>>22102615
I didn't tell you because I don't like you personally.

>>22102615
>pic
How is anyone supposed to eat that and not walk away starving?

>>22102624
But I was churning ingredients so fast. I'm only cooking for one person. Do you understand how heavy 150g of pasta actually is? It would ruin my day.
Now I've got plenty of smaller meals and I get hungry more often. I toss 7-8 meat balls and two potato patties in the oven and have my fourth meal in just a few minutes.
My life has changed. I thought cooking was tedious.
I made 5 pastas this morning and have already eaten two.

Cooking has become radically different for me.

>>22102627
You're supposed to eat meat separately after eating pasta.

>>22102615
if it's of any help i've lost a lot of weight by doing the keto diet. i can't have over 20 grams of carbohydrates per day. most of the time i wasn't hungry at all but I'd eat one large meal a day like 4 sausages and 4 eggs etc

>>22102615
If you don't want visceral fat, stop eating fat. You have to eat basically no fat. and skip dinner.

>>22102615
I used to be a bonafide ketotard, if you’re actually diabetic you obviously have to stick to some guidelines

>>22102633
>stop eating fat
fat doesn't make you fat. carbohydrates do

>>22102631
I'm having success simply by fixing my meals. I was inclined to try keto too but then I learned the root cause. It could be worth looking into for you too. It's not uncommon to have the habit of overeating just to stay full for longer. It makes sense. You're at the table and would rather eat as much as you can than eat too little and be hungry again.
Problem: Insulin spikes promote visceral fat storage.
Adjust the portion to regular sizes, make more food, eat smaller meals more often and your body will adjust. You will burn all the fat and feel much healthier.
I think this is silently the issue with a lot of people. It's particularly easy to overeat fast food or takeout.

File: Visceral-fat-subcutaneous(...).jpg (110 KB, 1024x576)

110 KB JPG

>>22102636
Insulin spikes aren't a diabetes thing. Your liver can only handle so much at a time. Frequent spikes promote visceral fat. That's the type of fat that gives you a belly without being fat everywhere else.

>>22102637
Why don't you run an experiment and try my idea for a month and see how it works out? Be a scientist.

File: Blodpudding-1.jpg (2.26 MB, 2648x1765)

2.26 MB JPG

>>22102647
NTA but fat doesn't store fat. Blood doesn't affect blood.

>>22102648
ok that's fine to believe, but diet is one of the easiest things to modify and so you can experiment and see what happens when you eat near zero fat for a week or 2 at least.

>>22102615
>pasta
>honey
>potato
>ketchup
>rice
Drop that shite and eat green vegetables and meat.

>eat less
>lose weight
Whoa

>>22102664
Nope.
>Eat smaller meals more often
>lose weight
Whoa.

>>22102674
That automatically happens when you eat less anon

>>22102615
>I recently learned that overeating is the cause for my visceral fat.
do americans really?

>>22102615
>Why didn't you retards tell me you're supposed to eat less and more often?
I've been urging you to count your calories for decades.

>>22102676
What about the words "more often" do you not understand?

>>22102688
If you eat less you get hungry faster again. It's not that hard. Unless you force yourself into OMAD it's just natural behaviour

>>22102691
Are you mentally ill?

>>22102696
Calm down you fat bitch.

Men will [do whatever] instead of going to therapy joke but for CICO OMAD

>>22102715
trvke.

>>22102643
>Insulin spikes aren't a diabetes thing. Your liver can only handle so much at a time. Frequent spikes promote visceral fat.
I realize you've only recently begun to learn about basic health and nutrition, as evidenced by you apparent surprise >>22102615 at learning that if you're fat, the solution is to eat less, but you need to take the time to actually develop some knowledge of the topic before you start lecturing people about shit you don't understand.

The degree to which any given carbohydrate causes a blood glucose spike is described by its glycemic index. This scale is runs from 0-100, with 100 being the foods that cause the sharpest spike. The reference food for this scale is pure glucose, aka dextrose, which has an index of 100. If you put people, even diabetic people, on a diet that is 85% dextrose, pure sugar, their liver function will improve.
>https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197103112841004
>in normal persons and subjects with mild diabetes there was an improvement in diabetic control as measured by fasting glucose levels and glucose tolerance, on the dietary extreme of 85% of the calories supplied as the simple sugar dextrose.

>>22102637
>>22102648
Eating more calories than you expend makes you fat, you fucking retard. And yes, >>22102633 is correct that carbs are much harder for your body to store as fat than is pure fat. This should be common sense. If your body wants to store carbs as fat, it first needs to convert those carbs into fat, a process which takes energy. If your body wants to store fats as fat, it's a much more efficient process meaning that overeating carbs and overeating fat are not equal; a greater percentage of the latter will be stored as fat because less energy will be lost in the conversion process.

I don't know what retarded site you ended up on where you're being told that you can't get fat from eating fat but anyone trying to sell you on paleo/keto shit is a scam artist.

>>22102719
>If your body wants to store carbs as fat, it first needs to convert those carbs into fat, a process which takes energy.
This is already accounted for in calorie counts.

>>22102652
That's retarded though when can eat less of a balanced diet, and exercise

>>22102931
In what way did you imagine this was a relevant reply?

optimal diet for an active healthy man is high protein low fat high carbs
high protein high/moderate fat low carbs is optimal for fatties losing weight
moderate protein low carbs moderate fat is optimal for women
fasting is optimal for retards that can't moderate their own food intake

There's nothing wrong with being fat. It's quite possibly the next evolutionary step for humankind.

>>22102615
Eat more whole grains and use less refined fat/sugar.

>>22102637
Neither one inherently makes you fat but most of the fat and carbs people are consuming today are both heavily refined. Refined food leads to weight gain. High fat low carb diets work because it forces you to cut out a lot of processed food. People on high carb low fat diets also lose weight for similar reasons. But people who eat fruit and nuts don't gain a lot of weight despite it having a good amount of fat and carbs.

>>22102615
I have never had a problem with weight and it always confuses and concerns me when somebody does to be honest.
I hate coffee for breakfast. Sometime after 2 or 3 hours I start eating, pairing coffee with some kind of snack, chips or ice cream or cereal bars, then at some point before bed I have my OMAD esque "big meal" that ranges from something small like cheese and crackers up to a regular dish like poutine or pasta. There is usually an hour before bed where I eat nothing, so I technically intermittently fast.
Just eat less. It helps being poor. You are forced to have to walk more, too.

>>22103139
>Refined food leads to weight gain
Why do fatties insist on inventing these endlessly retarded copes? 100 calories of white sugar is not going to magically cause you to gain more weight than 100 calories of molasses. I really wish I could sit fuckers like you in front of an audience and force you to explain exactly what you imagine "refined" food is and exactly how you think it could cause "weight gain".

>>22102705
Your replies aren't making any sense

>>22102719
>"I am very smart"
>"Ehrm"
>"The degree to which any given carbohydrate causes a blood glucose spike is described by its glycemic index. This scale is runs from 0-100, with 100 being the foods that cause the sharpest spike."
Why don't you adjust your glasses and tell us what you know about fiber too, Mr Faggot?

You wrote an essay rebutting me with a definition of GI, without translating it into a reply to my post. What point were you trying to make? You can cook meals that land high on the GI-scale, fucking moron.
You can eat a teaspoon of pure sugar and it won't make much difference. If you eat a bowl of pure sugar, now you're testing your body.
High GI foods like candy are perfectly fine in moderation, if you eat TOO MUCH, you start causing problems.

Pasta is perfectly fine to eat. One portion is 75g. This is good food. I ate 150g in one sitting. This is a lot of pasta. This causes an insulin surge and it promotes visceral fat storage.
Now educate yourself a little more then come back to this high IQ thread. Citing studies isn't a sign of experience. Studies are tools, not facts. Faggot.

>>22102627
Side dishes, meat, dessert, etc.

>>22103163
I'm not fat. Molasses might have some more nutrients but it's still basically just sugar syrup.

Anyway, the point is that calories from refined food don't magically become more fattening, but refining food usually concentrates calories and makes food less satiating so people are more likely to overeat. People are more likely to drink too much juice than eat too much whole fruit. Studies have shown that diets higher in processed foods result in hundreds of extra calories being consumed per day.

It's mostly an issue with oil and sugar/starch. It's easy to consume larger amounts of these things when you remove all the fiber and moisture and it doesn't take as much chewing to break down.

>>22103160
Being skinny isn't that much better than being fat. Most people want to be fit and that requires an eloquent balance.

>>22103190
For the CICO faggots.
OMAD 150g pasta is technically fine in terms of calories. The problem is the insulin spike from the size of the portion. THIS promotes VISCERAL fat storage.
If you eat nothing for the rest of the day, maybe your body won't store it as fat, but if your day was sedentary, maybe it will. You need to average CICO over several weeks for it to be meaningful, and you need to count CO just as much as you do CI. Not everyone is new to sculpting their bodies. Counting calories is for newcomers, aspiring professionals or professionals. The rest develop habits.

>>22103190
>Why don't you adjust your glasses and tell us what you know about fiber too
It is completely unnecessary in the human diet, at best benign (insoluble fiber) and at worst carcinogenic (soluble fiber). In either case, you're not an herbivore, you have zero ability to digest fiber.

>High GI foods like candy are perfectly fine in moderation, if you eat TOO MUCH, you start causing problems.
You may want to stop seething long enough to actually read my post, big boy. I defined GI to make sure you would understand the full implication of the study I quoted. I can see that I was too optimistic, so I'll dumb it down for you:

If you eat nothing but pure sugar, specifically the sugar with the highest possible GI, your diabetic control will improve. Your liver function will improve, your fasting glucose will lower, your insulin sensitivity will rise.
>>22102719
>in normal persons and subjects with mild diabetes there was an improvement in diabetic control as measured by fasting glucose levels and glucose tolerance, on the dietary extreme of 85% of the calories supplied as the simple sugar dextrose.

>>22103163
100 calories of white sugar won't satiate you and give you no nutrients. You can not survive on it. You WILL feel hungry in 10 minutes.
If you eat another 100 calories of white sugar, your body will scream for food.

The danger is overeating. White sugar does cause you to gain weight indirectly. It is not food.

>>22103215
>benign (insoluble fiber) and at worst carcinogenic (soluble fiber).
What? Soluble fiber is the one that causes less issues since it's less irritating to the gut compared to insoluble.

>If you eat nothing but pure sugar, specifically the sugar with the highest possible GI, your diabetic control will improve. Your liver function will improve, your fasting glucose will lower, your insulin sensitivity will rise.
That's mostly just because you'll be losing weight since it's hard to consume that many calories from sugar alone. Even if you ate nothing but higher GI starchy foods, you'd still likely lose weight and improve blood sugar issues because of the weight loss.

>>22102615
>you're supposed to eat less and more often?

Because you're not, you're just supposed to eat less, not more often. Processed carbs are really dense in energy, cut the amount by half and fill the rest with bullshit that takes up space and has no calories like vegetables.

>>22103215
>"It is completely unnecessary..."
I was making fun of you.

>>22103215
I am confused over why you're citing studies that treat diabetes in this conversation, anon.
I am also curious why you defined an established term. What misconception did you anticipate and how was my definition wrong?

You confuse me. What is your point?

>>22103226
What if my belly grew even when I ate 2500 kcal?
My reasoning is insulin surge = slow gut motility = lower energy consumption

I often suffered drowsiness after meals and would have to take hour long naps.
Bonus, insulin surge promotes visceral fat. I mean you were going to get fat anyway, but visceral fat is a vicious cycle. It gathers around your organs and presses against your intestines and diaphragm. It makes motility slower and can cause sleep problems, which raises cortisol and you see the vicious cycle.
Fat is fat, obviously, but visceral fat is worse for your health than subcutaneous fat. However, luckily it's also easier to lose.

>>22103215
>Fiber is le bad
You're a diet ideologue. What diet do you swear by?

True, we are not herbivores. We are not carnivores either. We are omnivores.

>>22103225
I'm not sure why you're wasting both our time with a response that makes it clear you didn't read the study I posted. Come back after you have and we can discuss it.

>>22103230
>I was making fun of you.
Don't worry, I'm happy to educate you even if you lack the ability to appreciate it.

>I am confused over why you're citing studies that treat diabetes
Like the guy above, I'm confused over why you're trying to turn this into some kind of internet fight when you apparently can't read even a single sentence. What does the first sentence of the excerpt I quoted say?
>>22102719
>in normal persons

>You confuse me. What is your point?
It's pretty sad that I have to keep dumbing it down for you but I guess they do say that zoomers have extremely poor reading comprehension.

My point is that yours claims about insulin spikes >>22102643 are broscience nonsense. You can get 85% of your caloric intake from the sugar with the absolute higher GI and it will improve all measures of insulin and glucose metabolism. That this is the case not only in normal people but in diabetics as well just serves to drive home how extremely wrong you are in suggesting that insulin spikes are somehow damaging: even diabetic people with impaired liver function see their liver function improve on an extremely high carb, high GI diet.

Understand it yet?

>>22103260
tl;dr

>>22103252
>You're a diet ideologue. What diet do you swear by?
I have no idea what you think you mean by this. I'm just explaining some basic facts and one of those facts is that humans cannot digest fiber. Insoluble fiber isn't "bad", it's just worthless. Soluble fiber is likely carcinogenic, something that's only recently coming to light in the face of the past decade or so of aggressive fiber shilling.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37858797/
>High Soluble Fiber Promotes Colorectal Tumorigenesis Through Modulating Gut Microbiota and Metabolites in Mice
Soluble fiber is much more of a natural food for mice than it is for humans so if even mice are getting cancer from it, you can be assured that the effects in humans are likely worse. This sort of research is very recent, this study being from 2024, so we're only now beginning to look into possible negative effects from a diet high in soluble fiber.

>True, we are not herbivores. We are not carnivores either. We are omnivores.
The distinguishing factor for herbivores is the ability to digest plant fiber, something that humans are biologically incapable of doing. By all means you should be eating some plant foods but as far as your health is concerned, you'd be better off drinking orange juice rather than eating an orange.

This is incidentally what many frugivorous primates do, primates with a much better ability to digest fiber than humans. They will keep a piece of fruit in their mouth and suck on it until they extract all the juice, then spit out the pulp. If even these animals that can actually digest leaves and bark are choosing to reject unnecessary fiber then you can again be assured that it's even less necessary for humans.

>>22103268
I accept your concession. I'm sorry if 10 seconds of reading was more than you could handle.

>>22103239
>I often suffered drowsiness after meals and would have to take hour long naps.

That's because you're stuffing your face with 100% carbs. Also 2500kcal is for a 6ft+ tall man who lifts weights and runs 3x a week.

>>22103260
Can we just stay on this for a second, anon?
>You can get 85% of your caloric intake from the sugar with the absolute higher GI and it will improve all measures of insulin and glucose metabolism.
Just let this simmer for a while.
Isn't it embarrassing to believe this? The study doesn't say this but even if it did, wouldn't you immediately have questions?

You are saying if I get 85% of my calories from candy, this improves my body's metabolism, all things considered? Or are you just saying "Akshually, technically it would. I know it would fuck you up, but I'm just using hyperbole to argue a strawman."?

Blood sugar spikes and insulin surges aren't a problem. They are just natural outcomes of your body's metabolic system running on high gear.
Glucose raises your blood sugar. Eating a lot of high GI glucose fast raises your blood sugar a lot. This is not a problem. Just don't eat a lot of high GI fast.
This is the entire premise of the thread.

I don't know what your problem is? What point are you trying to make? You also never answered what diet you follow. You're obviously a diet ideologue. I suspect Carnivore.

>>22103268
He doesn't know himself. He's arguing things he learned this year just to confirm to himself whether or not he's become smarter.

>>22103273
2500kcal is generally considered body "maintenance" but I agree with you personally.
I was lifting back when I ate that much.

File: study.png (258 KB, 1127x755)

258 KB PNG

>>22103274
>The study doesn't say this
What a silly thing to lie about. I don't know why you people are always incapable of having a simple honest discussion. The quote I provided way back here >>22102719 is directly from the text of the study. Here's a picture if you're having trouble finding the bit I quoted.

>You are saying if I get 85% of my calories from candy, this improves my body's metabolism, all things considered?
Yes, that is correct. Not surprisingly, when your body performs a given function, it tends to become more efficient at that function. That a very high carb diet improves diabetic control is not something that's up for debate; it's a widely accepted fact, as the study mentions:
>A well known acute effect of increased carbohydrate intake is the improvement of glucose tolerance noted in preparation of subjects for oral glucose tolerance testing with a minimum of 300g of carbohydrate per day


>You're obviously a diet ideologue. I suspect Carnivore.
You suspect that the guy telling you that a high sugar diet is not bad for you is a carnivore? You want to show your work on that one?

>>22103273
>2500kcal is for a 6ft+ tall man who lifts weights and runs 3x a week.
False. Height is less important than weight. If you are a Mr. Skeleton 6ft+ and active than you would only be off by about 30%.

>>22103291
>"Fuck me up"
>Bleeding out
>"Hey, look, at least my body is working harder"
>Dies
I wrote "all things considered"
You're one of those retards who'll follow a 85% sugar diet because a study from 1979 showed that it improved 1 marker. This is indeed a sign of a high IQ.

>>22103291
>>22103311
Also, you're citing a study that shows that eating sugar doesn't worsen your body's ability to digest it.
No one ever argued this.
I'm not saying your body is becoming worse. It doesn't matter if your body becomes worse or better. I'm saying WHEN your body metabolizes all that glucose, there is an insulin surge, and this surge is preferably stored as VISCERAL FAT. The solution: eat less but more often.

You are arguing strawmen.

>>22103311
>woops i got caught lying guess i'd better bring out the personal insults
I'm sorry you weren't able to have an honest discussion. I accept your concession.

While I'd like to think that our talk opened your eyes to how ignorant you are in this field, that you'll do some reading on your own and try to learn something rather than parroting what some fad diet influencer told you, I'm not getting my hopes up.

>>22103323
>Thinks he knows more than me because he knows of an irrelevant study
Opened my eyes about how much I know off the top of my head, battyboy

>>22103314
>I'm saying WHEN your body metabolizes all that glucose, there is an insulin surge, and this surge is preferably stored as VISCERAL FAT. The solution: eat less but more often.
complete broscience
if you're eating 500 excess calories a day it doesnt matter if you eat all your food in a single sitting or in a bunch of meals spread through the day
you're still gonna gain the same amount of weight
swear to god you fat fucks will take literally any excuse to avoid just eating less food

if you want to lose weight
eat
less
food

>>22103275
He’s fucking rambling like a boomer with Alzheimer’s.
Joe Biden style.

>>22103327
Yeah, you kind lost the moral high ground when you started telling blatant lies about what the study said. Keep going, though.

>>22103329
>if you're eating 500 excess calories a day it doesnt matter if you eat all your food in a single sitting or in a bunch of meals spread through the day
>you're still gonna gain the same amount of weight
No one disagrees with this, straw retard.

>>22103331
>Verify this irrelevant study for me
I didn't peer review your study. I peer reviewed your stupid ass conclusion

>>22103332
then what is your point son
is it eat less more often or does it make no difference when you eat?
fucking bipolar over here

>>22103336
No, you flat out lied buddy. I gave you a direct quote from the paper, the conclusion of the researchers, not my own, and you said
>>22103274
>The study doesn't say this
Kinda embarrassing that you're still going. I personally wouldn't have lied in the first place but if I got caught I'd probably be too ashamed to keep pushing this smart guy larp.

File: IMG_5604.gif (281 KB, 400x400)

281 KB GIF

>>22103337
Yes.

>>22103343
oh, you're just trolling
alright man hope you get over whatever damage caused you to act like this

>>22103347
You’re a prick, mate.
And an ill-informed one at that.

>>22103337
My point is, given you know that visceral fat causes a vicious cycle, eating food more spaced out is healthier. If you gain fat, you gain subcutaneous fat, which is much healthier in relative terms than visceral fat. If you don't gain fat, you don't gain fat.
My point was how you generally SHOULD eat: smaller portions and more often.

Ideally, OBVIOUSLY you should count your CICO and exercise 3 times a day and be at your peak performance. Of course. Who would argue against this?

Practically, people don't count their calories. They eat when they're hungry. If you eat larger meals, you lower your metabolism, you suffer blood sugar spikes, your body works less optimal, you burn fewer calories. You promote unhealthiness.

"Just eat less" is advice for people who want to lose weight short term. After they've lost weight, do you advise continuing to eat less? Someone like you may advise counting CICO for the rest of their life. Most people prefer not to do that.
Unless they know better, they might fall back to old habits. If those old habits include OMAD (like OP), this promotes unhealthiness again. Body burns fewer calories, maintenance lowers, overeating is easier, visceral fat is promoted, symptoms like OSA and shortness of breath occur and so forth.

This is the topic of this thread.

You enter this thread, citing a technical study from 1971 showing that snorting raw glucose doesn't affect your body's ability to metabolize it.

This is confusing. I've asked you repeatedly to clarify your point but you've just continued to ramble on about even more irrelevant shit. Carnivore has deteriorated your brain.

>>22103271
>The distinguishing factor for herbivores is the ability to digest plant fiber,
Frugivores are herbivores and usually can't digest fiber. Same thing with granivores.

>>22103354
>You enter this thread, citing a technical study from 1971 showing that snorting raw glucose doesn't affect your body's ability to metabolize it.
Given your retarded but technical, I'll preemptively tell you that metabolic ability ≠ metabolic performance
Good sprinting doesn't mean good marathons.
Good glucose digestion doesn't prevent blood sugar spikes and crashes completely. Those spikes and crashes are just how your body works when you stuff it with carbohydrates. It's unhealthy.

>he left

>he unironically left
kek. Alright.

>>22102628
What about second breakfast?

>>22103376
>That breakfast: 1 egg and 1 slice of bread
Would be delicious

>>22103354
>"Just eat less" is advice for people who want to lose weight short term. After they've lost weight, do you advise continuing to eat less?
fatties really think like this
yes dummy if you want to weigh X pounds then you need to reduce how much you eat to lose weight
and then you need to keep eating less than you used to in order to maintain that weight

if you think that you can lose your weight and then use some dumb shit you learned from some diet influencer
>uhh well it's fine to go back to eating as much as i did when i was fat; as long as i space it out to a bunch of meals then i won't get fat again
gonna be fat for the rest of your life with that attitude buddy

i can see why you're getting so upset at everyone, though
this is a deeply personal issue for you; when someone tells you that it's retarded to think that eating a bunch of smaller meals is going to affect your weight any differently than eating a couple large meals
it's not an intellectual disagreement for you
you're taking it as them telling you personally that you will always be fat

which to be fair is true if you don't stop listening to social media grifters
if you want to lose weight and keep it off then yes, you will need to make permanent changes to your lifestyle

>>22103354
>citing a technical study from 1971
I don't know what you imagine "technical study" means but the study I shared was very simple and straightforward. A few groups of people were fed specific diets and the way these diets affected their insulin metabolism was measured. That's it, not hard to understand at all. nThere have of course been many similar studies over the years but since you're still bending over backwards to find reasons to dismiss this one that you apparently still haven't read or understood, then I'm not going to waste my time handing you more pearls.

>showing that snorting raw glucose doesn't affect your body's ability to metabolize it.
And still lying about what the study showed. Why? For what purpose? What's so hard about being honest? Eating a diet that is 85% glucose does not "not affect your body's ability to metabolize it". It makes your glucose metabolism significantly more efficient. It IMPROVES glucose metabolism, something that has been shown again and again in countless other studies.

I like to start with this study in particular because, as you've demonstrated so well in this thread, it completely mindbreaks fatties. I could start with studies of simple high carb diets where people are eating a variety of fruits and starches and so on but you people always try to find some bullshit cope to explain away the results, so rather than play that game we jump right to the end: there is no trick, there is no cope, a diet that is almost entirely pure sugar is objectively good for every marker of diabetic control. Even people who are full on diabetics will see their symptoms improve on such a diet.

You don't like this because some grifter has convinced you that eating lots of small meals to avoid "blood sugar spikes" will somehow magically let you lose weight and you don't have any explanation for the fact that you can aggressively spike your blood sugar by eating pure glucose and it's good for you.

>>22102615
>Why didn't you retards tell me you're supposed to eat less and more often?
I've been saying normalization of larger portion sizes is the primary cause of obesity for years. Personally I just eat a large portion (not stuffing myself) once a day because I can't go back to eating like a homosexual or a girl.

>>22102615
How much sleep are you getting?