Anti-Carbs

stop saying that you psychopath. it's not calories in calories out because the body does not eat calories, the body eats sugars, fats, and proteins, and treats all these differently.

A diet high in fat and carbs will make you gain a ton of weight. a diet very low in fat and high in carbs is a healthy way to lose weight. And a diet low in carbs and high in fat is an unhealthy way to lose weight.

>Calories in calories out.
This is the most stupid advice you can give anyone, Nutrition is key and all calories are not equal.

>And a diet low in carbs and high in fat is an unhealthy way to lose weight.
Give me a source for this bullshit, bitch.

thats kind of the point, removing the primary fuel forces you to burn fat

For losing weight that's how it works, keeping a balanced diet is a given.

>a diet very low in fat and high in carbs is a healthy way to lose weight
um, I think the 80s and 90s pretty definitely disproved that one. Calories from fat aren't that bad for you, its calories from carbs that contribute the most efficiently to weight gain. The general movement against fat, and toward carbs in the 80s and 90s is a major cause of our current state of obesity (along with almost everyone adopting sedentary jobs)

This. Cutting out carbs eliminates 99.99% of the calorie-dense junk food and snacks that's behind modern obesity.
Just eat sensible portions, avoid processed convenience foods and get regular exercise and you'll lose weight and be healthier.
>t. Guy who lost 80lbs with a balanced diet and 30 minutes of exercise every day.

Actually all calories are equal. Really. Macros may differ but as calories go...

IN

except that your body absorbs calories from carbs much more efficiently than it does from fat or protein, you end up pooping out a much larger portion of the calories in fats and proteins, and almost none of them with carbs

Plus even once it is absorbed, calories from carbs are more readily utilized

Calories are equal, how your body digests it and turns it into energy is a completely different subject.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28433617
"All variables for the ketogenic group out-performed those of the exercise and non-exercise groups, with five of the seven demonstrating statistical significance."

If it gets people away from junk food and pizzas into vegetables and lean meats then what the fuck

It's the same subject. Read his post again with your reading comprehension hat on.

um, the subject is clearly losing weight as established in the OP, so it is very certainly on subject

calories in vs calories out is the core concept to any method of weight loss
lowering carbohydrate intake in favour of fats and proteins has a better effect on satiety, so you're less likely to continue gorging on cheap processed snacks and be contented with a nice fatty steak, some broccoli and a bread roll
stop spreading disinformation, you're part of the problem

Hahahaha, no.

Not how it works. You don't "poop out" calories. Man... just... shhhhh, now.

Your body is not a bomb calorimeter. The raw energy value of your food is one thing, but how your nutrition affects your gut flora and resultant hormonal response is definitely dependent on more than the base caloric value of your food.

>cut out empty calories
>lose a bunch of weight
wow
makes you think

your body is an incredibly complicated, intricate system built upon millions of years of evolution
it's getting every fucking drop of energy out of what goes through it unless there's something medically wrong with you, educate yourself

Sure it is. Try it yourself. Eat 20 doughnuts tomorrow. Then, try eating 4 doughnuts a day for 5 days. You'll put on more weight during the latter.

Your body is certainly not 100% efficient at bringing chemical energy in your food into your blood, you poop out much of what you consume. This can be seen if you ever try and burn you poop, spoiler alert, it burns, something that cannot happen if no calories remain
Furthermore, calories from carbs are most easily absorbed by your digestive system, and then most easily converted into chemicals usable in your body's metabolism

If all you want to do is lose weight, yes. Cut out carbs and you'll go from being an unhealthy fat person to an unhealthy skinny person.
If you want to be a healthy person, eat a proper diet and get some fucking exercise. Exercise is important not just for burning fat but for keeping your body and mind working properly.
You don't even need a gym membership, just do some jumping jacks or take a brisk walk around the neighborhood.
Use it or lose it, fatty.

This. Fuck vegetables.

The reply thread can be boiled down to this:
>not all calories are equal
>>calories are calories
>but you can get calories more efficiently from carbs!
>>the calories are the same, just extracted differently
And he's right, calories are calories. Regardless of how efficiently the body extracts them, 250 calories from carbs are identical to 250 calories from beef and will be treated no differently.
Burning more calories than you ingest will always result in weight loss and it's foolish to argue otherwise.

The distinction comes because not all calories put in your mouth end up being available to your metabolism
So X number of calories is X number of calories, however X dietary calories is always greater than the number of calories from that food available for metabolism, but those numbers become closest with carb based calories

Calories in and Calories out is a good shorthand to go by without putting much thought into it, but its actually more complicated than that

I lost 50 lbs literally by just eating less. Sometimes I had days where I would exclusively eat carbohydrates. Anyone telling you carbs hinder weight loss is just meming you.

Carbs don't prevent you from losing wieght if you eat dramatically less, its just that cutting calories from carbs contributes a little more than cutting other sources of calories. If you are serious about losing weight you should obviously try cutting calories in general with some specific focus on carbs, along with exercising more

calories in calories out is simply bad advice. it's unhelpful. it's like saying 2+2 = 4. Yes, we know food has calories, your point is stupid. Humans respond to different foods differently. Some foods will make humans feel uncomfortable, some will satiate them, some will give them insatiable hunger.

from my experience.
dietary fat = insatiable hunger regardless of calories consumed. Causes over-eating and rapid weight gain. Snack foods are almost all high in fat because snack companies know this.
high carb high fiber ultra low fat = satiety is easy to attain. Over eating is more difficult.

Cutting carbs cold turkey is fine if you're an absolute fat-ass because your body has all that fat to burn.
Once you burn all that, though, you need to start eating carbs again or your body will start to burn muscle instead.
It's a crash diet and like all crash diets it fails at building good, long-term healthy eating habits, which are necessary for KEEPING weight off.

t. obese roasties

So, you're trying to argue that burning more calories than you eat DOESN'T result in weight loss?
Or are you agreeing with what I said, but in a way that you can try and spin it into a "me right you wrong" scenario?

>some will give them insatiable hunger.
Ok I'll bite, what food will give someone insatiable hunger?

Sure are a lot of experts here.

This. Fuck dying of anything other than butt cancer.

Obviously I am not saying that, just that not all sources of dietary calories contribute 100% of their caloric value to your metabolism

>hating the people who brought the world tarzan boy

youtube.com/watch?v=_r0n9Dv6XnY

like all things diet related, most people make it more complicated than it is

the problem with the simple processed carbs in your picture like bread comes down to 2 things, density and glycemic index

bread it just simply a food that is very easy to overeat, it takes a lot of it to feel satiated and it breaks down quickly leaving you hungry again soon after

now if you aren't a man child and actually know how to control your portions you can eat bread with every meal if you fuggin want to
but since most people are machildren with no sense of personal responsibility for their decision in life they blame the bread and run away from them like they are some terrible thing

>but since most people are machildren
blame evolution
There was never any selective pressure in a time with abundant food until very very recently in human history

can i loose weight by not eathing bread?

I can eat tuna for one meal of one day once per week but what about everything else?

Yes, avoid one of the basic food groups that humans have lived off of since the dawn of civilization. That's the key to health.

It only took 10,000 years but we finally figured out the problem. And it's all thanks to fad diet websites.

yee

bread isn't bad for you, but if you currently have a weight problem its one of the easiest things to remove from your diet that will have a large impact. Remember that through almost all of human history, the factors that were good in food are specifically what are leading to obesity now

>(just meat and vegetables) really help lose weight?
It's worked great for me. Only diet I've ever lost weight with. And that's despite being far more sedentary than usual for the last six months.

i;m tryig to loose 20 friggen pounds

I think the ony answerer is to starve myself and to get this doctor off my back

im doing exesise btw

ncga.com/

Yes and quickly. I lost nearly 40lbs in two months.

Sugars will for me, its not difficult for me to eat a whole fucking box of oreos and still be hungry but a pound of steak will keep me full for a day, thus I only eat sugar during holidays

Yeah, candy and cakes and $1 44oz sodas and energy drinks and processed corn syrup bullshit... and bread. Yeah that's it, bread's the culprit.

As we all know the peasants needed Kit Kats for their manual labor. We don't need them in our modern diets.

Civilization is a fraction of time in human history, prior to this grains (rice, corn, wheat) were not eaten in any large quantity

its all that stuff

Bread is definitely not bad for you if you have a steady weight, but cutting it along with other carbs is a rather easy way to cut calories

I'm more concerned with the diets of Homo erectus.

They were decidedly healthier than we are now, I'm assuming. Other than the lack of poisonous bread, what else were the keys to their nutritional success story?

(insert grain merchant joke)
Is the stupid fat people thing even funny anymore? I can't even tell.

Probably ate whatever they could find, fruit in season (which amounts to small berries and crab apple (most fruit has been bred to current state)), edible leaves and roots, small game meat (rodent size) occasional large game and probably a shitload of insects.

Low carb diets work very well for a period of time, until your body begins to get used to fat as fuel. It’s also expensive. Many doctors prescribe keto to morbidly fat people until they are at a safe weight to exercise

this is my theory as to why people from colder climates are simply smarter and more civilized than those from warm climates

people in colder climates required infrastructure, cooperation, and forward planning to make it through the winter when food and supplies were scarce
meanwhile people from warm climates had abundant resources all year
they could go out and hunt and pick fruit any time they wanted, they never had to plan, they never had to preserve, they never had to ration.
which is why people from the northern hemisphere are intelligent civilization builders, and people from the southern are tribal subhumans

...