/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>18333085
People became fat because they started eating too many calories.
Has nothing to do with corn syrup.
More food energy supply = more weight gain.
>Increased energy intake appears to be more than sufficient to explain weight gain in the US population. A reversal of the increase in energy intake of ≈2000 kJ/d (500 kcal/d) for adults and of 1500 kJ/d (350 kcal/d) for children would be needed for a reversal to the mean body weights of the 1970s.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059

>>14314480
>It's one of the main reason why Americans got so fat
Nope. Nice try, Dr. Mom.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
>Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
>His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
>The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
>For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day.
>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal.

>>14254456
>carbs bad
The direct correlation is between CALORIES and obesity, and the US is far from unique in this regard e.g. 60% of the UK is overweight now.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
>Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
>His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
>The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
>For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day.
>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal.

>>13352617
>At this point, it has to be a conspiracy to ruin people's health.
You know the obesity epidemic isn't just a US thing, right? Plenty of countries today are just as fat as America. It's not a conspiracy. This is what happens when people eat too many calories. It isn't even because of a lack of physical exertion despite that popular misconception.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>The predicted changes in weights derived from the equations suggest that increase in estimated energy intake is sufficient, by itself, to explain the increase in weight in the US population. Such findings are supported by studies using other approaches to the same question (10) and by epidemiologic data showing that physical activity levels have not decreased, or have even increased, over the period of time that obesity prevalence has been increasing (11–14).
People selling food add whatever they need to in order to get the most buyers. In broad strokes this tends to equate to foods with more calories. It was inevitable given enough time and food industry research / practice making more and more calories readily available to more people with less effort required to buy it and prepare it. That's why it's ended up as a global epidemic and not just an American issue. Even developing / third world nations have obesity problems today.

>>12854181
>durr corn R bad
Fuck off ketotard. The "direct correlation" is between CALORIES and obesity, and the US is far from unique in this regard e.g. 60% of the UK is overweight now.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
>Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
>His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
>The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
>For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day.
>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal.

>>12730316
>This is why I will fucking never eat anything in the US, it's no wonder they have a fucking obese problem there
Every developed nation has obesity problems. Over 60% of the UK for example (which is being contrasted with the US in that OP) is overweight or obese.
It's not because of corn syrup. It's because people are too well off with modern conveniences and abundance of food, don't physically exert themselves, and eat too many calories.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
I don't know how many more meme diet fads there needs to be before people start accepting you don't get fat if you don't eat at a caloric surplus.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.

>>12654944
It's almost like calories are what matter for weight and not macronutrient ratios.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity

>>12533224
It's not what they eat, it's how much they eat it.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity

>>12284102
>Do they look the same after 1 year?
The question is "do they weight they same if they started at the same weight?" And the answer is "yes." You don't lose more weight if you keep calories the same and only change the macronutrient ratio.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
Go do formal experiments that disprove the relationship between calories and bodyweight if you're convinced all these researchers missed something. You'll get a Nobel Prize (if you're right, which you aren't).
>Why are fat fucks so obsessed with come up with minuscule examples to disprove the simplest way to adjust their diet?
Because it's easier for them to be "skeptical" about calories and pretend their obesity is a complex problem without an easy solution than it is for them to take responsibility and eat less.

>>12207766
>Why has this been getting so popular?
There's a few reasons.
1) The name ("ketogenic" / "keto") sounds scientific, so fat pseuds like it because they can discuss it on the internet and feel like they're in on some high IQ secret to "hacking" their metabolism.
2) It's been positioned in recent years as the contrarian alternative to CICO (calories in, calories out). Fat people hate being told they can lose weight through the obvious and foolproof method of consuming fewer calories, so having a counter-explanation where macronutrient ratio is more important helps them rationalize their weight problems are the product of misinformation from mainstream dietary advice rather than the predictable consequence of consuming too many calories.
3) Most everyone enjoys the food / ingredients like bacon, butter, steak, eggs, cheese, fried chicken, etc. which the modern fad version of the "keto" diet tells you are OK to subsist off of. So naturally when today's fat people are faced with an abundance of competing and mutually contradicting fad diets to choose from the ones that say "eat these foods I enjoy" will tend to win out over the ones that say "eat these foods I don't enjoy and don't find satisfying."
4) Many of the modern fad version of the "keto" diet's recommended foods happen to contain fewer calories for the same amount of satiation compared to foods excluded from that diet. Which of course doesn't mean obesity is caused by the macronutrient ratio of what you eat, but rather that obesity is caused by caloric surplus like what every honest person who's read up on the topic has known for at least the past hundred years. People take the coincidence the wrong way and think they've stumbled onto a secret method for fixing their metabolism when what's really happened is they started consuming fewer calories.
All of the above factors have coalesced and intensified in recent years as the obesity problem keeps on getting worse and internet use keeps on increasing.

>>11933998
>It works and it works well
Nope.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7096307_Ketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets_have_no_metabolic_advantage_over_nonketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets
>Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets
>KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385608
>Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men.
>The carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity posits that habitual consumption of a high-carbohydrate diet sequesters fat within adipose tissue because of hyperinsulinemia and results in adaptive suppression of energy expenditure (EE). Therefore, isocaloric exchange of dietary carbohydrate for fat is predicted to result in increased EE, increased fat oxidation, and loss of body fat. In contrast, a more conventional view that "a calorie is a calorie" predicts that isocaloric variations in dietary carbohydrate and fat will have no physiologically important effects on EE or body fat.
>CONCLUSION: The isocaloric KD was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE that were near the limits of detection with the use of state-of-the-art technology.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
>>11934013
>They couldn't do it personally due to lack of dicispline
More like fat people resort to retarded meme diets like "keto" because they'll try anything other than the obvious solution of eating fewer calories.

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

>>11664552
No. I don't know why everyone wants to blame everything except the obvious cause which is consuming too many calories. The source of calories doesn't change how much weight you end up with. That's the entire point of food calories as a concept. They show you the bottom line of how much you've consumed in a standard way that works across all different foods interchangeably.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059

>>11648049
>Are Keto diets a meme
Absolutely, yes. Another case of fat people turning to literally any alternative in existence instead of facing the reality that they simply need to consume fewer calories to lose weight.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
>Comparison of weight-loss diets with different compositions of fat, protein, and carbohydrates.
>CONCLUSIONS: Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasize.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7096307_Ketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets_have_no_metabolic_advantage_over_nonketogenic_low-carbohydrate_diets
>Ketogenic low-carbohydrate diets have no metabolic advantage over nonketogenic low-carbohydrate diets
>KLC and NLC diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27385608
>Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men.
>The carbohydrate-insulin model of obesity posits that habitual consumption of a high-carbohydrate diet sequesters fat within adipose tissue because of hyperinsulinemia and results in adaptive suppression of energy expenditure (EE). Therefore, isocaloric exchange of dietary carbohydrate for fat is predicted to result in increased EE, increased fat oxidation, and loss of body fat. In contrast, a more conventional view that "a calorie is a calorie" predicts that isocaloric variations in dietary carbohydrate and fat will have no physiologically important effects on EE or body fat.
>CONCLUSION: The isocaloric KD was not accompanied by increased body fat loss but was associated with relatively small increases in EE that were near the limits of detection with the use of state-of-the-art technology.

>>11637065
Reminder it's calories that's the problem, not where you're getting them from.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
Reminder the biggest predictor for type 2 diabetes is your weight, not what kind of food you eat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635590/
>Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese: more than 85% of people with type 2 diabetes in southeast Scotland in 2005 had a body mass index (weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared) of over 25. Recent evidence indicates that high waist circumference may be an even better indicator than body mass index (BMI) of increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
Consuming sugar isn't a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. If you're not overweight and not diabetic, there's no evidence sugar is going to cause you to get diabetes. And inversely if you are overweight, then you're at risk for diabetes even if you don't drink soda. Basically you're confusing what's bad for a diabetic with what causes diabetes. By analogy, cold temperatures don't cause coronary heart disease just because people with coronary heart disease react badly to cold temperatures. And the flu doesn't cause AIDS just because the immune system of people with AIDS is too compromised to fight off the flu.

Reminder it's calories that's the problem, not where you're getting them from.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
Reminder the biggest predictor for type 2 diabetes is your weight, not what kind of food you eat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635590/
>Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese: more than 85% of people with type 2 diabetes in southeast Scotland in 2005 had a body mass index (weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared) of over 25. Recent evidence indicates that high waist circumference may be an even better indicator than body mass index (BMI) of increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
Reminder you lose weight even on a vending machine snack diet if you take care of calorie restriction.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
>Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
>His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
>The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
>For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

>>11509092
>it's why everyone is fat today.
"No."
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
Reminder the biggest predictor for type 2 diabetes is your weight, not what kind of food you eat.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1635590/
>Most people with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese: more than 85% of people with type 2 diabetes in southeast Scotland in 2005 had a body mass index (weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared) of over 25. Recent evidence indicates that high waist circumference may be an even better indicator than body mass index (BMI) of increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
Reminder you lose weight even on a vending machine snack diet if you take care of calorie restriction.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html
>Twinkies. Nutty bars. Powdered donuts.
>For 10 weeks, Mark Haub, a professor of human nutrition at Kansas State University, ate one of these sugary cakelets every three hours, instead of meals. To add variety in his steady stream of Hostess and Little Debbie snacks, Haub munched on Doritos chips, sugary cereals and Oreos, too.
>His premise: That in weight loss, pure calorie counting is what matters most -- not the nutritional value of the food.
>The premise held up: On his "convenience store diet," he shed 27 pounds in two months.
>For a class project, Haub limited himself to less than 1,800 calories a day. A man of Haub's pre-dieting size usually consumes about 2,600 calories daily. So he followed a basic principle of weight loss: He consumed significantly fewer calories than he burned.
>His body mass index went from 28.8, considered overweight, to 24.9, which is normal. He now weighs 174 pounds.

>>11300324
>i eat both everyday
>why am i not obese
Because obesity is caused by eating too many calories, not by what kind of food you're getting calories from.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
Thinking otherwise is just a fat person excuse to avoid their obvious real problem.

>>11269871
>>11269885
Nope.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
Still just calories that matter, carbohydrates aren't poison.

>>11199969
>non-peer reviewed
It is peer-reviewed, where are you getting that from?
>>11199966
>Soda, beer, and pizza existed in the 70's too
Yes, but people didn't eat as much of it. If your idea that it was kind of food and not quantity that mattered held any water we wouldn't be seeing such a strong correlation between food quantity and obesity, or between obesity and diabetes. Diabetes doesn't care which sources of calories you ate to become obese. And obesity doesn't care which food you ate too much of it. I can post the guy who lost weight on a twinkies diet in a minute if you want.

>>11128843
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/90/6/1453/4598059
>Increased food energy supply is more than sufficient to explain the US epidemic of obesity
Honestly this is where the conversation should end. Your other fad diet non-CICO nuances have no relevant impact on weight gain in reality. It's not your slow metabolism, it's the number of calories you're consuming.