So. I'm well aware you guys are not nutritionists. But I've been thinking...

So. I'm well aware you guys are not nutritionists. But I've been thinking... Is burning or slightly charring foods a good short term way to reduce the food's calories? For example, I love lamb/bison. But it's very fatty and high in calories. So does burning the meat a bit (not completely burnt to a crisp) help reduce some of the calories? Usually the outside burns quickest, and I'm assuming that's where a lot of the fat is? So would burning off the fat and getting it crisp, or ' super well done" be less calories than cooking it medium?

Lamb and bison are 2 of the best meats. They won't make you fat if consumed in healthy amounts, and technically yes it does, but not in enough to make it worth it.

no, because the mass of the food is still there. when you cook something you're just altering the state/conformation of the molecules in it, not removing them.

think about it. calories are energy (or rather, the energy that is digestible to us). the energy is contained in the mass of the food. how are you gonna remove energy from the food without removing any mass?

foods with higher fat content like meat might melt some off when you cook them, but it's largely negligible. if you don't like the fat you might as well just cut it off instead of overcooking it. it's more efficient and you won't completely ruin what would have otherwise been a decent meal.

unless you literally light the food on fire and burn some of the chemical energy, no it will still have the same calories

No. The more your burn meat the more cancer it gives you and cancer will make you lose a lot of weight though.

just cut off the big chunks of fat if the butcher didn't do it for you already

...

The parts that are completely burnt and look like graphite don't have any calories. A better idea is just to eat smaller amounts.

Was thinking of this

>. Is burning or slightly charring foods a good short term way to reduce the food's calories?

you're a fucking idiot

By burning you release some of that energy. Think of a log that you plan to burn. An sunburnt log will burn longer and give off more energy, than an already half burnt llog

>An sunburnt log will burn longer and give off more energy,

fucking what? did you keep a straight face when typing that bullshit?

Would ruining a good steak be worth a few calories?
I always cook my steak blue rare.

Not that user but I'm pretty sure its a typo and he meant to write 'unburnt'

asking actually not retarded question here unlike op

when you burn/boil your food, are proteins getting damaged and that decreases their worth ?
or is that am eme

Well aware? Dont need no degree or education to be a nutrionist....im a nutritionist and a damn good one...i am not a dietitian

>want steak and woman
>don't want woman to be jealous of steak
>don't want steak to be jealous of woman

Anything consumed in healthy amounts won't make you fat, dipshit.

Yes, they are getting damaged. Proteins are used for many things in your body, not just as structure. Look up prion diseases. You're not going to get prions from overcooking meats (the opposite is true, I believe), but I believe, and don't quote me on this, media fed it to me, but that burning foods creates carcinerogens.

Searing is fine, but if it's black and noticably tastes bad, you fucked up.

They're getting "denatured", which is a fancy way of saying their structure is getting unraveled, which you could technically say is damaged.

But when you eat them they're getting denatured in your stomach acid regardless of how they were before you infested it. Your body uses individual amino acids for its purposes, not whole proteins, so having proteins intact vs denatured before you eat them doesn't make any significant difference.

>infested
ingested*

Thanks for catching this. That said, if a protein fucks itself in a certain way, and that certain protein fucks with your cells somehow, like prions, stomach acid isn't going to do anything.

Cooking your proteins actually releases vital nutrients that wouldn't be available otherwise. By cooking them you separate their chemical bonds and allow them to be digested properly. They would just pass through your stomach and intestines without being fully utilized if consumed raw or significantly undercooked. Overcooking and carcinogenicty are tenuously linked but in reality processed meats and red meat in general are the real cause for concern. The chemical additives and preservatives are the problem and not the tiny bit of char on your frankfurter. If anything you would he wise to overcook your meats as the more of these toxins that you can cook out of these meat products the better. I recommend nice grey burger patty centers and nice tough robust steaks cooked to a strong and hearty texture. Chicken on the other hand is best for you when served undercooked. As the dangers of salmonella are largely a concern of past centuries and no longer a relevant cause for concern. Whereas overcooked chicken has been shown to contain significantly less accessible vitamin d and other vital nutrients.

Changing pH also changes functions of proteins.

>undercooked chicken
I seriously cannot urge against this enough.

Maybe having it be not completely "well-done", maybe. But unless you can afford to take the hit of a food poisoning and the economic stress that comes with that, you shouldn't be thinking about experimenting with that.

>you should eat undercooked chicken
>salmonella was just a meme

lol, wtf

I eat raw or nearly raw chicken and chicken liver every single day. I've never once gotten sick from it and neither has my son or daughter. The sheer amount of antibiotics used in factory farmed livestock alone is enough to ward off any kind of unpleasant symptoms. Not to mention that salmonella as an endemic disease is nearly non existent in the modern day.

I ate off the same plate that some undercooked chicken had been on briefly, then washed off.

I passed out in the ER and was underweight after I was released from hospital. I was a skinny cuteboy before, but I felt like skin and bones afterwards.

>thinks antibiotics are used to purify meat
>still thinks salmonella is a meme

Oh come on now. You might as well expect me to believe it was caused by a gypsy curse!

enjoy your cancer

dude, one day you will get salmonella along with your kids. Its not fun. It really isnt

In fact, lets hope he does.

Why?

because he obviously won't listen to reason. He should learn the hard way

What are antibiotics used for in meat than?

Antibiotics in general are used to make sure the organism receiving it will have some bacteria killed off. Its to make sure the organism lives.

squeeeeeze the fat out

Processing your cheese actually releases vital nutrients that wouldn't be available otherwise. By processing them you separate their chemical bonds and allow them to be digested properly. They would just pass through your stomach and intestines without being fully utilized if consumed naturally or significantly undercooked. Processed and carcinogenicty are tenuously linked but in reality cooked cheese and blue cheese in general are the real cause for concern.

So then how would it get salmonella if its pumped full of antibioitics?

Oven baking/grilling food will always lower it's calorie count(assuming you don't drink the oil you fucking pig).

The "juices/fat/oil" all have calories and without it you seriously take away from of those fat macros.

Just dump your piece of pork loins/shoulders/etc in the oven and see how much fucking fat is dripping off of it.