/ck/ - Food & Cooking

[Anonymous No.6011232]

>tfw can eat literally as much as I want and never get fat

[Anonymous No.6011242]

>tfw you think you're a special snowflake for being average weight

[Anonymous No.6011245]

>>6011242
actually, since there are so many obese people, you're not average weight anymore i guess.

keep being awesome, OP.

[Anonymous No.6011248]

TFW exercising twice a week and watching what I eat still isn't enough. Fuck sedentary jobs.

[Anonymous No.6011255]

>>6011232
>tfw I forget to eat

[Anonymous No.6011277]

>tfw constantly stuffing yourself like a pig until you are uncomfortably full because you won't put on weight and can shitpost about it on the internet

[Anonymous No.6011283]

only people from flyover states get fat

[Anonymous No.6011292]

>mfw people think basic caloric and energy law don't apply to them and that they "literally cannot" gain weight

it's cute but it's retarded :3

[Anonymous No.6011308]

>>6011232
Hi5 bruh

>>6011292
In my case, my body is physically incapable of eating enough food to gain weight. Suck it, n00b, I am higher life form.

[Anonymous No.6011309]

>tfw you lose 64 pounds then gain a lot of it back because you think your metabolism is as strong as Superman's penis.

[Anonymous No.6011351]

>>6011232

Just wait, age will catch up with you

[Anonymous No.6011362]

>I always collect what is mine.

[Anonymous No.6011430]

>>6011232
So what? I eat all the fucking unhealthy fat/sugary stuff and i'm still thin.

[Anonymous No.6011447]

>those uneducated high school dropouts with their anecdotal arguments thinking that they can't gain weight

Keep eating like shit, it will catch up to you one day.

[Anonymous No.6011463]

>>6011292
Sorry to burst your bubble calories in/out fag but there are many people like this.
My mom has a friend in his fifties that eats over 6000 calories a day , does no exercise and is thin as a rail.
His cholesterol sucks from so much junk food but that's the only downside for him.

[Anonymous No.6011471]

>>6011232

I'm the same way
Being big boned rocks!

[Anonymous No.6011475]

>>6011463
>any people like this.

There are many people who miscount calories, sure. But calories in/out is not a matter of debate, it's a matter of physical laws of the universe. You might take a physics class sometime, you know?

[Anonymous No.6011479]

>>6011232
That usually ends in your late 20s to early 30s, just so you know

Same as the "I don't get hangovers" thing

I mean you get something that resembles a hangover at that age, but you won't know what a real, crippling hangover is until you're a bit older

Source: someone who thought he was the special snowflake (note: everybody does)

[Anonymous No.6011480]

>>6011475
You do not have perfect knowledge of the system in question anon so you cannot claim law of conservation of energy.
Learn to science.

[Anonymous No.6011491]

>>6011480
He does within reason, faggot.

[Anonymous No.6011497]

>>6011463
>My mom has a friend in his fifties that eats over 6000 calories a day , does no exercise and is thin as a rail.
sure he does

[Anonymous No.6011502]

>>6011248
You're eating too much. It's not complicated.

[Anonymous No.6011504]

>>6011491
You do know that the sticky on /fit/ is deeply flawed right?

You do understand that nutrition science is pretty laughable and considered very primitive in the world of science and medicine right?

[Anonymous No.6011506]

tfw lost 12kg in 2 months for gf then she breaks up with me

[Anonymous No.6011510]

>>6011475
>implying the digestive system is the same as a pure laboratory sample of some metal that you're testing with a multimeter

Protip: it's not a matter of debate because there is nothing to "debate", instead you do studies.

Even something as simple as not chewing your food can have an effect on the way your digestive system handles the calories. Ever seen the peanuts in your own shit? Oops! So much for calories in/calories out!

[Anonymous No.6011523]

>>6011510
>there is nothing to "debate",

puts comma outside the quotation marks and expects to be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.6011529]

>>6011232
There is someone out there that is getting all the fat you should be putting on. They're gaining weight for no reason at all and they don't know why.

If you ever meet this person, all the fat you should have been gaining will suddenly transfer to you and you'll have an instant, massive heart attack.

[Anonymous No.6011545]

>>6011510
>instead you do studies.

Exactly. And that's where the calore numbers come from. The numbers assigned to calories in food (carbs and protein = 4 cals/gram; fat 9 cals/gram) are not calculated in a laboratory. They were determined empirically from studying what went in and out of human bodies. They already account for what we humans can and cannot digest. They are called Attwater factors; you might want to read up on that.

[Anonymous No.6011568]

>>6011545
>Attwater factors; you might want to read up on that.


And you might want to read up on how notoriously flawed that system is anon.

[Anonymous No.6011594]

>>6011568

I have. It's not perfect but nobody has done any better.

And there are plenty of studies regarding metabolic rates which have found that despite what people claim, are actually very consistent among people.

Faced with that information I conclude that people who claim to be eating 6000 cals a day and not gaining any weight because of it are simply mistaken about how many calories they eat. I have seen that happen time an time again. One of my roomates in college was always talking about how he could eat massive binge meals and never gain any weight--and many times he would indeed devour a massive amount of fast food. But that would be his only meal for the day. And the next he might not eat anything at all. But that didn't register in his mind, it was just "lol eat 8000 cals a day and don't gain weight".

[Anonymous No.6011599]

>>6011283

Go to Texas.

[Anonymous No.6011601]

>>6011599
>mfw texas thinking it's not a flyover state again

you guys are killing me

[Anonymous No.6011602]

>>6011599
Texas is a flyover silly billy.

[Anonymous No.6011830]

>>6011510
I'm pretty sure seeing nuts in your poop counts towards the calories out. There is no debate because calories in/out is how it works. Calories in means how many calories you obtain from the food not how much you Khan down your throat

[Anonymous No.6011841]

>>6011602
Ha! Don't even know how to use an original /ck/ meme correctly, flyover is the home of the Queen and her corgis, Big Ben, and blood sausage. MENEFOOD FOREVER!

[Anonymous No.6011844]

>>6011545

>The numbers assigned to calories in food (carbs and protein = 4 cals/gram; fat 9 cals/gram) are not calculated in a laboratory. They were determined empirically from studying what went in and out of human bodies.

The concept of a calorie is based on how much energy from fat, carbohydrate, or protein is required to heat water. Nothing to do with the human body. Not to say it's totally useless, but a carbohydrate, a fat, and a protein are not metabolically the same.

[Anonymous No.6011859]

>>6011232

I'm like this too, I don't want much food so I can eat as much as I want.

[Anonymous No.6011872]

>>6011463

Then he should see a doctor.

[Anonymous No.6011937]

>>6011872
No anon. Its very common.

[Anonymous No.6011967]

>>6011937
>>6011937
No, that's a serious medical condition.

[Anonymous No.6011981]

>>6011506
Tfw lost weight and became healthy after my gf broke up with me

[Anonymous No.6011999]

>>6011937

You're right anon, Graves' disease is a fairly common condition.

[Anonymous No.6012044]

>>6011999
Sigh, no anon, all skinny people who eat massively are not suffering from Graves

[Anonymous No.6012060]

>>6012044

That's true, there are also other conditions that can cause that.

Unless of course they are athletes.

[Anonymous No.6012063]

>>6011255
That happens far to often.

[Anonymous No.6012071]

>>6011844
They determine the total amount of energy it takes to break a chemical down with heat in units based on heating a quantity of water to a certain temperature. Then they guess at how much of that energy is actual potential energy utilized by the body not in the process of digestion, etc. Basically it is total energy minus a fudge factor which is the value they print on boxes. The concept of viewing the human body as a blast furnace is probably a bit flawed. In today's society what really matters to most is "How much body fat will food create?" Calorie counting cannot give you an accurate picture of that. Nutritional science is more junk and pseudoscience than hard fact.

[Anonymous No.6012114]

>>6012071

There's some difference in how humans metabolism different macronutrients (the best example being our inability to use fiber as energy for use or storage), but athletes and bodybuilders have been using that model for decades with much success because it's accurate enough to work in most settings, especially when it comes to calorie deficits where macronutrients basically don't matter; starvation is starvation

http://books.google.com/books?id=hrdRROeCI9IC&pg=PA263

To use a simplification used for the sake of population-level weight management to say that nutrition science is junk/pseudoscience is some Gary Taubes level of crazytalk though

[Anonymous No.6012129]

wth is a macronutrient?

When I was learning this shit years ago there were only three nutrients: protein, fat, and carbohydrates. On top of that you have vitamins and minerals but only those three are correctly labeled as nutrients at least years ago. This whole macronutrient buzzword sounds like some flying saucer bullshit /fit/ cooked up.

[Anonymous No.6012132]

>>6012129

Macronutrients are protein, fat, and carbohydrate. Micronutrients are vitamins and minerals

[Anonymous No.6012147]

>>6011245
>being average weight automatically makes you a speshul snowflake among Amerilards

[Anonymous No.6012153]

>>6011475
But different people have different calories out, no one in this thread has implied that they break the laws of physics.

[Anonymous No.6012166]

>>6012153
But it is implied when they throw out the figure of 6000 calories. That's just physically impossible and I'm assuming they're having a laugh at everyone responding.

[Anonymous No.6012171]

>>6012166

Yeah, what the hell kind of metabolic processes could your body be performing to burn 4000 extra calories? That's 2 extra people of stuff your body needs to do to use the extra energy. If your body is that inefficient you have some sort of disease.

[Anonymous No.6012175]

>>6012171
Ever notice how it's always old people who make these types of claims. It's almost always for attention.

[Anonymous No.6012176]

>>6012171
Either you are growing quickly or a pro athlete.

[Anonymous No.6012202]

>>6012166
>That's just physically impossible
No its not.

[Anonymous No.6012236]

>>6011844
>The concept of a calorie is based on how much energy from fat, carbohydrate, or protein is required to heat water.

In chemistry class, yes. But the calorie counts associated with food were not determined that way. They were determined empirically, from studying the human body.

Attwater factors. Google it. The numbers associated with food (carbs and protein = 4 cals/gram and fat = 9) came from studying the human body, not from a calorimeter.

>>6012071
No, they do not. Water has nothing to do with it. They fed people and monitored their resipriaton, sweat, poop, pee, and everything else. There was no "guesswork", it came from an emprical study.

Attwater. Google his name. Read the research. Heating water has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.6012245]

>>6011601
>>6011602
you califags are laying it on a bit thick, troll softer faggots

[Anonymous No.6012249]

>>6011463
no :)

[Anonymous No.6012251]

>>6012236
>Attwater. Google his name. Read the research. Heating water has nothing to do with it.

True enough, its not pure quackery but it is also pretty poor science.
As time goes on it is given less credibility.

[Anonymous No.6012256]

>>6012202

Unless you're a pro-athlete, having a TDEE of 6000 calories is impossible is in a healthy, non-diseased human.

[Anonymous No.6012259]

I used to be like that. Then I turned 30.

[Anonymous No.6012274]

>>6012251

My point was to do discuss the validity of the science but to dispel the notion that those calorie figures came from a bomb calorimeter (aka heating up water). They did not; they came from empirical research on people.

As for the validity of his research: sure, it's not perfect, as anyone who reads the wiki article is happy to parrot. But the fact remains that nobody has (yet) come up with a better system.

[Anonymous No.6012276]

>>6012256
You are make an assertion that is not correct.

[Anonymous No.6012283]

>>6012276

Can you show me non-anecdotal proof of an adult human who eats 6000 calories a day and doesn't gain weight despite only exercising sparingly? Like, are there any medical case studies of anyone doing this?

[Anonymous No.6012285]

>>6012274
>But the fact remains that nobody has (yet) come up with a better system.


It is so deeply flawed that in many instances it useless or worse.
Bad data has huge ramifications.

[Anonymous No.6012292]

>>6012285

Explanation of flaws, please.

I think you're just talking out your ass because it doesn't fit your (incorrectly) preconceived notions.

[Anonymous No.6012417]

>food labs rely on conversion factors first assembled more than 100 years ago by the agricultural chemist Wilbur O. Atwater, who literally did burn things like beef and corn in a device called the "bomb calorimeter." While today's calorimeters look a lot more sophisticated, Atwater's was more or less a fireproof container sheathed in water and hooked up to a thermometer. He used it, along with a larger device capable of measuring the heat output of an active person, to figure out how much usable energy different foods possess. The idea is that burning, say, a hamburger shows the total energy that hamburger contains, but it doesn't account for what the human body cannot absorb, nor what is used in the digestive process. So Atwater derived a set of tables that specify the practical energy values of different foods, distinguishing, for example, among different sources of protein. The most recent update to the conversion tables was published by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 1973.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2004/04/how_do_they_measure_calories.html

Basically burnt food - fudgefactor = food calories

[Anonymous No.6012460]

Tfw working two jobs so dont really bike or cook healthy things anymore

Tfw eat only once a day but its hardly ever healthy

Tfw coworker told me earlier I look like im getting big, but it looks hot because she likes a big guy 4 u

I dont know what to feel. gonna start dieting again, id rather be thin.

[Anonymous No.6012478]

>>6012283

It's not possible in a healthy adult.

[Anonymous No.6012505]

>>6012417

I love how much bolts&tape technology modern science is based on

[Anonymous No.6012507]

>>6012478
I'd have to say an adult who sits around and does nothing but consume 6000 calories already fits within at least my understanding of unhealthy.

[Anonymous No.6012512]

>tfw your metabolism is so shit you gain weight just by looking at your chickens walking around

[Anonymous No.6012547]

>>6012505

Science is a process. The process of developing a hypothesis, testing it, and drawing conclusions from the data. Perhaps you meant to say that you're surprised at how much bolts&tape a specific *theory* is based on?

[Anonymous No.6012556]

>>6012507

Yes, that's why I say that it is impossible.

[Anonymous No.6012582]

>>6011232
don't ever decide to "get healthy" that's when shit will come back to bite you in the ass and you'll balloon up

[Anonymous No.6012682]

>>6011506
she was into fatties