/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>4649645
whoa there. toast? are u trying to get cancer?

Wonky pre-cursor to Why We Get Fat.

I follow this man's advice fairly strictly. I lost 270lbs in about 18 months, my HDL is 72, Triglycerides are about half normal level, blood pressure normal, fasting blood glucose on the low end of normal.

I was 32 years old, 500lbs, and on the verge of suicide. Today I'm 36, 230lbs(with 50lbs excess integument), and in college maintaining a 4.0.

This shit saved my life.

>>4649675
Also discuss this, I guess.

>>4649674
500lbs Fuck man that's huge, congratulations on the weight loss.

>>I was 32 years old, 500lbs

At that point, any diet will make you lose weight, assuming you can stop stuffing your face

A lot of diet books just don't make sense. All of them claim to be the truth, all of them are "scientically proven," and they all contradict each other. When I look at diet, I look at what people around the world eat and see how it impacts them. It's ridiculous to say carbohydrates, even refined carbohydrates, cause obesity, when all of asia lives on white rice with vegetables. The fattest, sickest countries tend to eat the most fat and protein and even sneak tons of fat into their carbohydrate sources. Any processed food that has sugar, you're almost guarenteed to find a bunch of added fat as well that takes none of the blame

>>4649645
Calories are math. If output > intake, loss of mass.

Numerically, stuff like carrots will start sounding mad appealing.

>>4649714
Most diet methods are "scientifically proven" because nutrition, as it is currently understood, is an incomplete science. Advocating any diet blindly is totally incorrect, since we're only beginning to understand the genetic components of nutrient metabolism, not to mention the nutrigenomic effects of a lot of what we eat.

Even something as simple as a low-salt diet for hypertension can have grossly different effects in genetically disparate individuals. There's a ton of research that shows that some people respond to a low-salt diet with a decrease in BP (good), no change in BP (neutral), or an increase in BP (bad). And yet, we still say that everyone who is prehypertensive or hypertensive should be adhering to a low sodium diet. It just doesn't make sense, but it's the only thing we can do for now.

>>4649714
Asians don't live off of white rice and vegetables.

The average Chinese person eats only rice or noodles and are thus malnourished.

>>4649714

I won't tell you to go back to /fit/, it's obvious you've never laid eyes on the board.

My diet is 60-70% fat, mostly saturated, and caloric intake is about 4,000/day. I do not exercise beyond the walking that I do at work. Reconcile, or shut the fuck up.

>>4649726

>The average Chinese person eats only rice or noodles

The average black person eats only fried chicken or watermelon. The average white person eats only mashed potatoes or macaroni and cheese. The average mexican person eats only beans or lard

That's how dumb that sounds

>>4649738

You'll be dead by 40.

>>4649722

Calories in calories out is a great theory for a biological organism that's about as complex as a bicycle. The only fucktards shilling that shit anymore are the AHA and skinny blond twats that've never had to deal with excess adipose tissue in their life.

Don't eat too much of one thing.
Get off your ass and do something for at least 6 hours a day.
I don't need a book.

>>4649744

Not according to my blood work, which is better than you could ever hope for yours to be. My doctor has flatly informed me that every patient he sees with a weight problem is told about me, and how I went about my loss.

>manage to get yourself to 500 pounds
>starve the weight off short-term by eating unhealthy things
>expecting no long-term consequences of a ridiculous fatty diet

>>4649744

>>telling a former 500lbs individual that the diet that lost half his body-weight is going to kill him.

>>4649758

>thinks losing 270 pounds in the span of a year and a half is a healthy rate of weight-loss

OP might as well have gone through chemotherapy to shed the weight, or contracted AIDS.

>>4649751
Question is, how much of anything is too much? Too much cyanide is a very tiny amount, and too much protein is probably much higher than too many carbs.

>>4649757

Never once starved myself, I eat when I want, and never go hungry. Starvation diets don't work, yet here I sit four years on maintaining a 270lbs weight loss.

Here are the results of my high-fat diet.

>>yet here I sit four years on maintaining a 270lbs weight loss

So you stopped being 500 pounds fat and now you're stuck at 230 pounds fat

>>4649767

230lbs minus 50lbs of integument. Bunch of fucking plebs in here tonight. I know you guys are fucking desperate to justify your rice cookers and bread makers, but you really need to find some better lines of attack.

>>4649645
WHY WILL YOU FUCKS NEVER UNDERSTAND DIETS DONT MATTER FOOD DOESNT MATTER EXCERCISE DOESNT MATTER YOU CREAT A GOOD DDAMN CALORIE DEFICIT BY BURNING MORE CALORIES THAN YOU CONSUME YOU FUCKING IDIOTS

ITT: Jealous fat fucks that can't be bothered to ditch their type ten diabetes and live a healthy lifestyle.

>>4649767
Shit like this is why I hate this fucking board. Quit being such a whiny faggot.

>>4649780

This has been debunked in studies done on obese rats that were given a severe calorie deficit and ended up cannibalizing their own organs instead of utilizing adipose tissue as energy. You simply have no fucking concept of basic biological concepts.

>>4649780
>>4649722
Calories in/calories out is at best a gross oversimplification and at worst an outright myth.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/health/19brody.html?_r=0

It kills me how ignorant /ck/ is about this stuff.

>>4649793
>fails to provide link

No. This anon>>4649780 is right. 99% of all the "diets" out there are calorie restricted diets in disguise.

You will lose weight literally no matter what you eat as long as your calorie intake is lower than your outpout. You could eat nothing but doritos and beer and lose weight, doesn't mean it's healthy but you could

Let me throw in another theory. There's thousands of them, they all work for different people, and they're all scientifically proven

This is why I don't want to become a doctor or nutritionist

>>4649740
Are you Chinese? Or have you ever lived in China (the People's Republic of China, that is)? If not, shut the fuck up. Most China people live off rice and noodles. Vegetables are side-dish and meat is a luxury.

Black and white = races
Chinese = an actual nationality referring to people that live in a specific country that's called *surprise* China.

Did you fail social studies and/or English?

>>4649798
>fails to provide link

I'm not him, but google scholar is there for a reason. Use it if you want to educate yourself. If you just want to argue on the internet the go to /b/ or something.

>>4649807
Are you fucking stupid? Yes 75% of the Chinese diet is rice/noodles, but it's not like vegetables or meat is that hard to come by.

You sound like an ignorant asshole who likes to preach things that he's heard from other ignorant assholes.

>Vegetables are side-dish

And they eat them regularly. Checkmate.

>>4649810
Sorry, but the onus is on the person who makes wild claims to provide the evidence.

Calories out > calories in has been used successfully for decades for people who actually have the willpower to monitor what they eat and everyone involved in the /fit/ industry. 90% of the population doesn't have the willpower to correctly report and monitor what they eat and unless these weight loss studies are in a 100% controlled environment, it is useless

>>4649814
Vegetables and meat are not something the average person in that country can afford. It's not "hard to come by" in terms of availability but they can't afford to actually by it.

>>4649815
Nope. PRC isn't as bad as it used to be, there is a growing middle-class and what not...but most people's diets aren't sound/comprehensive at all.

>>4649806

We need a diet competition, like our fat guy and Subway Guy could have a fight to the death to decide the best diet once and for all.

>>4649840
70% of people living on less tan $5 but YO THEY GOT BETTER DIETS THAN WESTERNERS SO ADVANCE

>>4649840
Just no. Rice is a main staple, but they are not too poor to afford vegetables. And meat in Chinese dishes is mainly for flavoring, so sitting down to a steak/chicken/burger etc would just be unheard of because of a cultural thing instead of financial.

>>4649850
http://www.unicef.org/eapro/media_20532.html

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/china-news/childhood-malnutrition-in-china-causes-significant-economic-losses-63369.html

Shut the fuck up

>>4649859
>poverty stricken areas

Well no fucking shit sherlock. That doesn't apply to all of China.

>>4649822

When deer are presented with an abundance of their natural food, their population explodes, not their fucking waistline. Your little theory fails to consider and reconcile the staggering upswing in obese infants, whom do not eat for any other reasons than survival and growth. There are no fucking gluttonous 9 month olds trolling this board talking up their fucking rice cookers.

>>4649861
70% Chinese people are poor...is that not the fucking average person?

>>4649873
>70%
From the linked article:
>China now has about 290 million children between the ages 0 to 14, among which 15 million are below the poverty line

/ck/ in charge of math

>>4649861
i didnt know people were weeaboos about china

>>4649873
>12.7 million Malnourished
That's a quote in your first article. There are over a billion people in China. That's .009 percent.

>poverty stricken areas
Yes, that's self explanatory.


There are a lot of poor (although it appears you pulled that statistic straight from your ass), but it doesn't mean that they can't afford food. Just shut up already and quit spouting ignorance.

>>4649873
>70% Chinese people

no

>>4649878
>not being completely ignorant = weaboo

>>4649880

Those numbers are delivered as a best case scenario from the Communist regime. By first world standards, at least 70% of Chinese citizens live in abject squalor.

>>4649807
Which part of China do you live in? Because what you are seeing is completely different from what I see.

Yes the Chinese eat pretty much everything with rice and noodles. But they don't eat them in excess. Also, you forgot about dem Mántous.

>>4649888
>first world standards
>where our "poor" can afford two cars, cable TV, an apartment, the latest Jordans/clothes, can eat out regularly, and still have spending money left over

Well, if you go by those metrics...

>>4649880
Poor as a designation doesn't necessarily mean living below the poverty line. I don't expect you to know the difference. "Poverty line" is traditionally an American classification. One can still be considered "poor" and live above the poverty line. Try looking at poverty guidelines, federal poverty level, etc. It helps international organizations establish outlooks across populations.

http://povertydata.worldbank.org/poverty/country/CHN

"Poor" according to World Bank is anyone living one less than $5 a day. Below poverty LINE is less than $1.25.

Hope this helps.

>>4649888
>>4649895

Those numbers are of the people who you're citing for your diet claims. People who can't afford vegetables aren't merely poor by this measure.

If you're going to bullshit, don't do it by calling your own citations bullshit.

>>4649895
>what are exchange rates

>>4649894

This is not Selma, Alabama, it's not 1980, and Reagan hasn't been spewing that ridiculousness since the alzheimer's kicked in back in '86.

>>4649901
What in the hell are you even babbling about?

Now that you've learned that the Chinese don't survive on 20 grains of rice a day you're reverting to 'muh emotional jibber jabber' mode.

>>4649898
So you really think people living on less than $5 a day are really devoting most of their money to worrying about healthy eating? Most families have to pay for their kids school. They do have to pay for rent, utilities, etc.

>>4649900
Taken into account.

>>4649905
>20 grains of rice a day

yeah because people actually said that

>>4649908
Your original point is that the Chinese at large can only afford rice and noodles. You are in fact wrong and now shifting your argument because you lost your previous one.

Shut up you gigantic faggot.

>>4649905

>>troll goes on about welfare queens, appealing to base emotions
>>troll shut the fuck down by sourcing the myth and the racist behind the myth
>>troll gets sand in vagina and whines that his bullshit has been called

>>feels good to be superior

>>4649910
>what is hyperbole

Hungry Planet did a great photo series of families in various countries posing with what a week's worth of food was for them. Here's what $40/week looked like in Mongolia

>>4649912
Don't be mad, buddy. Enjoy living in your communist paradise!!

>>4649916

And here's what $5/week looked like in Bhutan

>>4649920

And here's what $160/week looked like in America

>>4649914
What, the "poor" in the US don't have all the things listed? Because I'm very sure that welfare recipients do have all of that. Google is your friend dumbass.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/us-poverty-level-1960s_n_1692744.html
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/07/what-is-poverty
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/277040/strange-facts-about-america-s-poor-robert-rector


Let me guess, you don't have any friends from the inner city?

>>4649916
wasn't that just a photographer going around contacting families for a photo op? Yeaaaaaaah. No.

>>4649921

Pay attention to the prices, Mr. "Too Poor To Buy Vegetables". You might learn something.

>>4649917
okay... I'm American. Sorry for not being an ignoramus and just agreeing with your retardation.

>>4649927
not even that person but I'll wager you can't conflate Bhutan with China.

>hurr durr poverty

basically fat as a health concern is entirely overstated, especially when it comes to heart disease. US health problems mostly come from the ubiquity of cheap sweeteners in the typical US diet causing excessive caloric consumption of empty nutrients.

As the US exports it's "culture" (fast food + sugary fizzy drinks) other cultures will get just as fat and unhealthy.

Pretending that being fat is entirely "personal responsibility" is idiotic and ignored the vast and complex array of social pressures and environment the rich apes have built for us poor apes.

>>4649927
>all azns are same!!111

>>4649936
>poor people are too stupid to understand nutritional information

>>4649941
nutritional information doesn't satiate a hungry belly

>>4649948
While rice, beans, lentils, eggs, whole chicken, and vegetables are cheap. So what?

>>4649935

Bhutan is much, much poorer than China, and somehow vegetables form the bulk of their diet. It's a mystery.

Here's a refugee camp in Darfur, $1/week if you want some idea of what not being able to afford vegetables actually means.

>>4649951
sugar is cheaper, and makes up a large part of the US diet

>>4649981
...aaaaaaand?

I thought your point was that "personal responsibility" wasn't involved, not that people were too stupid to understand nutrition.

>>4649955

They get all that food for a dollar?

I'm moving to Darfur