[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/ck/ - Food & Cooking

View post   
File: 33 KB, 570x319, healthy-foods.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5138391 No.5138391 [Reply] [Original]

I'm cooking for someone who is trying to lose weight. General tips?

>> No.5138398

Lots of vegetables, lower the portion of starch (rice, pasta, potatoes), don't fry anything.

>> No.5138400

Lots of vegetables and lean meat. No more cake and donuts for a while, fatty.

>> No.5138402

Give them vastly smaller portions. That's the biggest issue with losing weight. People have a distorted view on what a proper portion is supposed to be. Don't cook with a lot of creamy shit, butter, cheese, etc. A good meal would be 4 ounces of lean protein and veggies like broccoli, cauliflower, spinach, kale, sweet potatoes, green beans. Those veggies should be cooked with various spices to enhance flavor, not with butter or other sauces with a lot of calories. Load up on as many veggies as you can fit in your gut.

>> No.5138411

What is the best alternative to butter?

>> No.5138414

>>5138411
Avocado

>> No.5138421

>>5138411
What are you using butter for? A topping? As a cooking lubricant? If it's a topping, there really isn't much. You could get that smart balance margarine shit but it's not any better for you. You'll have to learn to do without. Explore with spices. There are so many amazing spices in the world, and almost all of them are zero calories.

If you're cooking with butter, switch to avocado or grapeseed oil. Use just a tiny bit. Enough to sautee or whatever you're doing in that pan. A tablespoon of oil will be far fewer calories than a tablespoon of butter. You need to be measuring this stuff too, by the way. You'd be surprised how many extra calories slip into a meal if you just pour oil into a pan from the bottle. What you think is a tablespoon is suddenly 1/4 a cup without you even realizing it. So measure that shit until you're certain using the eyeball technique.

>> No.5138422

>>5138411
Smart Balance (it's an "alternative" to margarine) isn't bad for putting on toast and such, but I don't cook with it. I use olive oil or canola oil.

>> No.5138423

>>5138421
A tablespoon of oil has more calories than a tablespoon of butter, moron. Butter contains water, oil doesn't.

>> No.5138470

Cook the tasty foods you normally cook and slap the shit out of your fat companion when they try to eat too much of it. Eat less, lose weight.

>> No.5138480

Lean protein and vegetables. Fiber in the vegetables fills you up quickly, and protein keeps you satisfied.

If you want a starch replacement, spaghetti squash makes an amazing substitute for pasta. I'm obsessed with it.

>> No.5138493

>>5138391
eat lots of healthy fats. butter, eggs, whole milk

>> No.5138520

I have a problem with food and I also eat when I'm bored/feel hungry when I'm not all day. I also take anti-depressants that can make me feel a bit nauseous and I often confuse it for feeling hungry.

I also feel angry/frustrated/self hating a lot for other stuff and eat my feelings away.

What I've found that works really well for cravings is to simply drink more water. Every time I feel even the slightest bit hungry and it's not meal time, I sip some water.

What helps when I feel angry/frustrated and need something to do but feel stuck in 'curled up in my bed hating myself' mode is to grab some celery and an apple. I can eat and crunch them viciously, eat as fast as I want and as much as I want without feeling bad about myself after. The light, bittersweet crunch of celery mixed with apple is really good too. I make Waldorf salads with light yogurt, celery, apples, walnuts, and dried cranberries/raisins a lot to eat during lunch when my anxiety usually is rather high from classes and it helps calm me down and focus.

Tea and coffee can also help. Like water, sipping on them can make you feel fuller, but the flavour gives you a bit more to feel better enough, and you can focus on the smell of it and help your brain calm down when all you want to do is eat something and hate yourself.

A lot of overeating is due to problems in your brain. While other people might drink, do drugs, or engage in other unhealthy behaviors, I think eating is one of the most common. You have to be on alert and aware of yourself all day and counter your bad habits until you can do it automatically.

Also it helps to talk to a psychiatrist/get pills.

>> No.5138557

>>5138520
I hope you don't think fruit is healthy or low in calories.

>> No.5138562

>>5138411
surprised no one said coconut oil.

>> No.5138570

>>5138411
death.

>> No.5138653

>>5138557
> derp don't eat fruit lol

Like two apples and one banana every day. And a bag of celery because anger issues.

I hope you don't think you weren't kind of being an idiot with your post. Not a complete idiot but unnecessarily confrontational in the way you worded your post.

>> No.5138684

>>5138653
Holy shit that's a lot of fruit in a day

>> No.5138686

>>5138493
>>5138557

OP, don't listen to these retards

Eat lots of vegetables (with nuts mixed in, not oil/salad dressing), eat fruit for snacks, and eat legumes and whole grains for meals. Don't add oil or sugar to your food, and drink nothing but water. It's pretty hard to be fat with a diet like that

>> No.5138689

>>5138411
evoo

>> No.5138690

>>5138684

>two apples and a banana is a lot of fruit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YBhVGBs9hg

>> No.5138697

>>5138690
she can eat all the frucktoast she wants. shes hot!

>> No.5138699

I've been trying to eat healthier as well. If it helps, I've been enjoying making food in the crock pot. I made a hearty/healthy lentil soup that was packed with veggies and a little bit of italian sausage. Then the other day I made "unstuffed" peppers: Quinoa, marinara sauce, onions, garlic, diced bell peppers.

Just try to stray away from junk food, if not, have something in moderation.

>> No.5138714

>>5138690
I like fruit, but thats fucking nutty.

>> No.5138716

>>5138684
>approx 300 calories out of rdi of 2000 in fruit

it's really not that much. not the guy youre replying to btw. also no fruit isn't 'unhealthy,' that's just some contrarian shit newfags regurgitate because it makes them feel superior and knowledgeable. just because fruit has sugar doesn't make it unhealthy.

unlike processed sugar candy, soda, etc., fruit has fiber, vitamins, minerals, and other micronutrients such as phytochemicals and in the instance of apples ursolic acid which has been shown in clinical trials to have a benefit for the body's composition in terms of brown/white fat, muscle, skeletal tissue and so on.

further, in terms of calories per gram fruit has a much greater volume than other things "unhealthly" like say gummi worms.

100g of apple - 52 calories
100g of gummi worms - 325 calories

what this means is that in terms of mass or volume, fruit actually IS low in calories relative to other foods. most other foods, i'd wager.

what IS unhealthy is not fruit in and of itself but taking in more calories than you burn on a continual basis, which leads to overweight, obesity, and all the attendant issues.

please excuse yourself from the thread because there are people here who actually know what they are talking about and no one should waste their time and thought listening to you. feel free to make a contribution when you have actually gotten a grip on the complex relationships between the bodies' metabolic processes and the properties and benefits of different foods.

>> No.5138721

>>5138690
Sexy girl, would waufu.

Are Australians like the Texans of Britbongland?

>> No.5138726

>>5138716

>micronutrients such as phytochemicals

fucking vegans and your hippie words! meat and eggs are best!

>> No.5138729

>>5138520
>drink,
>do drugs
>engage in other unhealthy behaviors
>overeat every few days
Gotcha there

>> No.5138730

>>5138716
depending on the fruit, it can still spike your blood sugar

>> No.5138733

>>5138716
Except that is wrong. Fruit has no nutritional value at all. Its empty calories. You are just as well off eating a candy bar as an apple.

>> No.5138734

>>5138714

Yeah, it's a pretty crazy amount of fruit for a normal person, but for a fruitarian like her whose calories come from pretty much nothing but fruit, it's not that over-the-top. Fruitarians are always telling you to eat a lot of fruit rather than restrict your calories to lose weight, and looking at her I'm inclined to believe fruit doesn't make people fat.

>> No.5138742
File: 1.72 MB, 350x253, dog decline.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5138742

>>5138733

>> No.5138754

>>5138730

What fruit are you talking about? Even dates, which are 80% sugar, only have a medium-low GI

>> No.5138761

>>5138754
Bananas, pineapples, and oranges are fairly high in sugars.

>> No.5138774

>>5138761

Sugar isn't the only thing you look at that. Fiber and phytonutrients have as much of an effect on glycemic control.

>> No.5138785

>>5138774
>pseudo-science garbage

Listen. Listen to me carefully.

One person eats nothing but fruit. Another person eats nothing but steak. The healthier of the two is obvious.

Fruit is terrible for you.

>> No.5138786

>>5138733
That's not what Sportacus taught me!

>> No.5138789
File: 29 KB, 347x260, 1263894590787.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5138789

>>5138785

Here's a girl that eats nothing but fruit

>>5138690

>> No.5138790

>>5138785
How is saying fiber and phytochemicals affect your glycemic index and health in general pseudo-science?

Do you really think health and nutrition boils down to carbs, protein, and fat?

>> No.5138791

>>5138761
high in sugar ≠ high GI

high GI = 70+ = white starches. potatoes, white bread, pre-processed starchy products like waffle mix, pizza, cake, etc
medium GI < 50-70 = banana, pineapple
low GI < 50 = apple, orange

source: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm

>>5138785
appeal to extremes fallacy.

>> No.5138795

>>5138774
Well I'm just saying, eating more than one banana in a relatively short span of time sends my blood sugar skyrocketing. I've read it's best to eat fruit on an empty stomach. Like first thing in the morning.

>> No.5138820

>>5138795

When you eat the banana, do you eat just a banana? Eating a fatty meal with any kind of sugar causes problems because the fats circulate in your bloodstream and obstruct the absorption of sugar

>> No.5138829

>>5138795
Hi I'm the fat person with the head problems and I recently had a physical and not only is my cholesterol at healthy levels, so is my blood pressure (70/118) and my blood sugar.

Some people are just naturally more sensitive to sugars in the way that some people can drink milk just fine, others are completely unable to, and some are in between.

A history of diabetes in your family can put you more at risk as well. I'm actually rather sensitive to caffeine. More than one cup and I become very Sharkey. But I also don't drink soda so I'm probably just not used to taking so much.

Have you ever been to a doctor to see if maybe you just have a natural sensitivity to sugar?

>> No.5138835

>>5138820
Yeah I think that was part of my problem. I try to limit them to the morning before breakfast or with breakfast if its light.

>> No.5138839

>>5138829
Actually I'm really skinny, but yes I do believe I have a sensitivity to sugar.

>> No.5138975

>>5138829
I bought a blood glucose meter last month out of curiosity. I usually eat fairly low carb, but I occasionally splurge with a pizza meal, or cake at a party.

Wintertime is particularly sugar laden because a lot of relatives will give me cookies and other baked goods.

So i spent 2 days measuring my levels every hour. My glucose levels remained flat. I ended up eating 6 chocolate poptarts at one point. 1200 calories almost entirely carbs. and my levels remained flat.

apparently I have the constitution of a god

>> No.5138981

>>5138795
bananas are the worst of fruit because no one eats their delicious fiber filled skins.

Have you tried testing your blood sugar on apples?

>> No.5138994

>>5138975

>I usually eat fairly low carb, but I occasionally splurge with a pizza meal, or cake at a party.
>I ended up eating 6 chocolate poptarts at one point. 1200 calories almost entirely carbs

Fuck, why does every low carber think of fatty candy foods when they think of carbohydrates? Carbohydrate to me is lentils, fruits, beans, sweet potatoes, oats, barley, etc. Carbohydrate to you is some junk food that's half refined sugar or refined wheat, half fat, but you ignore the fat part and just focus on the sugar and then equate that to all carbohydrate-rich foods

>> No.5139054

>>5138994
fruit lentils and beans aren't really high carb though.

1 serving of orange has like 15g of carbs 20% of which is fiber
1 serving of pop tarts has like 75g of carbs 2% of which is fiber

>> No.5139074

>>5139054
Lentils are neither oranges nor pop tarts.

>> No.5139077

>>5139074
lentils 20g 40% of which are fiber

>> No.5139092

>>5139054

1 serving of orange has 91% of its calories coming from carbohydrate, 2% from fat, and 7% from protein

1 serving of chocolate fudge pop tarts has 80% of its calories coming from carbohydrate with 2g of fiber, 14% fat (a third being saturated), and 6% protein

Fruit is high-carbohydrate food, and specifically a high-sugar food. All scientific data shows us that fruit is beneficial for humans though. You can't compare pop tarts to fruit or any other carbohydrate.

>> No.5139109

>>5138994
simple carbs spike blood sugar and get turned into fat easily, complex carbs don't tend to do so

>> No.5139116

>>5139092
15% of an orange is carbohydrates
85% is not carbohydrates

75% of a poptart is carbohydrates
25% is not carbohydrates

>> No.5139124

>>5139109

>simple carbs spike blood sugar and get turned into fat easily

De novo lipogenesis is not an easy process. Carbohydrates are more likely to be stored as glycogen or burned off through facultative dietary thermogenesis. When carbs are converted to fat, the cost of doing this is about 30% of the calories, whereas to convert dietary fat to body fat only costs 2% of its calories.

The skinniest people in the world live on white rice and vegetables.

>> No.5139128

/fit/ sticky
basically cuts out the contradicting bullshit

>> No.5139133

>>5139116

What?

>> No.5139140

>>5139133
per 100g of orange. you will get about 15g of carbohydrates

per 100g of poptart you will get about 75g of carbohydrates

>> No.5139141

>>5138994
this
look at Asia for fucks sake. a large amount of their diet is carb, but low fat, low calorie and not being hideously sedentary merifats means that they stay very slim and healthy.

>> No.5139147

>>5139140

That doesn't change what the composition of the foods are, that just means one food is more energy dense, most likely because pop-tarts are man-made and not an actual food. If you ate 2000 calories worth of orange you'd be eating more sugar than 2000 calories worth of pop-tarts

>> No.5139157

>>5139124
I believe you are mistaken.

The body does not usually turn dietary fat into body fat. It turns dietary fat into various other products, but the majority is turned into glycogen.

>> No.5139160

>>5139124
Don't bother speaking sense to the senseless. They won't care. I've made the exact same argument nearly verbatim several times on here before but it's always the same:
BACON GREASE GOOD!!! WHITE RICE BAD!!! COCONUT OIL GOOD!!! FLOUR BAD!!!
I'm not some whack job vegan or vegetarian or even a health nut, but I detest misinformation and hate what the low-carb/paleo bullshit has bred: a bunch of very loud, know-nothing broscientists.

>> No.5139170

>>5139157

>It turns dietary fat into various other products, but the majority is turned into glycogen.

Glycogen is made of glucose, it comes from carbohydrate. That's also why there's virtually no low-carb athletes, because having depleted glycogen stores is not conducive to athletic performance. I've heard of a few runners who claim to be low-carb and then on race day they drink sugar gels and honey for energy though

>> No.5139186

>>5139141
60% of china is diabetic or pre-diabetic.

If you look at the longest living people, the okinawans, you will see they only eat about 200g of carbohydrates a day. Which only accounts for half of their energy input.

Americans and mexicans also have half of their energy coming from carbohydrates. but eat about 350g a day. Which is why they are fat. They eat more of everything.

>> No.5139188

>>5139160
white rice and flour isn't bad?

>> No.5139192

>>5139186
Okinawans don't eat much rice?

>> No.5139202

>>5139147
Who can eat 2000 calories of oranges in a day? that is madness. that would be like 20-25 oranges.

I could eat 2000 calories of poptarts in a day though. that would only be 10 poptarts I could follow it up with a pint of milk and some cookies.

>> No.5139205

>>5139192
Only because rice doesn't grow as well there for some reason. Instead, their staple is yam. They eat a tonne of yam. Whereas half of a typical Japanese carbs comes from rice, half of a typical Okinawans carbs comes from yam.

>> No.5139207

>>5139160

I don't think I can say anything that would change the mind of who I'm talking to, but I feel like I have to argue about this stuff for whoever may be lurking on the board and reading these topics, because I actually want to help people and don't want the paleo broscience to spread around.

The day every major study starts demonizing fruit, sweet potatoes, whole grains, and legumes, and starts showing us that bacon, ice cream, and cheeseburgers are good for us, I'll stop promoting the foods I do, but right now all scientific evidence points to these high-carbohydrate, high-nutrient-density plant foods to be the most beneficial foods for human health. The most frustrating thing is that is isn't even a battle of science, it's not like the high-fat animal-based people have anywhere near as much evidence as the high-carb plant-based people do for why their diet should be considered healthy, but it mainly comes down to what people want to believe. You can throw citations and landmark studies at people all day, but if they'd rather eat porkchops than black bean and barley soup, they're going to ignore what you tell them and just keep trying to search high and low for any validation they can get for their preferred diet

>> No.5139214

>>5139170
So you have said that your body can turn carbs into fats for storage. I believe you will agree when you are energy deficient, your body will turn fats back into carbs for energy use.

So why are you saying the body can't turn dietary fats into carbs?

>> No.5139218

>>5139186
Bull-fucking-shit.
China does have one of the highest rates of diabetes in the world, and this a very new thing to them, but it's at 15%, not 60%.

>> No.5139222

>>5139186

>60% of china is diabetic or pre-diabetic.

Take a look at the numbers before meat and oil became widespread

>If you look at the longest living people, the okinawans, you will see they only eat about 200g of carbohydrates a day. Which only accounts for half of their energy input.

The traditional diet of Okinawans is 86% carbohydrate, 8% protein, and 6% fat. Their diet is centered around sweet potatoes and green and yellow vegetables, no eggs or dairy, and meat consumption being about half a serving of fish a day

>Americans and mexicans also have half of their energy coming from carbohydrates.

America, where every carbohydrate source is served with a slab of butter or cheese on top. Mexico, where every food they make is atleast 50% grease. There's no doubt that both eat a lot of carbohydrate, but like always, you people ignore the massive amounts of fat that accompany these things. If you look at people who mainly eat carbohydrate and very little fat, across the board they're rail-thin and healthy

>> No.5139223

>>5139192
True, and that is why they eat 20% less energy than the rest of japan

It all comes down to eat less, weigh less, live healthier and longer.

Personally I find the best way to do that is to eat low carb foods such as fruits, yams, and bacon.

>> No.5139234

>>5139214

I'm not saying your body can't turn carbs into fat, just that it's not nearly as efficient as turning fat into fat.

>I believe you will agree when you are energy deficient, your body will turn fats back into carbs for energy use.

I agree that your body will turn fats into carbs, but not "back" into carbs as if it was carbohydrate first and then became fat and went back to carbohydrate again. The process you're talking about is gluconeogenesis, and that's the body synthesizing carbohydrate out of non-carbohydrate. Not re-constructing a stored carbohydrate from fat cells, but just creating one

>> No.5139243

>>5139207
How about I eat a small pork chop and a large blackbean and barley soup? That's my basic diet already, anyway. Seldom do I eat more than 100g of meat in any given day. I eat about... 200g of grain-based carbs daily, though (pre-cooked weight) be it in the form of noodles or rice or whatever.
It's the way my grandmother ate. The way my parents eat. The way my brother and sister eat. And the way I eat. I think there's a reason why we're amongst the longest living people on earth going by statistical average: we're not paleo nutjobs and we're not vegan nutjobs. We recognise the value of balanced eating and the dangers of excess in all forms.

>> No.5139248

Jesus Christ.

EXERCISE, BITCH!

I lost weight like crazy while eating more Big Macs than I've ever eaten fast food before or since, due to me having to basically run a couple miles in a very short time to actually eat them.

Diet might make it easier, but you can eat whatever the fuck you want if you're working it all off

>> No.5139255

>>5138785
One person eats nothing but water. Another person eats nothing but beer. The healthier of the two is obvious.

Water is terrible for you.

>> No.5139258

>>5139207
I disagree with your studies from a scientific sense, not a gastronomical one. I also disagree with most of the paleo studies for similar scientific reasons.

The baseline is that 90% or more of nutrition studies are poorly implemented and not to be trusted. Or the conclusion reached do not match the data in the study. Or the study is misinterpreted due to a lack of understanding about statistics.

The only things we truly know is that to lose weight you need to eat less and move more.

>> No.5139260

Do I need to pay close attention to my macros if I just want to lose weight, or can I go on with just a calorie deficit alone?

>> No.5139263

>>5139186
>60%
gr8 b8 m8

murricah is the nation of ignorance, laziness and no self-control being completely normal, to the point of it being acceptable to call being as "thin"(normal) as girls in magazines unrealistic. fuck America and their fat acceptance bullshit.
<3 being skinny af and making bitches envious

>> No.5139269

>>5139218
yeah but 50% are prediabetic
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-09/tjnj-sep082913.php

>> No.5139270

>>5138411
I'd never ask that question as I use butter maybe once a year. I'll use a spray. Even when making bread, I substitute a olive or canola

>> No.5139276

>>5139234
none of this shit matters if you eat less calories than you expend
find out your bmr

>> No.5139280

>>5139234
Bad wording on my part. Now please tell me why you think the body can't turn dietary fat into glycogen for energy purposes.

>> No.5139281

Grill/bake all the lean proteins. Chicken/turkey breast, pretty much all fish (wild atlantic salmon, lemonsole, trout, etc), you don't even need butter. Just add some garlic powder, some pepper, some all-seasoning powder, or some type of herb/spice.

Next, the veggies. Buying those mixed packs of frozen vegetables are wonderful, usually, they're frozen fresh and so lose less nutrients than week old veg. I recommend anything with sweetcorn or peas, they add more flavour.
Also, broccoli is totally underrated. The reason for its bad rep. is because the people who cook it can't cook. Get some broccoli (tender-stem is a really good variety, though any will do) and some low sodium chicken stock, chock the broccoli up into bite size pieces. Put into a non stick frying pan. Then, crumble the chicken stock on top. Pour boiling water over and for about 10 to 12 minutes, cook it until all the water is reduced. Real tasty veg, seriously.

You should also get a salad, but for the love of God, don't use heavy dressings. Try and use vinegar, and, sparingly, olive oil. Balsamic vinegar has the most flavour.

Soup is great for filling you up and its low in calories. Miso soup sachets, vegetable stock and spring onions make a great quick soup. Though all veg soups are very healthy.

Basically, try and use unhealthy fats and carbs sparingly, don't skimp on the protein and veg, and above all, make it appetizing!

>> No.5139296

>>5139280

>Now please tell me why you think the body can't turn dietary fat into glycogen for energy purposes.

Because your body can't produce enough glucose to create the glycogen needed for storage. Glycogen comes from eating an abundance of carbohydrate. When an athlete is preparing for an endurance event, he's eating the shit out of carbohydrate-rich foods of all kinds to fill up the glycogen stores in his muscles. You eat fat, at best you release some ketone bodies into your bloodstream that keep you from completely falling to pieces as your body struggles to work without a regular flow of carbohydrate, at worst you become obese with no energy or mental clarity.

>> No.5139298

>>5139269
what does prediabetic actually mean

>> No.5139304

>>5138391

Leave meats out, don't use dairy products, don't use a lot of oil and there you go.

>> No.5139314

>>5139304
>Leave meats out
or just don't get fatty as fuck meat and serve it with 200% of your carb RDI
cutting out dairy is a good move though

>> No.5139318

>>5138975
Or a normal, healthy pancreas. That's how your body is meant to react to sugar.

>> No.5139331

>>5139258

>The baseline is that 90% or more of nutrition studies are poorly implemented and not to be trusted. Or the conclusion reached do not match the data in the study.

Some of them, sure, but I mean when EVERY major study involving thousands of people over years and decades while accounting for lifestyle and genetic factors shows consistently the same results, it kind of gives some evidence for what foods are good and what foods are bad

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud7RkxtO3-Y

>> No.5139334

>>5139296
You are wrong on 2 accounts. Firstly, fat is the only macronutrient the body can survive soley on. You can all proteins and carbohydrates from a diet, and for the short to midterm the person will live. You try to remove all fat from a diet, and the only result is death.
Why is this important? because point number 2. Fat as energy. while fat does get turned into ketones, that is not the final step. you have fat to acetone to lactate to glucose. While a few body processes run directly on ketones when needed, the majority of the body requires glucose, which is produced from either dietary fat or stored fat.

Anyone who does not understand this, doesn't understand why calorie deficient diets work for losing weight.

>> No.5139342

>>5139298
Diabetes used to be defined as having a resting blood glucose above a normal range. But then too many people were becoming diabetic. So in the 80s they redefined diabetes, and called the old standards pre-diabetes.

>> No.5139349

Again, who cares? Run your ass off. Run, run and run some more. Anybody left with diabetes, OK, you got screwed by genetics and I'll agree with you. Otherwise, nah, just another fatass.

Wanna lose weight? Eat and drink whatever you want and run your ass off. It really is that easy.

>> No.5139354

>>5139318
Well the medical literature I've been reading suggests that blood glucose levels elevate in a normal person by up to 30 points an hour after a meal.

>> No.5139356

>>5139334

>You try to remove all fat from a diet, and the only result is death.

I hate that I even have to say this, but you can't not have fat in your diet. Every single whole plant food you eat has fat. Yes fat in some amount is important, but it's also impossible to not get fat unless literally the only thing you eat is pure industrial sugar, so it's not really a point to make

>While a few body processes run directly on ketones when needed, the majority of the body requires glucose, which is produced from either dietary fat or stored fat.

Right, but in ideal circumstances, to get the maximum functionality/performance of your body, your glucose would be coming from dietary carbohydrate. If I can bring up athletes again, they can't function the way they do without taking in a lot of carbohydrate. Fat can't synthesize enough carbohydrate to make it obsolete from the diet.

>> No.5139372

>>5139207

> bacon, ice cream, and cheeseburgers

One of these things is not like the others.

The fundamental thing you're missing in your blind rage against paleo/low-carb/ketogenic/whatever the non-traditional high-fat diet of the day is is that they all focus on eliminating heavily processed, "synthetic" foods.

You cannot argue in good faith that the sudden change in the general health and wellbeing of people in the western world that we're now calling the "fatpocolypse" did not occur in parallel with a massive change in what people ate. The transition to a high artificial sugar, synthetic-fat diet correlates almost perfectly with the general rise in obesity and diabetes. Every high-fat diet that I've ever seen relies on eliminating synthetic fats and replacing them with natural fats - butter and olive oil instead of margarine and canola oil.

>> No.5139379

Where did this idea that fruit is bad for you come from? I want to find whoever started that nonsense and punch them in the face

Also the idea that "carbs make you fat" or even "(insert food here) makes you fat" demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of how the human body actually works. First of all, complex carbs, when eaten in correct portion sizes, should be essential in any healthy diet. They're a huge part of what makes you feel full. 1/4 cup of oatmeal yields about 3/4 of a cup to 1 cup when cooked, and is 150 calories, but it can satisfy your hunger for at least 4 hours, and for sure more than that if you eat it as part of a balanced breakfast. Secondly, the idea that x food makes you fat completely ignores the fact that some people can, gasp, actually control the amount of food they eat in one sitting. It also ignores the fact that weight loss is simply calories in vs calories out. I'm a young underweight male of average height, so my bmr is about 1600. In theory, I could eat 2 pop tarts for breakfast, lunch, dinner, AND dessert, every day, and not gain any weight. I would be starving and extremely unhealthy, because the carbs from pop tarts do almost nothing towards making you feel full, and they have no real nutritional value. But I still would not gain weight, and I'd possibly lose weight as well, even if I didn't exercise as much as I do now.

>> No.5139380

Here's my diet, I was overweight and I lost 14(lb) [5.3(kg)] my first week, that is, alongside rigorous cardio exercise and moderate lifting (3 hours a day, 1 hour cardio, 2 hours lifting)

No carb heavy food,
No starches,
No fatty oils,
No marinating,
No fruit (natural sugars)
No sugars (Goes without saying)
Only meat worth eating is fish, and that's ONLY every other day.
Vegetables, morning, and noon. (I couldn't handle the depression of killing my food groups so it was just once a day)

Lots of water, loads of vitamins and minerals that you sacrifice because of this diet.

You get results really fast, but it starts dying out soon, second week I only lost 7(lb) and 3rd week I only lost 4(lb) and then after that I started cheating and ate an apple a day and at most lost (1lb) a week. What you WILL notice is a significant change in the shape of your body. You will look fit.

Life is suffering. I get full by looking at pictures in this board and drinking water.

>> No.5139392

>>5139379
See
>>5139380

As SOON as I started eating fruit my weightloss wasn't as sharp as it used to be. Sugars are bad for you, even the natural ones. The fucking EAT UNDER YOUR RECOMMENDED CALORIE INTAKE AND YOU'LL BE FINE bullshit is just that, bullshit.

Last week I ate under 1000 calories per day and I gained 2 pounds cause of fruit.

>> No.5139395

>>5139356

>athletes

Athletes have a very different metabolic profile than almost everybody else. You're talking about people who need to eat a three thousand plus calories a day just to maintain weight, compared to a typical sedentary individual who can get by on half that. Obviously athletes can get away with lots more carbs than anybody else - they're eating lots of food because they're expending lots of energy.

>> No.5139396

>>5139372

I agree with that, processed foods definitely contribute to a lot of society's health problems. What I disagree with is ignoring everything else that may be problematic, ignoring things with proven health benefits, and promoting a diet not based on scientific evidence.

Legumes, whole grains, and fruits, time after time, are shown to be remarkably beneficial, and the low-carbers and paleo people, through no scientific evaluation, tell you not to eat these foods and to instead eat food that science shows to be bad for you, because of some half-assed theories that cover up the bad parts and attempt to highlight the few good parts of those foods and explain why they're actually healthy despite all modern research saying otherwise

>> No.5139404

>>5139380
So can you fry things and eat bread and yogurt

>> No.5139411

>>5139380
>Only meat worth eating is fish, and that's ONLY every other day.
why this

>> No.5139412

>>5139404
I forgot to mention, no grain and no dairy. I thought that went without saying, WHOOPS.

Sorry anon, my life is suffering.

>> No.5139419

>>5139411
Fish is mostly muscle and is very lean, very little fat value in fish, also only 3 times a week is what I eat (if that) cause I'm afraid of weight gain.

Also I am a kickboxer trying to make weight, so yeah.

This diet is HELLA strict and every now and again I want to kill myself. If only I could handle heavyweight (which is my natural build) then I wouldn't have a problem, but I have to go down to cruiser because I can handle that (186 lb kickboxers as opposed to 200+ lb hits)

>> No.5139420

>>5139395

>Athletes have a very different metabolic profile than almost everybody else

You make it sound like people who move around are a completely different species that processes food in a completely different way. Athletes love carbohydrates because carbohydrates are what your body is supposed to run on. Whether you're a sedentary man in China or India with 90% of your diet being white rice, or an endurance athlete slamming down pasta, fruits, and corn tortillas to fuel you're races, you're slim and energized 100% of the time It's when you mix pork and lard into your rice, or pour olive oil and grate cheese on your pasta, that you start to put on weight.

>> No.5139421

>>5139331
Your link is the epitome of bad science. Their method of collecting data is flawed, which means every observation made is based on bad data. Then every observation made has been proven wrong with followup experimentation.

Then we have the second problem. People reading the data wrong. looking at red meat consumption, the second highest risk of cvd is those that ate no meat at all. Look at the data, look at the conclusions, the conclusions are different from the data. You could almost call them flat out lies.

Finally we have relevency. Look at the data for soda consumption. Those that drank 1 can of soda a day or more had a higher increased risk of cvd than any amount of meat consumption.

No self respecting epidemiologist would quote the harvard health studies.

>> No.5139426

>>5139396

>all modern research saying otherwise

No. Certainly not all modern research.

The fundamental problem with low-fat diets is that they all rely on counting calories in order to maintain weight.

Wanna know how accurately you need to count calories in order to maintain weight to +/- three pounds per year? You need to be accurate to within +/- ten calories per day. Plus or minus half a percent on a 2000 calorie diet. That's more accurate than the machines that portion out packaged food could ever hope to be.

That's utterly unattainable for people who aren't insane - or who aren't locked up in a laboratory or a jail cell.

>> No.5139430

>>5139392
>The fucking EAT UNDER YOUR RECOMMENDED CALORIE INTAKE AND YOU'LL BE FINE bullshit is just that, bullshit.

maybe it works differently for people who are overweight? Ever since I stopped swimming I went from a healthy weight (5'11'' 135 lbs/180cm 61kg) down to underweight (120 lbs/55kg) in about 2 months because I ate less and in smaller portions. Fruits have always been part of my diet. They aren't a major part, but most days I eat at least some fruit.

Maybe some people just have a blood sugar problem?

>> No.5139433
File: 36 KB, 200x200, 1265702670454.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5139433

>>5139421

Okay, go tell Harvard University how to conduct research. Maybe you should just become a professor there and show all those idiots how it's done.

>> No.5139440

>>5139426

>The fundamental problem with low-fat diets is that they all rely on counting calories in order to maintain weight.

On the contrary, all of the low-fat, high-carb diets I've read about support not counting your calories. Even Neal Barnard's treatment for type-2 diabetes on a low-fat vegan diet tells you to eat "unlimited carbohydrates"

>> No.5139446

>>5139430
Dang for 5'11" you sound like a twig, if anything you need to eat more and bulk up.

My problem is trying to eliminate gaining muscle mass as I'm trying to reach weight limit and destroying excess fat cause that's the only way I can lose weight.

>> No.5139447
File: 8 KB, 211x193, 1262444284020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5139447

>people saying fruit is bad for you
>people saying not to eat carbohydrates

Did we evolve from lions or something? I thought we came from fruit-eating apes.

>> No.5139450

>>5139433
So do you just blindly follow anything or anyone in a position of authority, or just when they happen to support your biases?

>> No.5139453

>>5139356
wolves are very athletic. They rarely eat carbs

Dvorijk is one of the worlds best tennis players. He doesn't eat refined carbs

Tinkosaxo cyclers eat low carb

Stromsgodset football club eats low carb and they just won a championship

>> No.5139454

>>5139450

When it's the largest, most comprehensive information available, hell yes I pay attention to it. Do you just ignore everything that tells you not to eat your favorite food?

>> No.5139460
File: 25 KB, 400x300, kramer.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5139460

>>5139433
>Food Science
> Harvard

Don't drink the Kool-Aid of Harvard as the end all be all of research in the world...

There's several Universities that are miles above Harvard when it comes to Food Science.

It really shows your plebeian knowledge of educational institutions.

>> No.5139461

>>5139379
Theoretically, a prolonged diet of poptarts will increase your body's tolerance to insulin, which will cause an increase in insulin production, while will make you sluggish and tired. The result of which is that your bmr will drop.

So over the course of a few months, you could start gaining weight even though you are eating the same amount

>> No.5139463

>>5139420

>You make it sound like people who move around are a completely different species that processes food in a completely different way.

Because they ARE.

Let me make an analogy for you. Let's compare two warships at sea. One is doing a routine picket, mostly just holding it's place in the ocean. The other ship is sprinting from one side of the world to the other.

Believe it or not, they both consume roughly the same amount of basic maintenance supplies. Most mechanical parts outside the engine room are replaced based on hours of service. Sailors consume the same amount of food regardless of how fast the ship is going. Both ships burn roughly the same amount of fuel to keep their electrical systems running.

Where the two ships differ is that the faster ship is consuming orders of magnitude more fuel, along with a largely negligible increase in parts consumed in the engine room.

Athletes versus normal people is the same story - Athletes can consume orders of magnitude more carbs because they're using virtually all of that energy right away.

As far as skeletal chinaman living off of nothing but white rice is concerned, yeah, he's eating pure carbohydrates, but he's consuming it in small portions continuously, which has a very different metabolic profile than eating a massive bowl of rice twice a day. He also doesn't have the option of eating more than he needs to survive - at least until very recently, which corresponds nicely to the increase in obesity and diabetes in china.

>> No.5139466

>>5139454
>largest
>most comprehensive
Neither of these things make the results valid. Bad research is still bad research, no matter how much of it there is.

>> No.5139467

>>5139392
>cause of fruit
absolute bullshit
you're either a sedentary dwarf, an auschwitz survivor or fucking yourself with "1000 calories per day".
if you don't have a severely messed up metabolism then you will lose weight when you lose energy.

>> No.5139471

>>5139440

>all of the low-fat, high-carb diets I've read about support not counting your calories.

Reading about three diets that happen to support your conclusion does not make you an expert on what conventional dietary advice as a whole happens to suggest.

>> No.5139472

>>5139396
I disagree with your statement. Everyone I interact with eats plenty of fruit and legumes, and lentils. These things are part of a balanced low carb diet. You cannot say an entire health movement is eating wrong based upon a few eccentrics. Even the atkins diet only suggested severe carb restrictions for weight loss and that around 80-100g of carbs a day was a healthy amount.

>> No.5139481

>>5139404
frying requires oils, he said no oils

>> No.5139484

>>5139463

You're talking about amount of calories here though, not the source of the calories (carbohydrate vs fat). Of course an athlete requires more calories, but to say "he can handle carbs because he's an athlete" is ridiculous. He can handle carbs because he's a human being, which are a primarily carb-eating species.

>>increase in obesity and diabetes in china.

Which correlates nicely with the increase in cooking oils, western fast foods, and affordable meat.

>> No.5139487
File: 168 KB, 640x640, IMG_0064.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5139487

>>5139380
here was my diet
>eat less calories
>do exercise
guess who's probably >100lb skinnier from not overthinking things :^)

>> No.5139491

>>5139419
A real man would weigh in at super middleweight.

>> No.5139498
File: 38 KB, 500x628, george_costanza006.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5139498

>>5139487
Which faget are you?

>> No.5139502

>>5139463
So what you're admitting is what I said (not the person you're arguing with BTW) already: >>5139243
>100g of meat in any given day
>200g of grain-based carbs daily
>we're amongst the longest living people on earth going by statistical average
>recognise the value of balanced eating and the dangers of excess in all forms
Carbs aren't evil, but overeating carbs is. Meat isn't evil, but overeating meat is. Fat isn't evil but overeating fat is. Sweets aren't evil but overeating sweets is.

>> No.5139503

>>5139433
Actually Harvard does the best it can with it's study. Ever notice all the "red meat is bad" comes from other people using the data?

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/#fats-and-cancer

>> No.5139505

>>5139498
that's not me
I just wanted to post an insane trigger because I don't like fat people
i'm low bf% cardiomode not skeleton

>> No.5139507

>>5139440
Many low carb high fat dieticians suggest that counting calories is a eating disorder, and that a healthy diet makes it not needed.

>> No.5139510

>>5139505
Take a pic and we'll be the judge of that then...

>> No.5139515

>>5139502

It's better to think of it as risk factors. Eating any reasonable amount of meat or candy or whatever doesn't guarantee it's going to kill you, but it does increase your risk of many diseases. Doesn't mean you WILL get them, but you have more of a chance at getting them than people who eat healthy foods.

>> No.5139516

>>5139446
I am and I should. I'm just on a really weird schedule all the time and I never know when the next time I'm going to eat is.

Looking back it's amazing how much I used to be able to eat. Even at my heaviest when I was swimming (around 140lbs), people still told me that I was skinny. But since I burned so many calories practicing for 1 and a half hours 5 days a week, plus an hour or so of cardio/calisthenics 2-3 times a week. I was basically binge eating 24/7. I would have lunch at school, a snack before dinner, dinner before practice (and I always had seconds), sometimes mcdonalds after practice, and a second dinner after I got home. My only exercise these days is cardio/calisthenics when I can squeeze it in, I try to do it twice a week at least.

>> No.5139519

>>5139484

> human being, which are a primarily carb-eating species.

This is where you're wrong.

There's nothing to suggest that humans consumed a significant portion of their total caloric intake from carbohydrates prior to the introduction of agriculture. Agriculture had a significant effect on the human diet really only within the past four to ten thousand years, which is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of years h. Sapiens existed prior.

High-carb foods that humans can process are incredibly rare in nature - where they do exist, literally everything in the ecosystem races to consume them. Evidence suggests that humans being smart enough to cook vegetables was one of the deciding factors that led to humans splitting off from other apes: Cooking allowed us to extract significantly more nutrients from food, allowing us to thrive in otherwise marginal areas. Likewise, being smart enough to consistently hunt down other animals allowed us to have consistent access to high-quality protein and fat, which enabled our brains to grow as big as they have.

>> No.5139521

>>5139510
sec

>> No.5139523

>>5139502

Pretty sure you're replying to the wrong person.

>> No.5139528

>>5139519

>came from apes, natural fruit eaters
>evolved extra copies of the amylase gene to better digest starch
>human brain runs on glucose
>every large, successful civilization in history has gotten the bulk of their calories from grains

yeah bro, don't eat them carbs.

>> No.5139529

>>5139491
I would literally have to do nothing but cardio to make that weight class, and sacrifice every bit of power I have.

>> No.5139532

>>5139515
If it increases risks for disease then why does every culture in the world considered amongst the longest living eat a diet with a caloric breakdown similar to what my culture eats?
We also have amongst the lowest rates of diabetes in the world as well as cancer. Either it's just good genetics, our diets contribute to our health and longevity or there's some third as-of-yet undiscovered explanation.

>> No.5139555

>>5139523
No. I'm not.

>>5139463
>yeah, he's eating pure carbohydrates, but he's consuming it in small portions continuously, which has a very different metabolic profile than eating a massive bowl of rice twice a day

We eat rice or wheat or bread or something. We eat it every day. A good portion of our calories come from them. But we don't binge (I just learnt this word today can apply to instances other than alcohol!) on a huge portion all at once. It's spread out throughout the day. For example, 75g of raw rice or pasta or whatever has about the same calories always: 275. That's considered a good-sized portion and makes up about half of a meal's caloric profile.

>> No.5139558

>>5139528


>came from apes, natural fruit eaters

A, the "fruits" that apes eat aren't really the same types of fruits that you're thinking off. They're not really sweet at all, and more closely resemble vegetables.
B, those "fruits" aren't obtainable throughout the historic range of h. Sapiens.

>evolved extra copies of the amylase gene to better digest starch

Among many other dietary evolutions. Just because northern europeans maintained lactose tolerance into adulthood doesn't mean that the vast majority of their calories came from milk and cheese.

>human brain runs on glucose
And requires ludicrous amounts of protein and fat.

>every large, successful civilization in history has gotten the bulk of their calories from grains

They also had very different dietary profiles from what most people eat today - small meals throughout the day, poor availability of calories overall, very little in the way of processed carbohydrates and engineered fats, etc. Furthermore, they all developed animal husbandry of some form or another, with meat and/or fish being key staples of their diet.

>> No.5139574

>>5139555

>But we don't binge

Exactly my point. If you spread out your consumption of carbs enough and keep your overall carbohydrate consumption within reasonable limits, their bad dietary consequences are mostly eliminated because you don't have those massive swings in blood sugar. The problem is that most people can't really do that thanks to the construction of the modern western diet.

>> No.5139579

>>5139574
But... mine is a western diet. I am from Italy.

>> No.5139582

>>5139515
NO eating a reasonable amount of meat makes risk go down. Haven't you read the harvard studies?

>> No.5139584

>>5139574
Also, yes: I know it was your point. See >>5139502

>> No.5139589

>>5139579

But you don't eat a lot of processed/packaged foods and you rarely snack, I take it.

>> No.5139591

>>5139519
Your timeline is wrong.

We have bread recipes that are 30000 years old

>> No.5139594

>>5139529
If you can't drop 20lbs in 20 hours you aren't cutting properly.

>> No.5139601

>>5139591

30,000 years is nothing compared to the human evolutionary timescale, and the vast majority of human populations didn't have widespread agriculture until within the past 10,000 years.

The simple presence of of carbohydrates in your diet isn't by itself bad until you start having large quantities of them alongside highly processed carbohydrates and engineered oils.

>> No.5139606

>>5139589
Depends on what you consider a processed food. I don't consider much of anything in my diet to be processed, but there are some /ck/ nutjobs that consider dairy products and dried meats to be processed.
As for snacking: I have a piece of chocolate or something every now and again, but never much at once. A biscuit/cookie here (not two or three). A piece of chocolate there (not several).
For example: Schogetten has recently become available in the US as well, so I bought a few boxes. The box recommends seven pieces as a serving size (in EU, foods don't have a serving size suggestion rather they give you the information per 100g of the product). I'm like 'lolno, that's too much.' I eat one piece and that's enough.

Anyway, if you consider bread, pasta, cheese and salted meat to be processed food, then I guess I eat a fair amount, but still not as much as I eat vegetables and grains as they are.

>> No.5139617

>>5139591
That's impossible. The oldest known writings date only to 20.000 years and they're merely isolated hieroglyphic symbols that may have [much] later evolved into writing systems. The oldest known written record with grammar and syntax and all that jazz dates to only about 6.000 years. I dislike misinformation.

>> No.5139620

>>5139601
I don't think I was arguing against your point. I was simply stating that we had bread 30k ago

>> No.5139621

>>5139606

When I'm talking about processed food, I'm mostly talking about stuff that comes in a shelf-stable heat-and-eat package - I.e, hamburger helper, frozen entrees and sides, the like. I don't consider most store-bought bread and noodles to be good for you, but they're not nearly as bad as shit that you don't have to cook, or that contains an ingredients list longer than "Item, water, spices, salt".

>> No.5139623

>>5139620
Had bread 30k years ago ≠ have written bread recipes from 30k years ago.

>> No.5139631

>>5139617
there were drawings on a wall next to a pot of flour or something.

30000 years. Also honey. we have 20000 year old pictures showing people stealing bees

>> No.5139637

>>5139621
>storebought bread
lolno
I mean. Back home, we just got bread from the baker. Where I am now (different country), the baker buttfucks you with his prices so I bake my own.
I have never bought a "frozen side" or "hamburger helper." I do buy frozen entrees every now and then. I eat two or three each year or so.
As for ingredients lists, here's bread: flour, yeast, salt and water. That's it. And pasta: semolina.

>> No.5139644

>>5139631
That's not writing, though and certainly not a recipe.

>> No.5139648

>>5139637
>flour yeast salt water
are you french?

>> No.5139650

>>5139644
If the researchers could tell you made bread from flour, then it is a working recipe.

>> No.5139652

>>5139648
see >>5139579

>> No.5139664

>>5139650
lololol no
That's not how recipes work, you know.

>this cave painting of a stick figure holding a spear next to a group of stick figures that resemble deer is a detailed instruction for skinning your hunt!
Idiot.

>> No.5139697

>>5139652
oh you are that person

why are you using a french bread recipe?

>> No.5139711

>>5139392
You're not supposed to weigh yourself every day. A week-by-week weight loss check with do a lot more. Anything from being dehydrated your first weigh day to having to poo on the second will make your day to day results unreliable and disheartening.

>> No.5139742
File: 167 KB, 1280x960, 201401201200.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5139742

>>5139697
I don't think it's something specifically French. We have a lot of interchange of foods between our two countries. Bechamel, for example, is of Italian origin (from Florence) while pannacotta is actually from France.
Anyway, this is a loaf of bread I baked about a week ago.

>> No.5139770

>>5139742
They passed a law stating that bread could only contain those 4 ingredients

>> No.5139822

Man, these kinds of threads are seriously starting to scare me.

Can I check if I'm pre-diabetic, or developing diabetes or something? Should I go for a health screening? I'm 5'6" and my weight fluctuates between 100-110 lbs, usually staying around 105ish. I am really small but I eat a lot. Most of the food I eat unfortunately is junk food. At one point a few months ago I was eating McDs at least 3 times a week, for around a month and a bit. Even now I eat a lot of takeout (mostly pitas, shawarmas, pizzas, sometimes sushi) and junk like cake, candy, chips, chocolate. I also drink a SHIT TON of soda. Last week I probably went through 12 or 13 bottles of ginger ale, orange soda, coke and iced tea. One anon posted that he eats one cookie every now and then, I eat half a box of cookies in one sitting. To top all of this off and make me seem even more like a fatass, I never exercise, anything. Sometimes I do a few reps of lunges and abdominal/ass/leg toning things but nothing hardcore. I also walk to classes every day (probably spend an hour walking around). Despite all this I'm still moderately healthy, ie. I don't get sick very often, when I do I recover pretty fast, etc. I just am not strong or physically adept.

Obviously I want to change this around (for health reasons and because my diet is really fucking expensive), but this thread is sending me really mixed signals. I was thinking of trying to change my diet to eating 4 or 5 small meals every day with a lot of snacking in between. In the morning I'd probably put on 2 cups of rice, and eat a small bowl of rice every meal with boiled spinach or steamed broccoli, bok choy, etc. I'll also probably eat an egg or two a day and have pork or chicken 3 or 4 times a week. Snacks would probably be fruits and a handful or two of chips. Honestly, by the way some /ck/ers talk about food and nutrition I'm kind of surprised I'm not dead or horribly obese or something. Is this a good start? Plis give me your advice.

>> No.5139844

>>5139711

/fit/ here. Shit advice don't listen to this fool. Track your weight every. fucking. day.

Get in the habit now, because when you hit your maintenance weight it will help you and you'll want to track daily.

Every weightlifter, athlete, and weight loss consultant will tell you you're to way yourself every morning, right when you get out of bed. If you shit in the morning right when you get up, fine, do that first. It will fluctuate, especially if you are weightlifting also since muscle weighs more than fat but you will look slimmer.

You can't track consistency of loss with just a weekly weigh in, so do it daily.

>> No.5139853

>>5139392

No you didn't. Eating under 1k calories a day is just fucking stupid, and you probably fucked up your metabolism by doing that as the body will begin conserving fat.

How fucking stupid are you?

1/10 troll, not even mad.

>> No.5139862

>>5139822
it is very easy. get a glucose meter for like 30 bucks on amazon. test your glucose before eating, and hour after eating and 2 hours after eating. do this for a couple of days and you will know if you are diabetic or at risk

>> No.5139884

>>5139822
If you aren't overweight exercise is more important than diet. 20 minutes of running twice a week will greatly improve your health.

If you are looking to improve your body, light weights.

>> No.5139975

>>5139884

I live in Canada and right now it's in the low -30s C outside. I don't know if I can go from couch potato to motivated enough to run for 20 minutes in this weather. Can running on the spot suffice? Jumping jacks?

>>5139862

Thanks. I'll try this.

>> No.5139991

>>5139975
Yeah, anything to raise your heart rate and keep it elevated for a bit.

I suggest burpies.

>> No.5140070

>>5139991
I recommend air-boxing
throw 100 punches as fast as you can and your heart will be pumpin
it's really satisfying too