[ 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: 36 KB, 501x375, 1343105176265.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3794897 No.3794897[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Hey, /ck/

I'm moving into an apartment for college inna couple weeks and want to break myself of my reliance on takeout/fast food to save money and eat better. Unfortunately I don't place enough importance on food to justify spending a whole bunch of time on it but at the same time I still enjoy a good meal.

So can you guys post your favorite quick recipes? I'm going on a health kick the second I get there so I'd prefer if most of the suggestions were lean meats and veggies as opposed to starches, oils and cheese.

I appreciate the help in advance. If left to my own devices it would be boneless chicken breast and frozen spinach 24/7

>> No.3794901

Crap. Also some advice on proper use of spices because they seem to be the best way to add flavor without the horrible caloric damage that comes with butter and oil.

>> No.3794937

>>3794901
Butter and oil and all fats (in moderation) are not bad for you. They will not make you fat. We have 40 years of empirical evidence to prove the "fat food == fat people" hypothesis was wrong.

You want to cut out carbohydrates. Specifically, fructose. You can tell if something has fructose in it because it is sweet. This includes but is not limited to HFC (duh), cane sugar, fruit, carrots.

>> No.3795463

>>3794937
This person is following a low-carb fad diet. You stay at a healthy weight simply by burning the calories you take in. Calories in, calories out. It really is that fucking simple. Obviously it's bad to eat a lot of fats, that's basic common sense.

>> No.3795501

>>3795463
Common knowledge and common sense is commonly wrong tripfag. A lower carb diet than our mass-grain consuming society has been overindulging in is not a fad, in fact it's more akin to what our ancestors ate and developed on.

I'm not suggesting anyone go full eskimo and get more than half their calories from fat, but feeding yourself mostly on sugar-by-another-name is not healthy.

>> No.3795514

>>3795501
Jesus christ what an idiot.

>> No.3795523
File: 59 KB, 679x516, Argument Pyramid.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3795523

>>3795514
Since you're so keen on pyramids, maybe you should take a look at this one.

If you like, I can also provide you with a chart and explanation of logical fallacies you are likely to fall in to.

>> No.3795527

>>3795523
>yfw agriculture basically shaped who we are as a species

durrrr grains is bad yo

>> No.3795532
File: 571 KB, 1600x1131, Logical Fallacies 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3795532

>>3795527
Just because it kept a massive population easily fed does not mean it was beneficial to their individual health. Better than starvation I suppose.

Just keep ignorantly shoveling in the corn, wheat, and rice though. The personal safety of the willfully ignorant has never been a real concern of mine.

>> No.3795531

>>3794937
Wait so eating carbs is bad? How? I mean its not as useful as protein but what are you talking about?

>> No.3795534

>>3795532
Please explain how carbs are bad for our health, bearing in mind that not all carbs are sugar.

>> No.3795539

>>3795534
Are you capable of seeing things in more than just black and white? Read THE ENTIRETY of my posts and the posts of the other anon. I'm not trying to push carbs as some sort of poison, just limit them. And as the other guy said, especially fructose.

If you really need to be told why too much sugar is bad then there's no point in even discussing this. There are plenty of inexpensive or free adult education programs out there.

>> No.3795543

>>3795501
Wait, so our ancestors, many of which were likely herbivores, ate a low carb diet? The fuck?

If you're talking recent history humans have eaten carbs for centuries and they are a normal part of a human diet.

>> No.3795614

Actually the primary carbohydrate ancient humans would have eaten is fructose. Starches and complex carbs (other than fiber in vegetables and fruits) would have been considerably more difficult to eat until they had good proper ways of cooking. Most starchy vegetables need long cooking, as well as grains... though in some cultures they did eat raw green grains. Any starches, complex carbs, fiber would come from starchy fruit, and that = greater fructose consumption. The reason low-carb diets are working so well for people these days is simply because of our increasingly sedentary lifestyle.

>> No.3795626

>>3795543
Ancestors of the same species or their not-so-upright predecessors? Describing homo-sapiens as an herbivore is outright cracked pot.

And again, that second sentence. Somehow people keep changing reduced carb, or even reduced threshed grain, as zero carb.

By the same broken logic.

>If you're talking recent history humans have eaten meat for centuries and they are a normal part of a human diet.
>If you're talking recent history humans have eaten fat for centuries and they are a normal part of a human diet.
Yeah sure just consume whatever you want in whatever quantity you want, it's not like you need all three and shouldn't go overboard on one.

>> No.3795634

I'm also going to be in a college apartment with a kitchen. Reading thread.

>> No.3795653

>>3795614
What is traditional is not necessarily what is healthy. Humans have not always had such a long lifespan. Fructose still presents a long term problem when overly present on a person's diet. Unlike most other sugars, it bypasses the liver and goes straight to the blood, and is quite well known for causing pulmonary inflammation, high blood sugar and insulin resistance, and suppressing the immune system. Sure these are not early problems (nor problems at all for someone who may not see 50) for a young and physically fit individual. But is a long term problem for our aging population.

>> No.3795939

>>3795653
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was more that the average had been brought down by premature death from disease than anything else.

I.E. by taking out all of the people who died during birth, or at age three from the measles, or age ten from the mumps, or twelve from being eaten by wolverines, you changed the "average" lifespan without really changing how much the median lifespan would be for a person who made it past these issues and therefore can worry about nutrition.


Polite sage for a very irrelevant tangent.