/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>17872942
>anti cico
What problem do you have with the concept of a calorie exactly?
If you have a fat person and want to force them to lose weight, the most direct path to doing that is to cut off their calorie intake.

>>17872956
its a measure of physics, not biochemistry. if you want to make a fat person skinny you follow my OP. I eat fried onions in ghee daily and cannot gain weight. its 100% about cutting the wrong oil, the wrong sugar, and the wrong glutamates. our body is only meant to handle complex carbs, proteins, and lipids.

>>17872979
>I eat fried onions in ghee daily and cannot gain weight.
You can eat any kind of food and not gain weight if the calories are few enough.

>>17873028
>come on down ladies and gentleslimes you can eat it all! eat the rapeseed oil! eat the table sugar we made in a lab! yummy yummy but make sure to count fictional calories that'll make it alright alright.

just drink 2000 calories of vodka everyday. according to CICO that's perfectly healthy

>>17872956
I'm pretty sure it's some new schizo meme, saw someone sperging about this in a frog thread yesterday.

>>17873106
>t. gets paid by coca cola and pharma

>>17872942
>omega6
>not present
So you're just supposed to remove all fat from meat and dairy?

>>17873128
wrong. like I said the key is complex lipids. in the case of tallow and ghee theyre arguably the most healthy, least processed lipids.
the bad omega6 is specifically the lab produced filtered omega6 ultraprocessed ingredient with a sticky quality rather than an oily quality.

>>17873155
make it omega3, ghee, tallow, etc. all less combusted level cooked

>>17873155
In other words, you're a retard and don't know anything about nutrition.

>>17872942
Sage

>>17873165
do you feel like you won with a gotcha moment? you asked for clarification and I clarified. my style of conveying a truth doesn't make it less true, people like you are just persnickety to the point of annoying and wrong. feel free to speak your own truth, but if its just "hur dur u lose argument" then fuck out of my bread

>>17873172
holy shit look at how seething coca cola is over the truth getting out.

>>17873174
>my style of conveying a truth doesn't make it less true,
No, you having no idea what you're talking about it makes it not true.

>>17873178
which part is wrong exactly so I know what level of shill is attacking me? so far you've INSISTED im wrong without being specific at all. also whats your bmi for the record? I dont take fats opinions.

for example, glutamate is bad for you in the form of msg. if glutamate is in its complex unbroken down form (chicken breast or such) its healthy. same for omega 6 in ghee and tallow. same for glucose in complex carbs like wheat.
I am not sure why I have to reiterate this for dingus "gotcha" boy

It's just a ketolard hiding his diet autism behind a retarded meme. Ignore.

>>17873191
>keto
complex carbs and fruits are in the EAT THE MOST OF THESE category of my pyramid. holy shit this board is low iq today. have we been raided?

>>17873109
I wish. I'm not going to sit here and tell you that drinking 40g of sugar in a can is a good thing but frankly I think deep down you already knew that because you've almost certainly never heard someone advocating CICO also advocate that.

>>17873204
sure but what is healthy is eating complex carbs until you're absolutely stuffed. and to your point what isn't healthy is drinking or eating literally any table sugar

>>17873209
CICO is a point of reference for weight loss and I doubt anyone informing someone else how to lose weight would recommend that they eat a bunch of processed bullshit and sugars so what exactly is your issue with CICO?

This is just a guess, not meant to put words in your mouth, but is it because that's often the primary metric that's brought up? Because I often see that but I attribute it to
>don't eat the processed bullshit that made you 400lbs in the first place
being a given. Yes, not all calories are equal. However calories are very real.

>>17873239
its not a given like you say. every fat youtuber like AmberLynn Reid pushes CICO working. at some point a person like me has to step on here and say the truth: CICO doesn't work at all, not even a little bit, and the only part of what you said that matters is cutting the lab processed shit (doesn't include milling, fermentation or ghee making for example). so why don't we just start saying cut the processed shit instead of selling these fats a cico diet that we all know is half true at best and really an elaborate table sugar hoax at worst.
>"a little bit of this a little bit of that" Santana Michelle Branch doesn't apply to complex carbs and table sugar. it's all and none.

CICO only has 95-99%(depends on the study) failure rate for long term weight loss yet retards will still defend it and call you lazy when it fails

>>17873316
this is a tactic of big ag to mix truth and untruth
cico doesn't work. overall nutrition and digestion rate aren't considered in cico, therefore processed food is the "same" by their regards as long as the calories total the same. overeating is absolutely true, but again because of eating the processed "food". Cico doesn't work, not eating lab processed foods works, and you'll naturally have a feedback mechanism to eat less if you actually start eating only real food.

>>17873280
It is kind of weird that "just avoid processed food" doesn't seem like common advice when it solves a lot of problems. I wonder if it's because of companies always advertising low fat or low carb, plant-based, etc. so that's what people focus on. A lot of food companies would be screwed if people stopped eating so much processed food in general instead of blaming micronutrients or animal products or whatever.

>>17873326
uh for those interested
>>17873327
based

>>17873326
>>17873328
I deleted it because I read the rest of the post and saw it already pointed out why processed food is the main problem. But yeah I agree that there's some truth to companies not wanting you to focus on their food being unhealthy in general by telling you to just count calories.

I wonder how it would work if "processed food" was added to nutrition labels and given percentages of what the limit should be like what was done for added sugar.

>>17872956
>cut off their calorie intake
>>17873028
>if the calories are few enough

Biologically true. Socially irrelevant.

Left to their own free will, people with moderate or greater insulin resistance will eat slightly more than their calorie needs. The appetite, primary regulator of calorie intake, gets askew.

Put someone in a jail cell and control their calories, sure, it works. But usually nothing short of that does for CICO-focused techniques.

>>17873357
its not even completely biologically true. 2000 calories of table sugar candy is NOT the same intake and output calories after processed (un)naturally by the body as 2000 calories of ghee cooked onions and beef in some healthy pasta and tomatoes.
2000 calories of table sugar candy IS the same calories in terms of a faulty physics measurement where we light the food on fire and measure the amount of flame for how long it produced (which is totally irrelevant in thinking about eating and digesting food) as 2000 calories of ghee cooked onions and beef in some healthy pasta and tomatoes.

>>17873366
input and output energy* often mistakenly called calories

I love corn oil so much bros

>bomb calorimeter meme
No one does that any more, they just tot up the ingredient amount based on reference values, which take into account the way different things are processed. When they came up with the reference values that included sealing people in air tight rooms and burning their excrement to measure losses.

>>17873280
Why are you talking about a fat ho that can't even stick to cico

>>17873104
>make sure to count fictional calories that'll make it alright alright
It'll make sure the person eating this food doesn't gain weight, yeah.
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.

>>17873105
>just drink 2000 calories of vodka everyday. according to CICO that's perfectly healthy
No, according to CICO you won't gain weight (unless you're short enough to have an even lower daily calorie ceiling for weight gain).

>>17873194
The only outsider here is you.

>>17873474
Oh will your muscles keep their size from the alcohol calories????

>>17873470
>a 28.8 bmi professor is schooling us on how to be healthy weight
>>17873478
>just leave us fats alone! stop discriminating

>>17873483
>Oh will your muscles keep their size from the alcohol calories????
"Muscles keeping their size" and "losing weight" are actually two distinct things. Not sure you were aware since you just tried to pass off one as the other.

>>17873490
He was right though. He ate the worst kind of vending machine junk food and still lost a substantial enough amount to go from clinically overweight to clinically normal weight by eating fewer calories.

Here is mine and I fixed yours

>>17873495
the point of cico not being possible is that these clown professors only do the diet for 10 weeks. even they know they'd have serious consequences health wise if longer. if your diet includes massive muscle loss, loss of quality of life, and generally starving your body of real food by fitting in as much processed junk to muhh lose weight because 1 professor could do it for 10 weeks, meanwhile in the real world (which is longer than 10 weeks) your cico diet fails to lose weight also, why? because you destroy your feedback mechanism. that professor did not feel full, satisfied, probably lost sleep, all to prove his point while missing that it doesnt prove CICO is a good thing, nor that I should now listen to a 28.8 bmi professor
>>17873500
*for 10 weeks
>>17873505
>drink the coca cola its edgypilled!

>>17873508
I'm not a fat fuck or a woman on a diet. I don't drink coke because I'm not a fan, I still eat red meat mostly every day and I don't fuckin care bud.

>>17873508
Cico good
You bad

>>17873541
>t. drink coca cola

>>17873508
>these clown professors only do the diet for 10 weeks. even they know they'd have serious consequences health wise if longer
Angus Barbieri consumed zero calories for 382 days. He had noncaloric drinks like water or tea, a vitamin, and a couple rounds of electrolytes (potassium starting around the 100th day for a couple months and sodium for 10 days towards the end).
He was 456 pounds when he started and 180 pounds at the end.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

>>17873599
>382 days so basically 1 human lifespan

>>17873655
lol, take the L friend, you were wrong.

>>17873470
skinny =/= healthy
or in his case normal bmi =/= healthy

>>17873678
your implying this conversation was ever about weight loss, you can fast and lose weight, oh wow who knew. its about CICO versus a lifestyle. who's going to take the L is you karmically for pushing this hard for people to just eat muh table sugar whats the muh big deal

>>17873357
>Put someone in a jail cell and control their calories, sure, it works. But usually nothing short of that does for CICO-focused techniques.
or just have some goddamn self-control.
Forkdown is the easiest exercise you can possibly do.

>>17873688
T. My mom says I just have big bones

>>17873715
Yeah, I don't get the fat majoriy at all.
I gave up on trying to gain weight 20 years ago. It's insane how much food you have to consistently eat every fucking day to not be skinny. i just want to take naps and eat an easy mac cup or a pack of maruchan instant noodles, not a giant plate of bacon and eggs or 50 mcnuggets.

>>17873724
You do realize that being healthy is more than just your bmi, right? Also swole dudes tend to always be overweight according to bmi.

>>17873599
Did he gain it back or keep it off?

>>17873767
Have you ever seen a body builder actually care? Only fat asses make that argument

>>17873280
>CICO doesn't work at all, not even a little bit
But as posters later pointed out there are examples of people obliterating calories and losing weight with their progress meticulously monitored. You seem to be hung up on CICO as a lifestyle but I've never seen it presented like that, it's just a metric for weight control. The statements
>you should be aware of your caloric intake vs use
and
>you should get your nutrition from real food
are not mutually exclusive.

>>17873778
>if you do enough steroids that makes you healthy
>>17873803
this is a lot of rationalization to justify eating sugar. guess what? veganism, keto, cico, fasting, and simply starving are all the same thing, depriving your body of real food or an aspect of food. the concept: it doesnt work comes from statistics being like the other poster said 95% fail using it, BECAUSE it ruins your bodys natural feedback mechanism
>to lose weight just do more of the same, but you know in uh lesser amounts that should fix it just have self control

>>17873814
>just live through the sensation of starving and actually depriving nutrition to lose weight
>me: no.

>>17873775
is this a joke? even his after picture is fat

test

>>17873814
Being "healthy" is for woman and faggots. I'm going to hack my darts, drink my coffee with cream and sugar and eat all the red meat I want because I work for a living

>>17873775
>He put on a few more kilograms in subsequent years, but never became obese again.
https://archive.is/kQFSb
>>17873821
Are you autistic?

>>17873814
>this is a lot of rationalization to justify eating sugar.
You're the only one here obsessed with sugar, dude. All I've had to eat today is a couple beers and a liverwurst sandwich. I'll have a few more beers over the day then probably have pork chops for dinner. This whole time I've specifically been saying that people shouldn't do more of the same shit that got them fat but some binge eating fad diet retard is going to stay fat even if he eats whole foods.

>>17873863
better im right
>>17873848
red meat, cream, coffee and darts are all great. wow muh man standing up for coca cola table sugar. go you.
>>17873866
yes I am obsessed with table sugar, thats one of the main problems with cico is claiming its "the same" as any carb
no, he won't stay fat on whole foods

>>17874585
>cico
>carb
Dude the C in CICO is calories.
>no, he won't stay fat on whole foods
Rich fatasses in the past say otherwise.

Denying CICO is the food equivalent of being a flat-earther.

>>17874662
I don't believe in global warming either (or your kikevaxx)

>>17874631
We need to make codpieces a thing again, /fa/ bros.

>>17874662
The problem with "CICO" is that it's pushed as some kind of absolute simple science (hurr, le thermodynamics) when the reality is that calorie counting and restriction is an effective dieting technique because it promotes people to be conscious of what they eat.

If you have even an inkling of knowledge in biology, you'd know harder sciences make fun of it because living creatures are horrendously complex compared to simple energy and particles. The human digestive tract isn't a bomb calorimeter; it's a multi-part system which can fluctuate and adapt. People require various nutrients, minerals, vitamins, amino acids, etc. and a balance of macronutrients which effects how their digestive tract works.

This is why people bitch about CICO. You could eat 500cal of only potato chips each day and lose weight, sure. You could also eat 2500cal of only potato chips each day and loose weight because it's not conducive to good metabolism. On the flip side, people can literally die from starvation while still being fat because they don't have the energy to metabolize their stored calories.

Once again, the value of CICO as a dieting trend is that it is a gateway into being more aware of what you eat. People who just stop at CICO because "muh thermodynamics" and "just werkz" are the "flat-earthers" here.

>>17872979
human body doesn't handle complex carbs very considering it's mostly fiber and shat out almost whole, humans aren't cows

and you knock table sugar but promote fruit and honey, it makes zero sense

i think you're just not eating as much as you think and are on a calorie restricted diet

and you're retarded

>>17874631
when did I say what the c in cico stands for?
they're getting fat on table sugar, canola oil, msg, and excessive dairy. did you read my food pyramid?
>>17874662
muh science says
>>17874734
muh insect spit is literally identical to lab made ultra processed and refined table sugar
>>17874732
not a bad write up. remember a fat human who loses their food supply is at a healthy weight right before they starve to death

You got a link to your website OP?

>>17874732
>On the flip side, people can literally die from starvation while still being fat because they don't have the energy to metabolize their stored calories.

moron

>>17874732
>etc. and a balance of macronutrients which effects how their digestive tract works.
I'd like to take a second to expand upon this. Bread.

You can actually eat the same amount of bread in two different ways with different effectiveness because of how we digest starches. Amylase is the enzyme involved here, which is produced by the pancreas but excreted in the mouth. Amylase has it's highest concentration in saliva and some minimal concentration in stomach fluids from swallowed spit. This enzyme helps convert mostly indigestible starches into easily digestible sugars. If you slowly chew bread and soak it in saliva before swallowing, it'll be better absorbed nutritionally wise. Conversely, if you just scarf down the bread like a duck, you won't digest the bread properly and wind up with some digestive pain as the largely undigested food ferments in your intestines.


...Also drinking 2 litres of zero-calorie water makes you instantly gain 4 and a half pounds. CICOTARDS BTFO

>>17874765
It's not a fucking energy bar in a video game.

>>17874742
>>17874765
Most vital vitamin stores run out before a hamplanet can waste away the fat stores properly. The absolute time for starvation is typically the same in both a normal person and a morbidly obese person due to this.
Of course, human biology and metabolism varies, but basically if you locked a landwhale chained up in your basement for three months with no food, you'd still likely come back to a fat corpse. Not speaking from experience, I swear.

Pic related is my pyramid for losing weight.
Works great, low cost, low effort.

OP is right in that CICO isn't everything. His pyramid is also pretty solid. But he's also a fucking idiot at the same time, there's nothing wrong with table sugar and soda for example. Don't make them the biggest parts of your diet but you don't also have to cut them out either. CICO is the biggest fucking lie ever told in nutrition. And there are some pretty fucking big ones out there. But none come even close to CICO. CICO simply does not work as a weight loss strategy. The long term failure rate is almost 100% for gods sake. It doesn't fucking work. Yes you can temporarily lose some weight but you'll ALWAYS gain it all back.

If you want to lose weight and keep it off the key is not fucking eating. And by not fucking eating I mean fasting. If you're trying to lose weight don't fucking eat more often than every 2 to 4 days. Once you're at your goal weight or if you just want to lose a bit you start doing intermittent fasting. AT MOST an 8 hour eating window. So you fast at least 16 hours every day. Super simple to achieve also. Leave out either dinner or breakfast (I mean technically you can't leave our breakfast since you're breaking your fast on the first meal no matter the time but you get the idea) and you've basically automatically got it. Besides that also leave out ALL snacking. If you're not sitting at a table eating a real meal, don't eat anything. Non-caloric drinks in the fasting window are ok. But no artificial sweeteners since they trigger an insulin response which is really bad for trying to lose weight.

Now why fasting and why is spiking your insulin during your fasting window so bad for losing weight. Let's see what insulin does
>stores available carbs and protein as either glycogen or fat if glycogen stores in your muscles and liver are full
>known side effects: prevents the utilization of body fat stores as energy, because you know the body already has energy flowing in it so there's no point using body fat

cont.

>>17874852
So here we find out why fasting is the solution, and also why we didn't have nearly as much fatties until very recently. There was no access to snacks and people ate 3 times a day at most. 2 times a day wasn't even uncommon. The current recommendations even often recommend you to eat 5 - 6 times a day. Every single time you eat you bring up your insulin levels. Every single time your insulin is high your body is actively storing the energy you just ate into body fat (your glycogen stores are going to be full if you don't do hard physical labor or endurance sports). Every single time it's also literally impossible for your body to use it's already existing fat stores as energy. It's also why insulin levels don't rise/fall down if you're doing physical activity while/after eating, because there's no reason to store the energy when it's needed now.

You could literally eat the same amount of calories and lose weight if you eat it all in one meal compared to eating it during the entire day and gaining weight. Fasting allows your body to use the fat it already has as energy. Eating constantly throughout the day you're actively keeping your body from using its fat stores as energy and adding more fat to those fat stores.

tl;dr CICO works but the real key is not eating throughout the entire fucking day from when you wake up to until you go to sleep.

>CARBS BAD
God I am looking forward to when this wank is debunked in 8 years and I don't have to hear morons shouting it literally every time food is mentioned in conversation.

>>17874844
>Wow, it's fucking nothing.

>>17874742
>when did I say what the c in cico stands for?
In the post I replied to.
>>17874585
>one of the main problems with cico is claiming its "the same" as any carb

>canola oil
Wasn't even a thing until the late 20th century. You can't blame people being fat in the past on modern processed foods. If whole foods can't make people fat then how were people fat in the past?

>>17873599
Fasting is better than eating low calories though. Eating starvation diets leads to your body going to starvation mode and you end up requiring less calories. So the CO part becomes smaller. And after weight loss it's much harder to not gain weight. Fasting doesn't fuck up your metabolism. It's better to eat once every two day for 3000 calories than it's to do 1500 every day. Fasting is also good for your health as it activates certain healing mechanisms in the body.

>>17874838
>>17874732
>On the flip side, people can literally die from starvation while still being fat because they don't have the energy to metabolize their stored calories
Literally not possible. It's possible to "starve to death" if you eat food that lacks required nutrients. But by straight up fasting literally impossible if you still have fat. You do need salt though. And if you're an over 24 hour fast you should be drinking salt water. Vitamins are not required since you've got the ones you need stored right there with the fat. Weirdly enough your body doesn't seem to need water soluble vitamins if you don't eat anything. Don't ask me why but that's how it seems to work. It's a pretty understandable adaptation for our species since if we needed them even when fasting we as a specied would've been pretty fucked before modern farming.

>>17874868
Are you aware how fucking rare being fat was until a few decades ago. Yes it's possible to gain weight by eating too much but using "there were fatties before" isn't an argument when fattiness is an epidemic now. I wouldn't touch canola oil but I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be.

>>17874893
Because people used to do real work before computers and science destroyed the idea of crop failure and famine
cico is not a lifestyle, it's an observation of physical reality
'low calories' is a normal diet that fatasses have conditioned themselves to exceed by eating too much for years

>>17874893
This is easily both my most and least favourite time-wasting internet argument because we can go hours rehashing the same points a la "Yes, you are correct, BUT...!".
I'm gonna drop it for now. Gotta go check on... something in my basement...

>>17874893
>Are you aware how fucking rare being fat was until a few decades ago.
How rare it was is immaterial, we don't disagree on highly processed sugary bullshit being bad for people. The question is whether or not you *can* get fat on whole foods and the answer is yes, as shown by fatasses throughout history.

>>17874909
There's also the fact that people did real work. But even bigger factor was only eating when a meal was prepared. Not all people were working hard physical labor jobs even beforehand. Especially not in the 50s to 90s. And fattiness was still a lot less common than it's nowadays.

The thing is, if you do intermittent fasting you can actually eat massive meals. Your two meals can be real meals and you'll still be able to lose weight. If you divide that same caloric intake all over the entire day you'd have to eat only mouthfulls each time. Which is really fucking hard to do and not eat too much. And at the same time if you divide those meals all over the day you're keeping your insulin high all day.

>>17874943
>as shown by fatasses throughout history.
I'm really fond of the medical mystery behind Daniel Lambert, the original bloatlord, who was hilariously fat and infamously athletic.

>walks 7 miles without breaking a sweat
>can do a vertical split/high-kick without losing his balance
>heaves 250kg weights with ease.
>can swim and keep his head above water while carrying two men
>literally punched a bear into submission to save his pet dog

>>17874732
>people can literally die from starvation while still being fat because they don't have the energy to metabolize their stored calories
lol no. That's a fat person fairy tale told to justify their decision to continue eating.
NASA's looked into using obese astronauts exactly for their ability to last a very long time without eating.
The entire point of why fat stores exist is to allow for surviving without food.

>>17874984
I remember that boss a previous thread, he sounds like a top level sumo wrestler.

>>17874893
>starvation mode
Stopped reading here.

>>17875048
It's true though. Your metabolism slows down if you constantly eat well below maintenance. It's not forever gone to shitter though and is fixable. And by no means is it nearly as big of an issue as fatties make it out to be. But it is real nonetheless.

>>17875030
I'm talking about zero nutrition as a whole. No zero-calorie supplements, no vitamin pills, none of this "technical starvation". Every long-term starvation experiment is supplemented and that is why I don't like people who try to use that for CICO memes because the whole basis here, a point we're actually agreeing on, is that it's not just about calories.

NASA gave up on the fat astronaut thing as infeasible, anyways. You couldn't keep fatlords in good enough condition and a supplemented starvation diet doesn't give you a guy mentally or physically fit to do science for you.

>>17874754
whats my website sir? I just post on ck and x mostly
>>17874855
mostly based indian man. I too see benefit in fasting. careful with your "a little bit of poison is surely okay" approach though
>>17874857
complex carbs are my EAT THE MOST OF THIS category
>>17874943
wrong.
>>17875061
can't gain muscle though. meanwhile I eat as much as I can, still losing weight though disrespecting cico, I pack in the honey by the lbs fr fr

>>17875877
>wrong.
Nope.