Biochemistry of fastfood

>Such as?

Dude, I'm not spoonfeeding you; a simple google search would suffice.

In fact, this whole thread has already been answered through years of scientific debate.

>Fructose
Google "fructolysis".

>animal fats are common as fuck in foods. Pesticides and preservatives as well.
Look around at America, firstly. Come on user... you gotta realize, somethin' ain't quite right here. I advise also looking into neu5gc and methionine.

>b) are there any studies that conclusively show that fastfood correlates with the health issues that are unrelated to obesity and caused by your long list of etceteras?
I don't really care about something that high level, mostly. Any literature on the topic is apt to be poisoned and cluttered up by front groups funded by the very large corporations they're supposedly evaluating the products of. There's been multiple instances where people have followed the money trails (getting progressively harder in medical research) and found an obvious correlation between funding source and research outcome. Shocking, I know.

Best you can do is the mod to low level mechanical approach. Like I said, read up a bit on fructolysis. It's very well understood, has been repeatedly investigated with radiotracer studies, etc. Also read up on the impact of fructose consumption with and without fiber. ie, as free fructose in a fruit vs as free fructose alone or in surcrose.

neu5gc and chronic inflammation is much the same. Methionine is easy to research quickly because a lot of people are uncomfortable with the idea that they'll eventually die, and need something to point the finger at, so it really got a lot of attention.

...

Methionine is literally one of the twenty essential amino acids, what are you memeing about?

Don't troll.

That's my line.

No.

If you are going to throw out unsubstantiated, and in fact made up, nonsense at least own up to it.

This board it shitty enough.

I took the bait and don't feel like investing the energy to turn it to my own use.

Very ashamed. I'll be going now. You win.

Excellent. Do not return.

So to summarize: it's just your personal beliefs based on some somewhat related facts about some substances used in fast food. Am I correct?

As much as nutritional "science" is corrupted, if someone was to write about the harm of fast food, they would create a shitstorm so large, nobody would be able to close the research, it'll just gain popularity. Oh wait. People DO write about the harm of fastfood all the time and THERE IS a massive shitstorm about how unhealthy fastfood is, which is why (I believe) OP created the thread in the first place.

All you people do is just list some supposedly scary chemicals and repeat that fastfood is unhealthy over and over, and over, and over, and over. And then some more for good measure.

If we're talking about autism-vaccinations correlation for example, you'll likely post links to the studies that show the correlation to be negligable. But when it comes to proving that fast food causes health issues, there's fuck all in terms of evidence, aside from the fat thing.

wtf I hate healthy no-fat food now !!

>Am I correct?
Not really. It's about heuristic-guided extrapolation based on low level mechanics while taking into account aspects of the macro system. This logical framework is difficult to properly communicate without doing so in full (eg take my interaction with the poster above, with methionine. He;s clearly ignornant of the research and unwilling to even skim wikipedia. Why would I waste my time summarizing the primary literature to this sort of person?), so people don't bother, and instead either provide something useless "I'm an authority and it's bad, stay away", or highlight a few key points (which can do massive and lasting damage if you're not careful).

Whether it's fast food, regular food, heavily processed food, I'm going to tell you the same general thing. It's apt to be net garbage.

To add on, people that look around and see rampant obesity, diabetes, childhood cancers, yet deny the role of diet or take a "IT'S NORMAL, CONVINCE ME!" attitude, are not worthy of your time. I hate to say it, but it's true. These are people who will watch the swaying of the trees, and deny the existence of the wind. Probably because they only ever observe through a closed window.

Fuck these people. Their risk assessment sucks, they're not cautious, and they're not skeptics. They're in the way.

What do you mean by childhood cancers? Can't imagine too many people are skeptical of the importance of diet in obesity and type 2 diabetes but I haven't heard about diet and specific childhood cancers.

>people that look around and see rampant obesity, diabetes, childhood cancers, yet deny the role of diet or take a "IT'S NORMAL, CONVINCE ME!" attitude, are not worthy of your time
God of the gaps
Specific claims require evidence. This sort of stereotyped "common sense" foisted on the unwitting by their social environments is NOT a valid way of knowing.

>These are people who will see a watch, and deny the existence of the watchmaker. Probably because they haven't personally felt the presence of God.

GOMAD

Yeah, all I hear is "trust me, it's bad for you" and the poster above is a prime example of that approach. He doesn't wanna waste his precious time on an ignorant idiot such as myself, so he just summarizes. Gee, thanks!

Again, if I posted anything else, be it 0.(9) != 1 or singularity will happen, people would instantly disprove it even though such a thread is likelly created by some moron who principally cannot learn. But with fastfood it's just "take my word for it, moron".

fast food is caloric ally dense and usually has saturated fats and cholesterol which causes damage to arteries. Being dense in calories usually leads to a caloric surplus which leads to weight gain.

Trans-fats obviously. I mean LOTS of trans-fats.

And what's wrong with those if you don't mind me asking?

Look up the ingredients, there's really nothing wrong, at least at the places I eat at (McDonalds and Taco Bell). They used to use hydrogenated oils to fry french fries and grill, but they've switched to healthier, non-trans fat containing oils. Anybody who mentions calorie density is dense themselves since greens and liver are really the only vitamin and mineral dense foods there are. There can be a problem with high fat, but that's expected with cheese and inexpensive meat. Sat fat is not as bad as trans fat.

Trans fat is the only type of fat that there is no debate on whether it is correlated with arterial plaque IIRC.

Could it be that it correlates with AP because it correlates with obesity and that correlates with AP? I specifically asked for correlations which account for obesity.

ffs are you this autistic

>calories correlate with obesity
>eat more calories than you burn, and you will gain fat
>fast food contains a high amount of calories /cm2
>fast food makes you fat if you are not active

problem user?

did you not learn this in your highschool health class?

I am genuinely astounded at your stupidity - i mean i am used to retards on this board, but you sir are a cut above

I know you're a troll, but I'll answer anyway: I SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED IN OP that I want to know about harm to health ASIDE FROM OBESITY AND IT'S SIDE-EFFECTS.

You forgot to mention that frying food is perhaps the worst prepatory method besides microwaving.

Dietary cholesterol is essentially uncorrelated with blood cholesterol, and "caloric density" is a red herring. Each macronutrient has a fixed per-mass energy content. The question is perennially one of amount.

>what's wrong with those
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Health_risks
It's way more subtle than you'd hear from most people, and most of the serious consensus has to do with structure/function stuff.

It isn't bad unless it's the only you eat.
A Big Mac Value Meal twice a week is fine. The problem is most fast food consumers eat this shit twice a day.

It's really frustrating to me how everyone only seems to care about obesity while ignoring everything else.

For example why is sugar bad for you? If you count your calories what damage does say an ice cream with 50g of sugar do to you if your diet consists of healthy food otherwise?

"rancid oils"

>If you count your calories
>what damage
>healthy food otherwise
Near useless mindset. Again, you need the low level mechanical approach.

Consider the metabolic pathway for fructose vs just using glucose directly. The metabolism of proteins, and gluconeogenesis. How the rest of what's in the food effects processing elsewhere. Consider the difference between a little bit of sucrose, and a massive dose all at once. Consider how the body generates glycogen and releases insulin, consider how fast you can use any sugars in your blood and the fact that with chronic blood sugar spikes, it's gonna go to adipose, whether you like it or not. You cannot possibly work it off, the metabolic machinery simply doesn't allow it because you're not a car and food isn't putting fucking gas in the tank.

Et
fucking
cetera.

It has to do with the glycemic index and timing of insulin release, since you can acquire sensitivity.

n-no you didnt

>Again, you need the low level mechanical approach.

So I need to study biochemistry just to know what food is good for me?

This /thread

>the problem isn't with the food, but with the actual person

If that's the case do people today have less willpower than years ago?

Yes, but moreover they are more sendentary.

Yep. Looping back to this poster's response to me:
>This sort of stereotyped "common sense" foisted on the unwitting by their social environments is NOT a valid way of knowing.
Either you're going to have to take high level summaries taken from social feedback loops in your immediate social environment, on the basis of faith or perceived credibility, or you're going to inform your heuristics with a bit of actual knowledge about how the body works, what food is made of, and what is generated by certain preparation and processing methods. Those are your options, and there's barely a middle ground worth speaking of.

Your requests repeatedly contradict each other because you're lazy and want to "know" without actually knowing anything.

Get a job at McD or Wendys or whatever and work there for two months. You'll have the answer to your question.

>Your requests repeatedly contradict each other because you're lazy and want to "know" without actually knowing anything.
You are a special sort of retard
My two posts ITT are and

It directly raises LDL cholesterol regardless of weight. Search through pubmed before you ride in on a high horse buddy.

>You are a special
That's what my mum always tol' me.

So I will retract my statement and replace it with:
Your posts repeatedly contradict each other because you don't properly realize the implicit underlying logic you're operating on, and want to "know" without actually knowing anything.

Specific content is as important as macro quantity. Statements like:
>Each macronutrient has a fixed per-mass energy content.
Might sound clever, but are actually obvious and completely devoid of meaning in a standalone sense. Yes, the universe is mechanical and doesn't run on magic, yes, the body is a machine that is slave to these rules. Congrats on the insight, now let's move a step further. You have the base, and it's time for you to move on.

It to much salt, like you

CALORIES

IN

VS

CALORIES

OUT

CUNT

>So, embarassingly, he's not the guy I was talking to which makes my point moot. This may have been obvious if I paid attention, but no matter. I'll attack his only other post out of nowhere so I don't feel like I lost anything!

>Your posts repeatedly contradict each other
Yeah? Give me literally one example.

>are actually obvious
That's my fucking point you daft shitsack.
I wasn't trying to be profound. I was explaining, specifically, why >"caloric density" is a red herring and >The question is perennially one of amount. in the specific context of people not understanding that, of whom one even mentioned "calories per square centimeter."
Read the fucking thread.
While you're at it, be especially careful on and maybe tell me in what universe "stereotyped 'common sense' foisted on the unwitting by their social environments" is actually secret code for " high level summaries taken from social feedback loops in your immediate social environment"

Oversimplified and wrong.

Also, in practice, becomes the "energy balance" concept, which is disingenuous and created by thinktanks and seeded by front groups for large soda and junk food manufacturers. They want you to believe you can eat whatever garbage you want, as much as you want, as long as you "work it off" or it's below maintenance.

Doesn't work that way.

Ok, so if I basically only eat, say, McDonalds, without gaining weight (or gaining to a point where I'm not underweight anymore and then stopping gaining mass), I'm gonna have higher cholesterol levels in the blood stream. Do I understand you correctly? Now what are the dangers of that?

MOM, TENDIES AREN'T UNHEALTHY! GIVE ME MY BUCKET OF TENDIES NOW! I'VE BEEN A GOOD BOY AND DESERVE IT!

This is America user, eat what you want as long as you eat too much. Murica

Fat, oil, sugar, weird preservatives and taste enhancers

damn, murricans are ready to do a lot of mental gymnastics to claim fast food is healthy

>because you're lazy and want to "know" without actually knowing anything

I shouldn't have to point this out but there is so much we can learn with the limited time and brain capacity we have. You can't get academic-tier knowledge of EVERYTHING in life.

That's why philosophy, and figuring proper error handling, building a framework wherein all things are abstracted back to a general case and their relationships readily understood and very efficiently stored, is a worthwhile endeavor. Its utility is in being able to make decent decisions, rapidly learn, and avoid becoming an overspecialized compartmentalized mess that's useless outside of its narrow field.

Time and mind are both finite, yes. But don't get lazy and embrace the pseudo-collectivist nonsense. It falls to you to take care of yourself and people you care about just as much as it ever has.

If You compress a cow carcass hard enough, everything edible will come out as delicious pink Slime, No need to refrigerate after Corporate scientists apply the Secret Sauce.

>the indians were so noble and in tune with nature for making sure to use every part of the buffalo
>but the livestock industry's efforts today to cut food waste sure are despicable

>getting the most out of an animal is the same as inventing a process to sell shit that would be otherwise inedible on an industrial scale to increase your profit margin by a hundredth of a cent

>getting the most out of an animal is the same as inventing a process to sell shit that would be otherwise inedible
well yes?

>WHAT IS UNHEALTHY ABOUT FASTFOOD AND HOW?

A single menu item often contains your entire caloric allowance for a single day, and those calories consist largely of bad fats. Bad fats raise bad cholesterol and lower good cholesterol, which puts you at risk for plaque build up and heart attacks.

Eating more calories than you should = fatness. It's not rocket science.

>there is not even a trace of a single fact or argument.

Except for what I just said. Nigga, you best be trolling.

So how bad are sweets?

...

Full of sugar, sucrose will fuck you up.

But how exactly?

Sucrose is glucose and fructose.
In this case fructose is bad for you because it turns into fat in liver. Than you get fatty liver and beetus soon follows.
In fruit fructose is another story and not so bad as in added sugar.

For the last time, look up fructolysis and learn about blood glucose spikes, you obnoxious, better-be-trolling degenerate.

IMPOLITE SAGE AS A DOWNVOTE

How much fruit a day are healthy for you?

Why not tell me instead of having me spend time for no reason because you are an elitist? Why are you even here?

>Doesn't work that way.

Except for the millions of bodybuilders and athletes and sport scientists that make a livelihood out of it. Let's not look at them at all.

>Why not tell me
You won't truly learn anything. While you're lucky to have anons like the one above "spoonfeed" you, I don;t think it ultimately pans out to a positive outcome. Besides, I've already explained repeatedly and you just reject it at every step of the chain. It wouldn't matter if it was high or low level, no matter how much I told you, you'd bitch until I've practically explained the entirety of human biology to you.

>Why are you even here?
To yell at and ridicule you, despite that it doesn't at all relieve stress and causes me to feel progressively worse.

You ought to meet the back of someone's hand.

Irrelevant.

>the people dedicated to applying these concepts and theories and refinning them to functional frameworks are irrelevant

troll or retard

>How much fruit a day are healthy for you?

I myself eat it once or twice a week after depleting stored glycogen, so i can't really offer you good advice on quantity.

No, I mean the composition of your statement, and what you think you're talking about, is irrelevant.

You don't actually understand what I'm saying, so you'll only continue to output irrelevant clutter. At best it'll unintentionally, or tangentially relate. Because you don't get it, user. You just don't get it.

Hol up, hol up

Don't compare people that are using a few grams of androgens with "normal" people.

t. first year biology student

I'm 22 and will likely never pursue higher education.

I was a "first year biology student" when I was 12.

its made from road kill

ITT:
>Fast food is bad for you, and here are several reasons why: they contain bad shit, aren't good for you, and contribute to bad processes in the body. I don't want to explain it all, but you should do your own research on these specific topics that are related to the question and explain some reasons why fast food is bad for you.

>...
>But why is that bad?

>Walking is bad because there are leaves on the ground

>Why is that bad?

>Why should I explain, you won't understand me anyway.

ITT: Stupid attempts to draw a parallel by someone in their late teens that's disgruntled and resentful of their parents.

Other than containing a lot of calories, and other than how those calories are delivered (too much emphasis on fats and carbohyrdates and too few vitamins and minerals), fast food is bad because of excessive salt and cholesterol.

Those are bad because they do bad things to your cardiovascular system. A lesser bad effect is that more salt intake necessitates more water intake, which most people don't do just because they ate salty food, rendering them dehydrated or at least less hydrated than they should be, which can lead to a bunch of short-term health problems and several long-term health problems if it happens repeatedly. (The kicker on that second one is often the food doesn't really taste salty, it just tastes good, so the instinct to drink more when consuming salt isn't triggered as much, and even people that know to watch their salt-to-water amounts may be caught off guard.)

If you want a fuller explanation you should ask your doctor. The literature on the harmful things in fast food is changing regularly as more studies and experiments are done, and ones with larger or narrower scopes. I'd only trust a doctor (and one you can talk to in person) to opine on it in detail.

Kill yourself pls

No.

So as long as fast food isn't literally the only thing I eat, and I drink enough water, it's perfectly fine?

Yes

The problem is that doctors aren't nutritionists and nutritionists are a bunch of quacks anyway.

It's mulched up shit that makes you get acidic as fuck in order to digest it, everyone knows having a high ph balance can make your body dissolve itself i.e. acid reflux

> I'm gonna have higher cholesterol levels in the blood stream. Do I understand you correctly? Now what are the dangers of that?
google.ru/search?q=dangers of high cholesterol levels

>google.ru
Take your lying commie science back to

You can still get a build-up of cholesterol in your system. Eating fiber (which is lacking in fast food BTW) helps get rid of it, and if you eat less fast food you'll get less of its cholesterol. I'm not sure where the line is between "OK" and "too much". Also of note, cholesterol and salt both increase blood pressure, so even a little fast food could have bad effects because it piles onto itself.
So then who should be asked about this kind of thing?

>So then who should be asked about this kind of thing?
Joe Rogan

Aerobic workouts, lifting, sports, and labour jobs, all combined with a good diet; that is how you put on real mass.
Reasons why fast food sucks:
1. Unsaturated fats (HDL, the hormone producing cholesterol) found in nuts and fruits like avocado, are good for you, but trans fat found in almost all fast foods is not healthy (LDL, the cholesterol that clogs your arteries). 2. Fast food is also just way too high in processed carbohydrates and sugars, which make you excessively fat and lead to many other diseases including tooth decay and impairment brain development
3. Fast food is full of additives and preservatives that have no health benefits. They are only there so the company does not have to throw out food as often.