain no weight because most of it moves through you before you can digest it. Working out elevates receptors in your muscle fibers that catch carbs for energy before they can be converted to fat stores.

>Those are two things you want to avoid
Nice explanation.

>Where did you hear about this diet?
It's in 4 Hour Body and 4 Hour Chef. Tim Ferriss interviewed a bunch of doctors, had an insulin monitor implanted, and put thousands of followers on test runs and found this diet combined simplicity and effectiveness best of all fat loss diets he tested.

>>4880097
I do season. Pic related is from 4 Hour Chef. Recommended seasoning pairings to evoke specific ethnic flavors. It just doesn't help all that much.

>>4880101
It's not. I had steak tonight. Seared then slow-cooked with rosemary. Right out of the 4 Hour Chef book:
http://www.thepaleosecret.com/2013/08/23/sexy-time-steak-via-tim-ferriss-and-the-4-hour-chef/

Chicken and eggs are just accessible, easy, and diverse. He also recommends beef, fish, pork, etc. Plus beans all over.

[Anonymous No.4880124]

>>4880108
People did not eat wheat and rice throughout human history. The advent of agriculture is relatively recent. Most people didn't have ready and steady sources of grains.

There is nothing wrong with chicken or eggs. I don't know who told you there was anything bad about either of them but you need to do some actual fact checking.

[Anonymous No.4880126]

What is in the top middle picture on the right side?

[Anonymous No.4880130]

>>4880121

>Ferriss argues, with research data, that a cheat day not only prevents metabolic downregulation, but that if you do it right and work out before meals and eat in volume, you should gain no weight because most of it moves through you before you can digest it. Working out elevates receptors in your muscle fibers that catch carbs for energy before they can be converted to fat stores.

So why don't you just eat what you want and work out? Earn your weight-loss.

[Anonymous No.4880135]

>>4880126
>top-middle-right

wat.

[Anonymous No.4880136]

>>4880124

>I don't know who told you there was anything bad about either of them but you need to do some actual fact checking.

Fact checking doesn't mean asking the egg industry if eggs are good for you. Here's a doctor to explain things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNby8ongJsM&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL5TLzNi5fYd9Q4Lfm8Zw3afIWobMV7-iT

[Anonymous No.4880142]

>>4880108
>Avoiding eggs and chicken

HAAAAA
You are one sad human being.

[Anonymous No.4880144]

>>4880135
right side of the plate

[Anonymous No.4880146]

>>4880130
I work two desk jobs. 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, not counting travel time, dressing, bathing, meals, gas, etc. I struggle to find 1 hour per day.

It's also not a long-term solution. It's just a way to mitigate mild binging.

>>4880136
I was under the assumption that nobody believed food cholesterol clogged your arteries anymore. After all, heart disease continues to rise despite low-cholesterol diets becoming ever more popular since the 70s and 80s.

[Anonymous No.4880147]

>>4880136
I don't believe eggs are directly related to heart disease or cholesterol. Eggs are usually coupled with things they shouldn't be paired with or prepared in ways they shouldn't be prepared. If you eat eggs as they are, they have more or less no effect on your heart or cholesterol.

Most of our health problems came with the advent of sugar and processed grains, also transfats.

[Anonymous No.4880149]

>>4880142

Right on. What next, he avoids nutella and bacon too?

[Anonymous No.4880150]

>>4880146

>I was under the assumption that nobody believed food cholesterol clogged your arteries anymore

The egg industry spent billions of dollars to make sure uninformed people think that, but guys who do actual health research know not to eat eggs

[Anonymous No.4880152]

>>4880149
>comparing bacon to processed sugar product

[Anonymous No.4880156]

>>4880150
Prove it.
Because in the book where he recommends bacon and eggs and spinach with salsa for breakfast he cites research on bacon and eggs not linking with heart disease.

[Anonymous No.4880158]

>>4880156

See

>>4880136

[Anonymous No.4880162]

>>4880158
One youtube video is not a proper citation.
Otherwise this directly refutes your claim:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

And places the blame mostly on carbs and simple sugars in particular.

[Anonymous No.4880168]

>>4880162

You can see the article in the video, I'll even get it for you

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989358/

Asians have eaten tons of white rice for hundreds to thousands of years as the main staple of their diet. Why don't they suffer the problems the west does?

[Anonymous No.4880175]

>>4880168
You can see and hear about multiple studies in my video too, and google them.

The asians who ate that diet are tremendously more active than modern westerners. Why are Americans who eat rice and stir fry still obese? Why is obesity increasing among asian nations?

And still, you cannot touch that heart disease has continued to rise steeply despite the popularity of low-cholesterol diets.

Best case scenario for you is we're both wrong. So why are you derailing a cooking thread?

[Anonymous No.4880174]

>>4880162

>Robert Lustig

Oh god, I hate when fat people claim to know what causes obesity and how not to be fat.

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

[Anonymous No.4880184]

>>4880174
He's not only not fat, he makes his entire address on research. Not all of which is his.

Your video is crackpot bullshit from its premise, that low-carb diets make people fat and sick. They're statistically outstanding for weight loss, low on correlation to illness AND PLANTS ARE A MAJOR PART OF THE GODDAMN DIET.

Starchy, carb-rich plants are not. But otherwise the diet is more than 50% leafy greens, gourds like cucumbers, onions, tomatoes, avocados, beans, and lentils out the ass.

[Anonymous No.4880199]

>best shape of my life
>eggs and baby spinach on toast most days for breakfast
>steak often for dinner

Exercise is key, watching how you eat TOO much is really depressing.

[Anonymous No.4880216]

>>4880184

Lentils are starchy, carb-rich plants. Your aversion to any other carbohydrate/starch is ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4880219]

>>4880175

>Why are Americans who eat rice and stir fry still obese?

How often do you think an American eats a meal of just white rice and vegetables compared to an asian? It's not like Americans who eat white rice sometimes have a diet similar to an asian diet in any way. The rest of their food is still big chunks of meat, butter, eggs, etc

[Anonymous No.4880221]

>>4880199
See:
>>4880146
>I work two desk jobs. 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, not counting travel time, dressing, bathing, meals, gas, etc. I struggle to find 1 hour per day.

The point of the diet is supposed to be that it's simple and easy. Just don't eat starch. I just need advice on making something palatable. Vegetarian or pescatarian or something. Chicken and mushrooms. Stuffed bell peppers. etc

But /ck/'d rather play nutritionist than talk about cooking.

>>4880216
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lentil

>Carbohydrates 60 g
>- Sugars 2 g
>- Dietary fiber 31 g
>Fat 1 g
>Protein 26 g

The exceptional fiber and protein values make up for it. It's not a non-carb diet, it's a slow-carb diet, in which fiber plays a key role. It's not a ketogenic diet. It has a minimum carb threshold that I currently hit by adding honey to my tea every morning because I still haven't figured out where to buy lentils or how to cook them.

Additionally, how would being incorrect on ONE item in an entire diet invalidate the entire diet?

[Anonymous No.4880227]

>>4880219
Americans who eat strictly asian diets, like Asian Americans, are still more obese than their relatives in Asia. What is this? Three times you've been told off now? Why is it so hard to get on topic? Even if you could conclusively prove your point to me, and simultaneously refute mine, the ONLY diet that has EVER worked for me is this one. I just need to make it taste and feel better so I can stay at it for longer than a month without getting sick of it.

[Anonymous No.4880240]

I hate to tell you this, but high protien, low or no 'carb weird diets don't work nor do smoothies. meal of the month club or whatever. and you will grow old. so be it you never were (insert person) to begin with. eat when hungry, drink when dry. best exercise to start, is push aways. from the table. portion size. trust me. baby steps. you want to do it now. right now cause ( cousin, male or female any place) they wont even begin. I don't blame them. the risk of being sued is too high. and I weighed in at close to 400 lbs. now 250 my goal is 220. might take a while and will probably never be 188 again( in the militaryIwas big boned, like cartman). shit creeps. but walk. if you can, ( some can not) lay off the processed foods. MRE meals rejected by ....never mind. do the best you can. if your back hurts, mayhap you got too much front. don't be like me me. kevlar is nice but you don't want it implanted. use a little common sense. I have survived much, but the worst enemy has always been myself.

[Anonymous No.4880245]

>>4880240
I hate to tell you but I've lost 50lbs in the past year on this diet. 20lbs one month last fall, 30 lbs one month this past summer.

I already eat maintenance. 1600-1900 @ 250lbs at my sedentary lifestyle. I've gone as low as 1200 to start seeing 2lbs a week in weight loss just by calorie restriction but it causes medical problems. I logged everything I put in my mouth for 3 months this year with my phone camera, even glasses of water, usually on a food scale in the photo, and handed them all over to my doctor to verify my caloric intake is under 1900 almost every day on a normal balanced diet.

However, I can eat 2k+ calories of slow carb diet and still lose 20-30lbs per month. I just don't have enough variety in the diet. I get sick of eggs and sick of beans and sick of bacon.

Portions aren't the problem. My lack of activity is the problem and that cannot be fixed because multiple people rely on my income to survive.

[Anonymous No.4880247]

This is the easiest diet in the world to adhere to. Seriously, if you lack willpower for Fatkins type diets, I think your next stop is having the butcher just slurp out your fat and staple your gutsack.

[Anonymous No.4880248]

your diet is fucking retarded

fruit does not make you fat

slow carbs are bullshit. if you eat a slab of meat or fibrous veggies with your meal like a normal person, they will slow the digestion of those carbs making their GI values irrelevant

everything provokes an insulin response, avoiding dairy to avoid those is retarded. also even if you manage to keep your insulin low excess calories will still make you fat.

it works because it makes you eat veggies and avoid candy and such and in general make you pay attention to what you eat

/rant

[Anonymous No.4880250]

I hate to tell you this, but high protien, low or no 'carb weird diets don't work nor do smoothies. meal of the month club or whatever. and you will grow old. so be it you never were (insert person) to begin with. eat when hungry, drink when dry. best exercise to start, is push aways. from the table. portion size. trust me. baby steps. you want to do it now. right now cause ( cousin, male or female any place) they wont even begin. I don't blame them. the risk of being sued is too high. and I weighed in at close to 400 lbs. now 250 my goal is 220. might take a while and will probably never be 188 again( in the militaryIwas big boned, like cartman). shit creeps. but walk. if you can, ( some can not) lay off the processed foods. MRE meals rejected by ....never mind. do the best you can. if your back hurts, mayhap you got too much front. don't be like me me. kevlar is nice but you don't want it implanted. use a little common sense. I have survived much, but the worst enemy has always been myself.

[Anonymous No.4880255]

>>4880227

>Americans who eat strictly asian diets, like Asian Americans

The only commonality between asian and asian-american eating is rice. It's not the same food placed in a different country.

[Anonymous No.4880257]

>>4880146

>I work two desk jobs. 12+ hours a day, 7 days a week, not counting travel time, dressing, bathing, meals, gas, etc. I struggle to find 1 hour per day.

Then how did you find the time to become fat?

[Anonymous No.4880259]

>>4880247
It's easy at first. Who doesn't love bacon and eggs every morning and steak every night?
But it all gets old is the problem.
I need variety and alternatives.

>>4880248
Prove literally all of that. Go ahead, I'll wait.

I hate candy. I hate sugary drinks. I eat veggies, fruit, meat, and carbs normally.

On my normal diet a meal will be half a steamed chicken breast on a bed of white rice drizzled with a tamari/sesame oil/diced green onion/grapeseed oil/fresh grated ginger mixture with a side of fresh vegetables.

My snack between meals will be an orange or maybe an apple, maybe the apple will come with some thin slices of sharp cheddar if I'm really hungry.

My breakfast will be oats with fresh fruit in it, preferably banana and strawberry, sometimes a spoonful of honey since I put one in my tea as well.

Lunch will be something like feta, ham, tomato, and lettuce wrapped in a tortilla.

And it's almost always under 1900 calories.

>>4880255
Asian immigrants eat asian vegetables too, chap. Keep making more bullshit excuses and derailing the thread, though. You sure look brilliant after being told off 4 times straight.

[Anonymous No.4880261]

>>4880259

Asian immigrants aren't the fat ones either. You're thinking of a 3rd generation asian who, living in the west, conformed to a western diet. Don't run away from the argument

[Anonymous No.4880262]

>>4880257
It happens passively when you sit on your ass for all but 1 or 2 hours per day.

I sit at work, I sit in the car, I lie in bed. That's like 22 hours in a day.

I walk when I exercise, I stand in the shower, I walk around to get dressed and cook. Hell, I stand in the kitchen for meals these days. Everything else is done on my ass or back.

[Anonymous No.4880264]

>>4880259
you are a fuck check this nut(s)

[Anonymous No.4880265]

>>4880261
First and second generations are STILL fatter than Asians in Asia.
There is no argument. You've been shut down repeatedly and you're pretending not to see point after point.

You've been challenged for citation, you've been called out on your bullshit, baseless claims, you've been informed that even if you did manage to prove anything, which is literally impossible, I would still ignore your advice because this is the only diet I know works for me, and you've been informed that you're derailing the thread and shitposting.

So you keep shitposting. You're cancer. We're done. Make recipe advice or talk to yourself. Whatever satisfies your insignificant need to be an autistic cunt.

[Anonymous No.4880268]

>>4880265

What are you basing that one? Have you ever seen an asian who you know doesn't eat western food despite living in a western country, who was fat or even pudgy? Every one I've seen, and I work with many, is as slender as any asian I've met in China, Cambodia, Thailand, etc

[Anonymous No.4880269]

>>4880259
>Prove literally all of that

I don't care enough about the matter to go looking for a dozen studies and whatnot. I posted that mainly for other people, not you, so they don't go on stupidly restrictive diets without any thought.

Don't get me wrong, the idea behind your diet is mostly sound but those few stupid things irk me. Eating lots of protein and veggies when trying to lose weight is 100% correct approach

[Anonymous No.4880279]

>>4880268
Ok, you get one more reply:
Because I've been to Asia. I've seen rice farmers who live on rice that work all day, sun up to sun down, that were obese. I dated a girl in Japan who was mixed Vietnamese and Japanese and her Japanese side of the family on a semi-Western Japanese diet was slim, her Vietnamese family back home was almost all obese despite their hard daily work and their traditional diet.

If you've been to any of those countries you named you'd admit to seeing obese individuals.

But anecdotes are worthless.

>>4880269
Well you did call my diet "fucking worthless". And slow carbs "bullshit". Lactose has an elevated glycemic load:
http://dietgrail.com/gid/
Even though it's low on the glycemic index. The issue being similar to that of artificial sweeteners: Your body releases insulin when it detects them, but insulin makes little use of them, which causes feedback which informs your body to stop "overproducing" insulin. Which can lead to obvious health issues.

But yeah, slow carb diet is basically just proteins and veggies. Just no grain or sugars, especially without fiber.

[Anonymous No.4880319]

>>4880279
http://alanaragon.com/glycemic-index

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

[Anonymous No.4880330]

>>4880108
> fruitarians wouldn't be losing dramatic amounts of weight by eating thousands of calories worth of fruit.

that's fucking impossible, noby has the stomach volume to eat even 2500kcals worth of fruit a day unless they really go out their way to pick the calorie-densest ones

to get 1500kcals from eating apples you'd have to eat 4kgs of the stuff. which means you will be pretty fucking full after that. which is why fruitarians lose weight.

[Anonymous No.4880329]

>>4880079
>Rule #4: Don’t eat fruit.
Are you getting enough vitamin C from other sources? Skimping on essential nutrients and minerals often does more harm than good.

[Anonymous No.4880343]

>>4880329
The weekly cheat days highly recommend fruit. Bananas, oranges, stuff like that. I typically eat a ton of it for breakfast on cheat day even though you're supposed to eat 30+g of protein in the first 30 minutes of waking up on the diet.

>>4880336
wat

[Anonymous No.4880354]

>>4880330

Ever hear of "30 bananas a day?"

[Anonymous No.4880364]

>>4880168

Hey fellas, this guy's back.

[Anonymous No.4880367]

>>4880354
yes

works because your gut can only digest only so much fructose(not that much) after which you shit the rest out. meaning that your body can't use the energy.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/58/5/748S.abstract

[Anonymous No.4880399]

>>4880367

In other words, you can't get fat from fruit.

[Anonymous No.4880405]

>>4880399
That's like recommending water diets because you can't get fat from water. Incorporate fruit into a real diet and you most certainly can get fat.

[Anonymous No.4880408]

>>4880405

It's nothing like a "water diet," you still get calories from fruit and it's enough to live and thrive, you just aren't going to get fat. It's the perfect diet. Apes have been doing it for millions of years. To tell a human not to eat fruit is like telling a lion not to eat meat.

[Anonymous No.4880417]

>>4880408
You do aware you're a crackpot, right? That apes also eat shoots and leaves and raw meat? And that they live very different lifestyles, with very different physiologies that necessitate very different metabolisms? Every type of ape is stronger than our strongest men are by orders of magnitude and they don't pump iron. Their metabolisms and physiologies do that for them, passively.

Humans, on the other hand, have no had year-round access to fruit in the vast majority of its existence. Anatomically modern humans are, at the VERY oldest, 250,000 years old. Only left Africa 75,000 years ago. And their ancestors had already left the forests, or rather, climate change had taken the forests, and the abundant edible vegetation, from them.

So they spent that time walking, running, hunting, and gathering. A diet of mostly meat and vegetables. Little fruit because fruit was and is very seasonal outside of the tropics and the forests in particular.

Sucks for you to run into someone with an Anthropology degree.

If you don't like "water diet" pick any damn thing. "Potato diet", "Broccoli diet", same flaws in all of them.

[Anonymous No.4880430]

carbs are good for you. it's fat you should avoid. The japanese are very healthy and their diet is high carb high cooked veggies, and low fat.

[Anonymous No.4880437]

>>4880430
>carbs are good for you. it's fat you should avoid

Buy yourself some shares of Apple while you're back in the 80s.

[Anonymous No.4880442]

>>4880437
sick burn

[Anonymous No.4880462]

>>4880437

When was that ever proven wrong? Even the studies that make carbs look bad are about a diet that's high in both fat and carbohydrate. A diet high in both has been shown to increase diabetes risk, while a diet just high in carbohydrate and low in fat is known to reverse diabetes.

[Anonymous No.4880464]

>>4880430
the inuits are very healthy and they eat no carbs

protip: it is not about carbs or fats of whatever, it's about nutrients and managing inflammation. which is something the western diet is poor at. we tend to eat the least nutritious parts of everything(cuz it's cheap).

[Anonymous No.4880465]

>>4880437
Look at all this fat in one vial of blood. Having all that fat in your blood is bad for you. I've been on a low low fat diet for about 2 weeks and my cardiovascular system is working a lot better (don't get tired, never out of breath), and I've lost a lot of weight.

[Anonymous No.4880469]

>>4880417

>having a degree in a hazy science which rewrites itself every decade as new evidence comes forth

[Anonymous No.4880475]

>>4880464

>the inuits are very healthy

Okinawans have a diet that's about 86% carbohydrate. They're the society with the most people who reach the age of 100 in the world. The inuit eat an almost purely fat and protein diet aside from some plants they can get their hands on every so often. They've never been known for longevity, endurance, etc, they've been known to be a tribe of fat people who die of heart disease and cancers. The idea that they're a healthy people is a myth that comes about from the idea that "if they exist, they must be healthy otherwise they'd make their diet something else"

[Anonymous No.4880479]

>>4880462
In like everything since the 90s? Just look at diet trends and health trends and not how everyone who started avoiding fat in the 70s, 80s, and 90s kept getting sicker. Heart disease skyrocketed during this massive diet shift. EXCEPT, among those who didn't change diet! People who kept on with their old traditionally diets saw only baseline increases in heart disease and diabetes. Not elevated rates.

[Anonymous No.4880485]

>>4880479

>not how everyone who started avoiding fat in the 70s, 80s, and 90s kept getting sicker. Heart disease skyrocketed during this massive diet shift.

You realize that's when McDonalds came into popularity, right?

[Anonymous No.4880489]

> don't eat fruit

Fuck that. The only way I was able to wean myself off of junk food and chocolate in particular was with bananas and apples. Then again, I really don't like to eat rice and pasta, and I only eat rye bread and even then scarcely. Potatoes I don't eat much either, except maybe in soups. I love me some onions and cabbage and beans and I usually eat oatmeal for breakfast.

[Anonymous No.4880490]

>>4880475
>they've been known to be a tribe of fat people who die of heart disease and cancers

which happened after they started eating western diet, same happened to okinawans

the reason why okinawans are healthy is not because they eat 85% carbs. they are healthy because they eat nutrient-dense foods in sensible quantities.

for the umpeenth time, macros and health have little correlation. it's the nutrients that matter

[Anonymous No.4880494]

>>4880465
Fat does not go right into the bloodstream like that, though. Surely you know better.

>>4880469
Yeah, it's not my professional degree for that reason. It's my first love, but it turned out to be the least rigorous of real sciences, almost more like a social science, which is intolerable. So it's CompSci for me. Biomechatronics programming in particular.

>>4880475
The Inuits are not known to die of either heart disease nor cancer. Violent death was actually the most common way of passing, as you'd expect from their habitat and lifestyle, but also, their spirituality generally asserted that violent deaths, the struggle, the turmoil, was the only way to purify the soul, so many older Inuits in "danger" of dying of age-related illness chose suicide to ensure their soul was purified in death.

You're obviously biased, underinformed, and incapable of reading considering the thread's already repeatedly touched on the fact that there are centenarian groups with all manner of diet. High fat, high carb, whatever. Genetics plays a bigger role than anything else in longevity. Diet and fitness mostly just determines the quality of whatever life your telomeres have decided you'll experience before defects accumulate to critical levels.

>>4880485
No, they came in much earlier. And you do realize that these NUTRITION studies account for NUTRITION, right? Do you seriously think they lumped people huffing Big Macs into their low-fat testing parameters?!

[Anonymous No.4880499]

>>4880199
This. I was logging on myfitnesspal for like 6months, lost 30lbs and kept it off, but struggled in the last 2 months because I was so SICK of feeling OCD about logging every fucking morsel and worrying about it so much every goddamned day. K knew by then what most things were calorie wise but I felt so tied to seeing it laid out on the website. I began to even resent eating at all. I stopped logging and have kept the weight off by myself for a year.

[Anonymous No.4880500]

>>4880479
>Just look at diet trends and health trends and not how everyone who started avoiding fat

Except they didn't avoid fats. 70's onward, processed food became the norm,
and processed food is loaded with fat and sugar. Fat is in everything. If you
want to lose weight, simply avoiding high fat foods is a good start. Absolutely no
cheese, butter, oil, fried food, egg yolks, chips etc. does wonders.

[Anonymous No.4880507]

>>4880500
except cheese is one of the best sources of calcium which increases fat loss and egg yolks are one of the healthiest things you can eat, especially if you get ones from naturally-fed chickens.

also, proper cheese(not the processed american shits) has been proven to stabilize appetite in a positive way

[Anonymous No.4880512]

>>4880500
I'm honna repeat:

>>4880494
>you do realize that these NUTRITION studies account for NUTRITION, right? Do you seriously think they lumped people huffing Big Macs into their low-fat testing parameters?

You're arguing from a layman's positions, in layman's terms, using layman's examples. Academic perspective on this issue controls nearly all of those factors you list away. And it's a simple fact that even the layman knows a low-fat diet avoids eggs, butter, fried foods, chips, etc. That's why artificial butter, margarine, imitation pan sprays, etc, took off in the 80s and 90s.

Only now, in the past 10 years, we've realized most of those products cause more harm than good, and that avoiding the real versions not only didn't help health, but the popular alternatives made health worse.

[Anonymous No.4880526]

>>4880507

What would possibly make you think that?

[Anonymous No.4880534]

>>4880507
A piece of cheese is a lump of fat, it's like a piece of lard. Drink some milk, ditch the cheese.

Try reducing fat drastically for a while, and then going for a run
or some aerobic exercise. You can feel the difference a low fat
diet makes under such circumstances. A high fat diet gunks up
the cardiovascular system.

[Anonymous No.4880536]

>>4880512

We're saying there was no low-fat renaissance like you think there was. McDonalds was becoming the biggest thing around, everybody was eating tons of fat, and those substitutes like mararine are also high-fat

[Anonymous No.4880539]

>>4880534

>drink some milk

How about eat some vegetables? That's where calcium comes from.

[Anonymous No.4880544]

>>4880536
Please stop. There's an entire era of nutrition research on the low-fat diet fad from that time. It's literally the biggest body of work outside of general nutrition. Second place by miles and miles is the China Study (I recommend the book if you're not familiar)* and similar research on Asian diets.

*
http://www.amazon.com/The-China-Study-Comprehensive-Implications/dp/1932100660

Ignore the hyperbole and grandstanding in the title.

[Anonymous No.4880550]

>>4880534
except I'm physically very active and I change my diet around high carb/high fat(always high protein) and see no "clogging of cardiovascular system" on a high-fat diet.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6413146/Eating-more-cheese-can-help-fat-people-lose-weight-study-claims.html
yfw? I'd post the actual study but I don't have it bookmarked.

again, macros != health

[Anonymous No.4880553]

>>4880550

>unhealthy food can be healthy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCD46KbOkSM&feature=c4-overview&list=UUddn8dUxYdgJz3Qr5mjADtA

No, your industry biased "research" is always proven to be wrong and misleading

[Anonymous No.4880559]

>>4880553

and how you know that is based on unbiased studies while my studies are biased?

[Anonymous No.4880562]

>>4880553
You're an idiot if you think industry influences more than 1% of global research.
You must think all poverty research is useless because the Koch brothers fund like 12% of all of it and liberal groups fund another 20-something %. Guess that means the majority, which is all independent, is still useless lol.

You're a conspiracy theorist. You know what that means? According to Neil Degrasse Tyson it means you're lacking evidence. Because if you had any, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory. The hallmark of a conspiracy theory is when lack of evidence becomes evidence for your cause.

[Anonymous No.4880566]

>>4880562

Is the global consensus that cheese is good for weight-loss?

[Anonymous No.4880572]

>>4880562

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffUZfngcWPA&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PL5TLzNi5fYd-OzEDvs3DKg_dMbSaAhdDq

You can see every paper and article cited. It's not a conspiracy theory when you can demonstrate that it's true. If you think massive industries have no influence whatsoever on anything, you're living in a fantasy world.

[Anonymous No.4880573]

>>4880566
the consensus among people that actually know shit is that caloric deficit is is essential for weight loss. cheese has nutrients(protein, calcium, phosphorus) that are beneficial for fat loss. meanwhile if you overeat it it will make you fat like almost everything does.

so, an educated opinion would be that cheese in moderated serving sizes is good for weight loss as a part of balanced and calorie-controlled diet.

[Anonymous No.4880574]

>>4880566
As far as I know I can only say it's an extremely viable component to a healthy diet. There are no significant objections and there is no reason why it wouldn't be automatically false. Especially with that protein content and the absence of much sugar. Even high lactose cheeses aren't very high in sugars. Protein, on the other hand, is generally good for weight loss, and fat's not bad, calcium along with protein is good for building strength and stamina. The entire argument around fat used to be cardiovascular disease. But that's pretty questionable in 2013.

>>4880572
And I can show you which research centers the Koch brothers funded that just so happened to produce poverty data that advances the Republican position on wealth inequality.

My entire point is that this does not mean ALL poverty research is bunk except for, CONVENIENTLY, the research YOU agree with!

Just because SOME nutrition and health research is funded by the American Cattle Farmers association does not mean the majority of the field is full of shit just because it disagrees with your niche, secondhand opinion on the matter.

[Anonymous No.4880588]

>>4880079
unbalanced/10
would not follow

[Anonymous No.4880605]

To the cheese debate, a study was done where people consumed low fat calcium sources. It was found that more fat was excreted through their feces than the group who didn't consume these calcium sources.
So yes, if the cheese is low in calories, then it can assist in pooping out some fat in your diet.
HOWEVER, there are plenty of other ways to obtain a high calcium intake. Almond milk for one. Cottage cheese. Unsweetened yogurt. Collard'greens. Broccoli.

[Anonymous No.4880615]

I eat the same everyday of my sad life

wake up

Protein shake with some vitamins
wholegrain cereal with 2% milk

chicken breast with white rice for lunch
black coffee with bee honey

Rye flower pizza with actual tomate puree, cheese, sliced chicken breast, and peperoni

for snacks I eat peperoni, popcorn with only salt, pure cacao chocolate (once you taste this every other chocolate tastes like corn syrup shit)

I probably should replace milk and make my own peperoni, also eat brown rice

[Anonymous No.4880619]

>>4880605

Nuts also have a similar thing about pooping out the fat, but you poop out more because it has fiber that the fat clings to. Nuts also contain L-arginine that assists in fat burning

[Anonymous No.4880634]

>>4880615
>bee honey

lol is there any other kind?

[Anonymous No.4880642]

>>4880615
>Rye flower pizza with actual tomate puree, cheese, sliced chicken breast, and peperoni
Do you buy this or make it yourself?

[Anonymous No.4880646]

>>4880615

>and make my own peperoni

Ah, a fan of Jamie Oliver I take it. "It's fine to eat junk food as long as you make it yourself"

[Anonymous No.4880699]

Bump because like 2 sorta recipes have been posted in 93 replies.

[Anonymous No.4880701]

>>4880634
nowadays sadly yes. which is glucose-fructose syrup with "added honey aroma" or something like that

god bless america

[Anonymous No.4880713]

>>4880701
I used to think I was just incompetent at making tea because I could never replicate the quality of my late grandmothers. Then I realized the honey I was using was fake syrup crap. When I switched to real honey the difference disappeared. Surprised my aunts and cousins with it and blew em all away. They'd all been making the same mistake when they tried to make it like she used to.

[Anonymous No.4880724]

>>4880079

Apples are fine, bro. I lost weight with your diet too. Fruit sugar (fructose) is special in a sense that it is paired with healthy dietary fiber. This dietary fiber slows down the rate in which your body metabolizes sugar. It's foods like white bread, pasta, etc... Foods that have refined sugar on its own that are harmful.

tldr Whole fruit sugar > everything else. Your body loves it and can handle it

[Anonymous No.4880757]

This is all so complicated for me. Is there something like a list of specific food that i can eat and specific food that i can't eat?

I'm not native english speaker so all those words you use confuse me :3

[Anonymous No.4880765]

>>4880757

Yes. You may not eat anything that comes in a bag and through a window. You may not eat any sauces. You may not consume any liquid calories. This includes sauces, cream, coffee, etc. The only exception is pure fruit juice/veg juice. You may not eat bread, potatoes, or pasta. And you most certainly can not eat any mammals. Fish I haven't made a determination on. Crustaceans have yet to be determined too (I still don't eat them).

To make it simple. You may it plants. That's it. Enjoy your long life.

[Anonymous No.4880767]

>>4880765
>fruit juice

Lol enjoy your unnatural pure sugar water candy plant faget lel

[Anonymous No.4880769]

>>4880765

eat*

[Anonymous No.4880772]

>>4880765

Idiot.

[Anonymous No.4880773]

>>4880765
>no sauces
>no pasta

Fuck.

[Anonymous No.4880775]

>>4880757
in general eat lots of veggies and fish

[Anonymous No.4880777]

>>4880767

not welch's faggot. But I don't recommend a lot of fruits or fruit juice. Apple a day. Two bananas a day should be fine.

Whole fruit sugar (fructose) is special in that it is paired with a shitload of dietary fiber. This fiber helps the body keep blood glucose levels at manageable levels.

The opposite is true for refined sugars.

But... On the whole, the goal is to make your pancreas produce as little insulin as possible. And fructose does promote such a response from the beta cells of said pancreas

[Anonymous No.4880781]

>>4880777

It's not just fiber that does that but phytonutrients as well

http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?dbid=15&tname=foodspice

>The phytonutrients in apples can help you regulate your blood sugar. Recent research has shown that apple polyphenols can help prevent spikes in blood sugar through a variety of mechanisms. Flavonoids like quercetin found in apples can inhibit enzymes like alpha-amylase and alpha-glucosidase. Since these enzymes are involved in the breakdown of complex carbohydrates into simple sugars, your blood sugar has fewer simple sugars to deal with when these enzymes are inhibited. In addition, the polyphenols in apple have been shown to lessen absorption of glucose from the digestive tract; to stimulate the beta cells of the pancreas to secrete insulin; and to increase uptake of glucose from the blood via stimulation of insulin receptors

[Anonymous No.4880785]

>>4880781

thanks anon. Didn't know that

[Anonymous No.4881262]

>>4880765
Get the fuck out you fruitarian faggot.

[Anonymous No.4881264]

>>4880781
>>4880777
You fruit-loving dipshits also need to note to only eat homegrown, pesticide-free fruit. Peaches on the supermarket shelf have an average of 11 fucking pesticides on their skin. Apples are nearly as bad. Any fruit you buy at the supermarket has inedible skin because of the chemicals used on them, not many of which come off when you rinse them. That dramatically reduces the selection you have, and dramatically reduces the viability of that insane diet even if it was worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.4881269]

Just eat fucking carbs. Enjoy your life and fuck what people complain about your weight.

[Anonymous No.4881277]

>>4881269
I complain about my weight. I give zero fucks what other people think of it. I just don't fit my personal standards and, most importantly, I can't physically do the things I want to do in the few brief windows I get to do them. When I get a vacation from both jobs and go hiking or rock climbing or any other physical experience, I'm limited by the weight I put on because of these jobs.

[Mashed Potato No.4881283]

>>4880079
You are doing low carb, but eat lots of beans?

I eat low carb (<100) a day. Often less then 50 grams. But I will eat potatoes.

Fiber. Potassium, etc.

[Anonymous No.4881314]

>>4881277
So take speed or something. Carbs are too delicious, and life is too short to live without them.

[Anonymous No.4881324]

>>4881314
It's just a short term thing. My diet and lifestyle do not put on tons of fat quickly. It took 10 years to go from 180 to 300, very slowly. The weight I dropped on the diet comes back a pound every 2 or 3 months. I only have to stick to this diet for a month to lose 20 to 30 pounds. So if I can get back down to a good weight I'll only have to do this very rarely, maybe once every year or two, or never if I can find a better diet that keeps the weight off.

Slow carb diet isn't a lifestyle for me. It's a true temporary diet. Plus it allows for lots of carbs on its cheat day so I'm not living without it.

[Anonymous No.4881521]

>>4880124
>The advent of agriculture is relatively recent
So Mesopotamian farming of the fertile crescent thousands of years ago is recent?
I hope you mean mass production scale agriculture.

[Anonymous No.4881534]

>>4881521
Our species is at a minimum 100,000 years old. More likely 200,000-250,000 years old. So yes, even the most generous timeline for the transition to agriculture makes it a very, VERY recent shift. Count the generations between now and Mesopotamia.

Neolithic agriculture, while not strictly the first agriculture, is the first widespread change in diet and lifestyle, and likely began 10,000 to 13,000 years ago. Assuming reproduction began within a few years of first menstruation and continues through the 20s we can ballpark 18 years average generation cycle. That gives us something like 722 generations between 13,000 years ago, the generous case, and now. If we take the LATEST possible rise of anatomically modern humans, 100,000 years ago, and apply the same 18 year cycle length, we get 5556 generations.

The amount of changes possible in EITHER figure are extremely small for significant evolution to take place within. Which is why racism is fucking pointless. We're extremely homogenous, genetically, no matter what we look like on the outside. But the odds of significant change in 722 generations are dramatically lower than in 5556 generations.

[Anonymous No.4881541]

>>4881534
Look at all this autism. The advent of agriculture is not recent, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.4881545]

>>4881534
>being this mad and this autistic about something so trivial.
I was talking about recorded history (or at least close to that). We still don't know much about caveman times, so it isn't fair to assume you are right.

Also, I initially thought you weren't taking into consideration 100,000 years ago.

[Anonymous No.4881553]

>>4881545
Don't give him any credit. He went through all te trouble to come up with some technical nonsense that's not even accurate to try to prove some trivial point based on trivial language. Relatively recent. No, the advent of agriculture is not relatively recent. Autists should die, they contribute nothing.

[Anonymous No.4881554]

>>4881541
All dat irony. You can look up the figures and research your damn self. Agriculture is extremely recent.

>>4881545
Recorded history means NOTHING. It's shorter than agricultural history. Evolutionary history is the only relevant kind of history when you're talking about physiology.

I'm also not the first guy you were responding to. I just had to put you in your place because even the eldest form of agriculture: forest cultivation, is so new as to be the blink of an eye on the evolutionary timeline.

Also not mad, and your flabbergasted handwaving only makes you out to be the Autist. And also probably pretty mad. Please stop projecting onto me.

[Anonymous No.4881562]

>>4881554
>extremely recent
>dat trivial language again

The Cold War was relatively recent. The War in Iraq and Afghanistan was extremely recent.

>I'm not autist!
>posts another autistic reply
>you're autist!
>you

[Anonymous No.4881565]

>>4881554
>>4881534
Just stop before you make your selves look even more autistic.

[Anonymous No.4881581]

>>4881562
Not an evolutionary scale. You do realize life is billions of years old on this planet?

That's a B there. Billion. 1,000,000,000. That's one billion. There've likely been more than THREE of those since first life. You'll note it's several orders of magnitude greater than the timeline for human evolution, and dwarfs recent political events to insignificance.

>>4881565
>>4881562
At the end of the day, I'm still the one with a degree on the subject, putting retarded children on 4chan in their place. Name call all you like. You're only making yourselves look like insecure, petty, butthurt brats.

[Anonymous No.4881596]

>>4881581
>I HAVE AN AA IN NUTRITION SO LISTEN UP

Oh it's this guy again, comedy gold A++ keep up the good work.

>That's a B there. Billion.

You do realize domestic dogs evolved to have different dietary requirements in the past tens of thousands of years, right? The several billion years that preceded that change are irrelevant with respect to minor changes like this. We're not talking about growing lungs or some shit like that.

[Anonymous No.4881597]

>>4881581
>At the end of the day, I'm still the one with a degree on the subject
why would you major in autism?

[Anonymous No.4881623]

>>4881596
I said I have a degree in Anthropology, not nutrition. I'm not commenting on the efficacy of any diet. Just the timeline of the agricultural revolution and human evolution.

You do realize domestic dogs have changed very little from their feral canine counterparts aside from their aesthetic features, right? All domestic dogs are more closely related to eachother than to any wolf or fox, but wolves, foxes, and domestic dogs are ALL relatively homogenous. They don't split on the taxonomic tree until very far down. Their diets are not significantly different any meaningful way.

Additionally, canines mature and gestate significantly faster. Most breeds enter puberty by 6-12 months old. Some large breeds take slightly longer. They gestate for only 60-70 days. They reproduce like 20 times faster than humans. In the same 13,000 years since the agricultural revolution began and humans saw ~722 generations, dogs that cohabitated with them saw more like 14,000+.

That's more than twice as many generations as humans have experienced since anatomical modernity! Nearly three times as many! And that's ASSUMING 1 year maturity for canines, when we know they can potentially mature in as little as 6 months, which would DOUBLE all of these counts.

And yes, we actually are talking about growing lungs. The digestive system is more complex than the respiratory system and significant changes in digestion require changes in complex chemical processes. We are dealing with strong acid here, after all. Then the absorption process requires adjustment. And the blood's methods of conveyance. And the processing of the molecules in the liver, filtration in the kidneys, pancreas and gall bladder production might need to change, and finally uptake into either the muscular, skeletal, or fat systems in the body all require adaptation.

None of that happens quickly or easily. Especially without guidance. Which just Natural Selection and pure luck.

[Anonymous No.4881626]

>>4881597
Anthropology is far from autism. It's almost a social science, which is why I got out. You're thinking of math, engineering, chemistry, etc.

[Anonymous No.4881637]

>>4881626
No I'm pretty sure anthopology is autism, >>4881623 yep I'm sure of it now.

[Anonymous No.4881643]

>>4881637
>facts that shit all over my primitive misunderstanding of reality are autistic, waaaaah!
Your tears taste delicious, by the by.

[Anonymous No.4881649]

>>4881623
>>4881581
>>4881554
>>4881534
mfw this thread

[Anonymous No.4881653]

>>4881649
You should've seen the erection I had getting to use long forgotten information to slam dunk you guys.

[Anonymous No.4881657]

>dont eat fruit
wow, worst advice ever.

[Anonymous No.4881662]

>>4881657
wow, worst criticism ever.

You might try backing up your assertions if you mean to contribute in any way. If you don't, why'd you stop, fill out a captcha, and post that?

[Anonymous No.4881677]

>>4881653
Hahaha, Jesus Christ, man. Just stop.

[Anonymous No.4881678]

>>4881662
The evolutionary spectrum of the Neolithic age is generally congruent with the lineage of the sub Saharan thesis of the anglosphere. Practically proves the point, evolutionary, that fruits aren't necessary. From the first 100 000 years past a billion this has been the case. I have a masters in anthropology.

[Anonymous No.4881685]

>>4881678
So then what's your complaint with not eating fruit 6 days a week?

[Anonymous No.4881695]

>>4881685
What complaint?

[Anonymous No.4881715]

>>4881695

>>4881657
>>dont eat fruit
>wow, worst advice ever.

Unless you meant to reply to >>4881657
when you replied to >>4881662

[Anonymous No.4881719]

>>4881715
That wasn't me you idiot. I was just babbling about nonsense. Stop being a faggot.

[Anonymous No.4881733]

>>4881719
If that was babble it reads like you copied and pasted from somewhere not babble.
It can be read to mean
>Neolithic humans (implied globally, or caucasian in particular because of the anglosphere nonsense) are generally similar to their sub-Saharan ancestors (little fruit in the sub-saharan habitat after recession of the rainforests so implied lack of fructose in the diet). If fruit were necessary or even just strongly acceptable this wouldn't be the case.

The billion years thing is nonsense. The anglosphere thing is pointless. But I've met people with PhDs on the topic that communicate worse than the babble you spat out.
Congrats. You managed to type something that reads like the work of a pretentious circle-jerker with a limited circle of academic peers with a lot of internal understanding. Which is a sizable demographic in the study.

[Anonymous No.4881743]

>>4881733
Yeah well it was babble. I used my limited knowledge about this bullshit to make a somewhat intelligible response mocking you and your degree in retard. How does it feel knowing that I didn't even major in autism like you and made that statement? I love slamdunking guys like you and putting you in your place. No homo.

[Anonymous No.4881760]

>>4881743
I didn't keep majoring in it. I was just a few credits and a paper short of an easy extra qualification for my resume so I finished it after everything else. It's not like it's my career. Makes shit cash.

Doesn't feel anything. It's half paraphrased from my truths. And much of that information can be googled or wikipedia'd. I had to look up dog gestational period, for example.

But bravo on making yourself look like an even bigger butthurt baby. As I said before, your tears are delectable. I have enough now to top a salad, I think.

But I'm curious about what's going on in your head. Here you are confronted with facts. With concrete knowledge. With useful information. And you rebel. Why? Why does it hurt you? What about this information makes you so mad? Why do you let yourself get so worked up about the truth? Wouldn't it just be easier to shrug and move on?

Either you have a personal stake in the discussion, meaning you're a batshit fruitarian that's mad about your worldview being debunked repeatedly in front of you, which makes you no better than a Tea Party Republican or Fundamentalist Muslim in your intolerance of new information, or you take demonstrations of knowledge or qualification as an insult. You compare other people's status, height, degrees, money etc, to your relative lack of them and take the very existence of superior examples to be an assault on your relatively inferior attributes.

I suppose it's just easier to get mad and bitter than it is to improve yourself, isn't it?