The best cutting meal is just a stir fry with chicken and loads of vegetables >high protein>high nutrients>high satiety>low calories>tasty Literally ticks all the boxes. Unbeatable.
>>77232432>>high nutrientsThe only thing it has is protein and some indigestible fiber from the plants. 0 micronutrients, chicken breasts are water and protein and some fat, vegetables are poor in nutrients and also block their absorption
>>77232436>vegetables are bad now
>>77232436Absolute fucking retard. What the fuck happened to /fit/? Has it been taken over by tiktok zoomers?Yes OP, stir fry's great.
>>77232439Curious how you couldnt name a single micronutrient in that dish that isnt destroyed by the cooking, that is bioavailable, in great quantities and not malabsorbed due to antinutrients.
>>77232443V>>77232441>Y-y-youre wrong because you challenged my dogmatic worldview reeee i need validation !!!Let me guess, you also think it's a "balanced" meal
>>77232443With the exception of the sauce it's cooked in, yes. Vegetables are chock full of nutrients/fiber and chicken breast is even more protein dense than beef.
>>77232493>chock full of nutrientsYet you cant name a single one that fits the criteria i stated, how curious>FiberIndigestible cellulose that blocks the little nutrients you get from that slop>chicken breast is even more protein dense than beef.Ok and ? Still less nutritious.
>>77232436>>77232443>>77232446>>77232496Is this some new trend among the goyim? I don't remember people at my Chabad house saying we were going to launch a psyop like that, but maybe one of my brethren did it without his rebbe's approval.
>>77232496Here's a nutrient tier list for vegetables:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD07raxrJVo>Broccoli 7:35>Carrot 9:40>Peas: 23:20>Garlic 16:10>Bell pepper 6:00>Onion 22:10Fiber aids in digestion and chicken breast has plenty of nutrients.Please keep being an unhinged retard.
>>77232524>Here's the opinion of some charlatan on youtube >Still cant explain how indigestible cellulose would "aid in digestion">Still cant name any nutrients with these criteria >>77232443 in the dish besides muh proteonz !
>>77232524chicken breast is shit tier meat
>>77232524kek what a faggot
>>77232537He lists the nutrients concisely right there, I even gave you the timestamp for all the of those within the dish. Interesting that you're here spewing bullshit but you're making an alternative arguments for what should be eaten. Almost as if you're here solely to troll.
>>77232564you're not*
>>77232548He even conflates dishes and ingredients with actual vegetables. Or that's the impression i got from that disingenuous anon. That's not a person to be taken seriously in this context. I still wont be clicking the video anyways>>77232564What does it matter if he lists anything ? What does it matter if something contains "x" if it's poor in it ? Did you know cow liver contains ~1g of carbohydrates per 100g and that oranges contain 0.05mg of vitamin B6 ? There's even 0.02 mg of gold in every adult human body isnt that crazy !I wonder at what point in history did people relegate their thinking to slogans and guidelines. Why am i even bothering, enjoy your deficiencies
https://mobile.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/chicken-stir-fry?portionid=4629995&portionamount=1.000This is not even accounting for cooking btw (which destroys most of the beta caroten "vit A" that would have been malabsorbed, everything else is in minute traces), just the raw micronutrient profile. Not accounting for absorption either.
>>77232581I think you're an autistic retard, vegetables are great, and meat should be eaten moderately. And you're probably going to have severe health issues before you're 40 assuming you're not trolling and on the carnivore diet. Keep watching tiktok, loser.
>>77232598This does not pertain to the discussion in any way.
>>77232443Vitamin C Vitamin K Vitamin A / beta-carotene B vitamins (especially folate in leafy greens) Potassium, magnesium, manganese Antioxidants (flavonoids, glucosinolates, lutein)
>>77232609Very poor in all of these >>77232592And in malabsorbed forms. >Antioxidants (flavonoids, glucosinolates, lutein)Correlation bs molecules. You dont even know what antioxidation means, these are all antinutrients that block absorption of a multitude of things including protein
>>77232609plus fiber and folate. Contrarians seriously need to be shot. Just braindead retards regurgitating whatever garbage they see off of tick tock. You never see people getting sick or obese from "eating too many vegetables".
>>77232614>my source is "fat secrets dot com"Damn bro peak scientific evidence.
>>77232614>these are all antinutrients that block absorption of a multitude of things including proteinCan you show me one(1) example of a human being suffering from poor health outcomes from eating too many veggies?
>>77232614>these are all antinutrientsJust factually false lmao
>>77232617For the lack of better alternatives that calculate an entire meals micronutrient profile. But they do back up the numbers, and they match research from other sources of individual ingredients so it's all good. Still tremendously better than a tier list where someone just spews random vitamin names.I dont know if you've grasped this yet but contain =/= rich in =/= actually fills a significant portion of your dv%>FiberAn antinutrient, indigestible, just gives your intestines extra work and introduces nocive bacteria that bloats you down the road>Folate You're just repeating what we call the vegetarian form of B9, which is malabsorbed due to various factors i've repeated 10 times now. And it's even more absurd when you consider that most plants arent that rich in B9https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3573592/>You never see people getting sick or obese from "eating too many vegetables".Because they're mostly indigestible. If you introduce microdosed wood bark to your diet you wont die immediately but will have deficiencies over time. On the other hand, yes they can directly and indirectly make you sick due to farming practices like pesticides (namely glyphosate, linked to colon cancer, ibs and autism)
>>77232622A Miniscalco, J Lundahl, CG Regardh, B Edgar, UG Eriksson>The flavonols quercetin and kaempferol were shown to inhibit the metabolism of the calcium channel blockers nifedipine and felodipine by CYP3A4 in human liver microsomes at concentrations > 10 μmol/L, with the flavanone naringenin being less potenthttps://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/anti-nutrients/#:~:text=Glucosinolates%20and%20goitrogens%20in%20cruciferous,prevent%20it%20from%20being%20absorbed.>Glucosinolates and goitrogens in cruciferous vegetables (broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cabbage, kale)—can prevent the absorption of iodine, which may then interfere with thyroid function and cause goiter. Those already with an iodine deficiency or a condition called hypothyroidism are most susceptible.
>>77232626>An antinutrient, indigestible, just gives your intestines extra work and introduces nocive bacteria that bloats you down the roadSo why do people who eat more fiber have better health outcomes?>which is malabsorbed https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652327935680% from veggies is pretty good. >Because they're mostly indigestible.Then why don't you shit out whole broccoli? Why is my poop brown?>pesticides (namely glyphosate, linked to colon cancer, ibs and autism)Not at the doses present on produce. And if that were true you would see worse health outcomes with increased produce consumption, not less.
>>77232631You should probably read your own source before you post it. >Some studies on vegetarians who eat diets high in plant foods containing anti-nutrients do not generally show deficiencies in iron and zinc, so the body may be adapting to the presence of anti-nutrients by increasing the absorption of these minerals in the gut.>Keep in mind that anti-nutrients may also exert health benefits. Phytates, for example, have been found to lower cholesterol, slow digestion, and prevent sharp rises in blood sugar. [2] Many anti-nutrients have antioxidant and anticancer actions, so avoiding them entirely is not recommended. [3,5,8]>It is not known how much nutrient loss occurs in our diets because of anti-nutrients, and the effects vary among individuals based on their metabolism and how the food is cooked and prepared. Many anti-nutrients like phytates, lectins, and glucosinolates can be removed or deactivated by soaking, sprouting, or boiling the food before eating.On that last one, why don't we see people who eat tons of veggies suffering from disease and malnutrition? You can theorize about "muh antinootirents" all you want but at the end of the day, people who eat more veggies are doing much better than those who aren't.
>>77232631Your own link:>" the health benefits of eating these foods outweigh any potential negative nutritional effects">"anti-nutrients may also exert health benefits. Phytates, for example, have been found to lower cholesterol, slow digestion, and prevent sharp rises in blood sugar. [2] Many anti-nutrients have antioxidant and anticancer actions, so avoiding them entirely is not recommended. ">"It is not known how much nutrient loss occurs in our diets because of anti-nutrients, and the effects vary among individuals based on their metabolism and how the food is cooked and prepared. Many anti-nutrients like phytates, lectins, and glucosinolates can be removed or deactivated by soaking, sprouting, or boiling the food before eating."
>>77232636>So why do people who eat more fiber have better health outcomes?Associative unreplicable questionaires that control for nothing.>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916523279356>80% from veggies is pretty good>N=29 that controls for nothingCompare that to what i've posted. It's not the ultimatum conclusive "study" you think it is.>Then why don't you shit out whole broccoli? Why is my poop brown?Because you dont understand what "mostly" means, and just because the dyes are dissipated doesn't mean you shat most of what you ingested.>Not at the doses present on produce.Kek !https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11445186/>And if that were true you would see worse health outcomes with increased produce consumption, not less.Never been conclusively proven
>>77232642>>77232640Just because they add an UNSOURCED conflict of interest section for political reasons doesn't negate the findings and observations stated before.You're grasping at straws
It's curious how vegetables are this panacea god given multivitamin according to MSM but vegans still suffer from 20 different deficiencies they need to treat with synthetic pills.
>>77232642>deactivated by soaking, sprouting, or boiling the food before eatingWhich destroys more nutrients btwThese entire sections are devils advocate, not actual proof. Has anyone in /fit/ even graduated highschool ? This is so low brow, to have to explain such a simple concept as this or daily intake/value percentage.
Grandma:>ate meat, eggs, dairy, bread, vegetables, fruit and drank the occasional cheeky shot of homemade liqor>still took care of her garden at 90 fooken years oldRandom faggot on 4chan:>currently eats raw beef and avocado served on a wooden cutting board>will jump from memediet to memediet before suiciding by cop at 40yo because he can't breedA cut and dry case.
>>77232446>>77232443>>77232436>>77232537>>77232614
>>77232645lmao this cope.
>>77232645>for political reasons
>>77232645>unsourced
>>77232659If we're going to use anecdotes, this was the last surviving woman from 1800s. Her diet was mainly raw steak eggs, little to no vegetables cattlefeed https://twistedfood.co.uk/articles/emma-morano-food-egg-world-oldest-woman-grappa-secretYour grandma is a whore who has osteoporosis btw >>77232667Can you deny it though ? You cant. It's just a speculative section from a broader more conclusive article. You have no case here, grasping at straws.
>>77232671All the sources but two agree with me, the two that dont are speculative. Funny how they also rebute this "no one has ever gotten sick from eating like a cow" >>77232619
>>77232672>muh social security scam womanlmaoGrandma mogs you, memedietfag. Imagine thinking your body is so pathetic you'll get osteoporosis because you ate some vegetables with your meat. You actually see yourself as a subhuman.
>>77232685>Gets utterly destroyed >Goes on a tangent about how fuckable his grandma is at 90 because she ate cauliflower
>>77232643>Broccoli is dyed greenOk yep he's trolling
>>77232643>Associative literally better than anything you have provided. >unreplicable Lmao literally thousands from all over the world. Consistently showing the same results. >that control for nothing.Which variable are you looking for in specific that isn't being controlled for?>that controls for nothingWhat makes you say that? What do you think would influence it that they didn't control for? Please be specific. I think you're just saying that because you don't have an actual response. >https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11445186/>animal studies>in vitro>using Glyphosate formulas instead of the same thing we use on cropsShow me evidence that the same levels of pesticides you find on produce you buy in the grocery store causes harm in HUMANS.
>>77232691>thinks that never happened Seems like you lost pretty badly huh.
>>77232696>Zhang li, ranjesh et al >We asked 100 people if they ate kale in the past week, after a year 20 of the no kale group died of an accident, we can conclude kale prevents car accidents and cures syphilis
>>77232696Don't bother. There is always some magic variable they can't articulate. But will point to test tube and rat studies as the gold standard. At the end of the day they can't explain why there are ZERO studies showing us that people who eat more vegetables have worst health outcomes than those don't.
>>77232702Where does it say that?
>>77232696>Show me evidence that the same levels of pesticides you find on produce you buy in the grocery store causes harm in HUMANSThe one you quoted you jew. It's a catalog/overview of studies, not a single trial. >Show me that pesticides are badThis is how low we've stooped>>77232701>Gets btfo>"Quick grandma wear the red panties im losing an internet argument!!"
>>77232703https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/04/260417224454.htmhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002916525007282?via%3DihubVegantranny sisters oh nononononono
>>77232702It's pathetic watching you flounder. But just to hurt you more, there are hundreds of studies that specifically look at cardiovascular and cancer outcomes. >https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32253-5/fulltextYou can directly see stroke and cardiovascular disease risk go down with increased vegetable consumption>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211939/Just looks at colon cancer rates. >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34929422/shows direct correlations with increased vegetable consumption and decreased cancer riskinb4 you tard out. Be specific on things they don't control for. Which variable is influencing these outcomes?
>>77232707>literally just making up random shit as a smokescreen after losingThis tendency is why you'll never amount to anything and will eventually suicide by cop.
>>77232710Not a vegan tranny but this is a non study and entirely unscientific, the whole thing revolves around a tiny sample size (187 people) and their "self reported" dietary habits. >Disclosure: Dr. Nieva has received consulting payments from AstraZeneca and Genentech.OY VEY!
>>77232717>Study 1 : RR: 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.90) >Study 2 : However the quality of the majority (68%) of evidence was low>Study 3 : (hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74–1·10, ptrend=0·1301), myocardial infarction (0·99, 0·74–1·31; ptrend=0·2033), stroke (0·92, 0·67–1·25; ptrend=0·7092), cardiovascular mortality (0·73, 0·53–1·02; ptrend=0·0568), non-cardiovascular mortality (0·84, 0·68–1·04; ptrend =0·0038), and total mortality (0·81, 0·68–0·96; ptrend<0·0001).Do you realize how useless this is ? It's on the same level of saying that staying in your living room instead of your bedroom decreases risk of pulmonary disease by 0.001%.We've established before that you people struggle with scientific terms and i've explained to you the difference between containing and being rich in and actually filling your dv%, a discussion that's been memoryholed and avoided for 20 replies now since you have no rebuttal for it. (You've moved the goalpost succesfully, the only thing you've done correctly itt)Association proves nothing when there's no biological mechanism to back it up or lifelong control to prove it, and when there's little control the association is extremely laughable and weak.
>>77232724Curious how conflicts of interest and small samples and self reports became an issue only now. You've asked for studies showing bad health outcomes for higher vegetable consumption, you've got them and now you're malding and cant procure any rebuttal.Have a good day. (You can seethe all you want i wont be reading as a rapist doesn't look back at his victim once he cums and pulls his pants up)
>>77232710See watch how it was it is to argue specifics instead of just being retarded and spouting vague shit. >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002916525007282?via%3Dihub>Specifically, this inverse association was observed in the underweight participants, but not in the normal weight or overweight group.Yes old people tend to die when they are underweight. This is a calorie issue, not a vegetable one. Also the participants were all already 80 years old. Meaning there is a huge selection bias here. The people who avoided veggies/fiber all died before 80 and could not even participate.Easy>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/04/260417224454.htmHilarious you criticize other studies posted but actually had the balls to post this. >no control group>n=187>"muh pesticides"Pesticides were not measured in the study. Pure speculation. What is this garbage?Also the study has not been peer reviewed yet. This is absolute garbage and really show you hypocrisy when it comes to deciding what good evidence is. Shame on you. There are tons more much higher quality studies showing fruits and vegetables are protective against cancers. End your life.
>>77232736I'm not the anon you're arguing with, but there is no arguing that the link I am commenting on isn't even a study, its just asking a bunch of cancer patients under 50 what their diet is and suggesting correlation. The average retard barely remembers what they ate for breakfast this morning, never mind giving accurate food portion intakes over an extended period.
>>77232730????RR 0.82 with that sample size is very good what the fuck are you talking about. I mean if you were going to criticize it you would post the adjusted model, which is still good and even better considering it's been consistently repeated with large sample sizes.
>>77232432snake diet guy cole robinson is finally on this againhigh protein and veggies to lose shit tons of bodyweight, works foreverhe eats like peas for carbs, so thyroid t3 wont tankhe is ripped af pic related
>cutting>putting your body into survival mode>better reach for the one thing that can literally can not contribute to my survival: carbs!high protein high fat. it's all you will ever need
>>77232432>eating vegetables in 2026lmaoenjoy your glyphosate induced spiked cortisol diabetes bomb
>>77232663>>77232441>>77232439Stop falling for the bait. Seriously guys, it's the same guy every time - he uses the same exact linguistic mannerisms.
>>77232496When you add an additional premise, you need to substantiate it. Its not incumbent on someone else to disprove your assertion which you haven't supplied evidentiary claims for. This is basic logic.
>>77233551Enjoy being fat>I'm notYou are>I--Post body with timestamp>Some terrible attempt at a witty retort.Thought so. See >>77233596
>>77233265did this motherfucker just say high fat to cut down bodyfat?humanity is so lost
>>77233777i've lost over 30kg on high protein high fat and still losing (doing recomp). fat is kino for cuttingyou're a nigger
>>77232784I just checked out his channel for the first time in a few years, looks like 6 years of content just vanished?
So unironically, what should a balanced, everyday diet look like? I see lots of arguing ITT about antinutrients, dvs, absorption, fiber and so on, but no recs of what to actually eat. Not even talking about bulking or cutting, just everyday meals, what should I be putting on my plate, meat and what else? Potatoes, peas, cheese, nuts, broccoli, fucking what?I'm not being facetious or sarcastic I genuinely just want to know what I should be eating that will provide good nutrition and not leave me with deficiencies.
>>77233265>in order to lose your body fat>you should ingest fat so you can use dietary fat instead of adipose tissue
>>77234065just avoid the plastic ingredients in processed foods and cook your own meals.be careful with raw foods. other than fruit I can't think of anything that is better raw than cooked.
>>77234137carrot
>>77234169I think it retains most of its benefits when cooked.most people when eating the raw carrot aren't eating it soaked in vinegar and coconut oil anyways.
>>77234065There is no arguing. There's 1 schizo chimping out and multiple people calling him retarded.>Potatoes, peas, cheese, nuts, broccoliSure.
>>77232432>hurr durr just this meal with random amount of chicken and random amount of veggiespost meal macros or gtfo
>>77234135>s(he) still thinks eating animal fat makes they/them fat
>>77235100>AI hallucinationsebin.
>>77235109cut the carbs and you'll cut the brain fog lil bro hope that helps!
>>77235154>ESL cannot comprehend an English sentence>hallucinates a second response that is also irrelevantebin.
>>77235156learn English hombre, you can do itgg! next thread
>>77234135post body
>>77234065>balancedNo such thing>Potatoes, peas broccoliIf you cant eat it raw, it's unironically toxic for you or poverty food.Eat whole animal products and fruits and fruits that are falsely classified as vegetables like tomatoes. That's it>>77234137>be careful with raw foods.If you have a bitch stomach Human and vulture stomach acids are 0.5 points from each other
>>77235217pH is the negative log10 of the h+ ion concentration.
>>77235221Ok and ?>>77233601>Op claims meal is nutritious>Makes claims over it containing x y z>Asked to prove it>Cant, goes on a tangent for 40 replies moving goalpost after goalpost >Seethe at the end and brings up "muh grandma and shieeet" when cornered
>>77235230A .5 difference on the pH scale means a vulture's stomach acid is 3.16 times as acidic as a human's IF the difference were actually .5. In reality a human's stomach acid is typically 3.5-4 pH and a vulture's .7-1.
>>77235243>3.5-4 pHIf you're unhealthy = bitch stomachThere's literally not a single source that lists 4 consistently as an average or even 3.5, the upper cutoffhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/stomach-ph>acidic stomach (pH 1.5 to 3.5),I dont know why you're even trying to debate me on this, are you a vegan trying to make an argument about us being vegans or omnivores ? Even while lying you're off the mark.
>>77235250>vegansHerbivores*
>>77235250We're not debating, I'm pointing out a disingenuous conclusion you have come to based off ignorance or the desire to trick people. In reality the human stomach pH can vary between 1-6 depending on what we are actually doing, its between 1-2 while fasting and can get as high as 5-6 while eating due to the buffering affect of food. Either way, lets move the average down to 3, based on this study. They have a turkey vulture's average at 1, the difference is 2. Meaning a turkey vulture's stomach is, on average, 100x as acidic as a human's. You were trying to imply that our stomach's are similar enough in pH that we are capable of consuming the same pathogens without harm, which is false. If you want to read a study exploring the relationship between stomach pH and gut microbiome in different vertabraes, here you go: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4519257/pdf/pone.0134116.pdfIts where I got the attached picture. Now stop eating raw meat so my taxes don't have to pay for your healthcare, you imbecile.
>>77235316Your picture literally proves you wrong for 12 well no shit retard if you introduce non acidic elements or less acidic ones to an enviornment it loses some of it's acidic properties and sees a ph increase, that doesn't disprove how strong the human gut is, which is what i've pointed out. >Meaning a turkey vulture's stomach is, on average, 100x as acidic as a human'sOverreach. Officially, it's 10 to 100 times stronger which is a meaningless metric btw since most pathogens that would be in raw meat die around 4ph You're genuinely grasping at straws holy kek !!>You were trying to imply that our stomach's are similar enough in pH that we are capable of consuming the same pathogens without harmYou will never be able to point out where i said or even implied humans can consume the same pathogens as a vulture. The point was that raw food isnt inherently bad if from a healthy animal source. How else do you think early humans survived without cooking.
>>77235327>that doesn't disprove how strong the human gut isHuman guts are not strong, while we can handle meat from animals raised in controlled environment, you should hunt or open range pork raw meat to see how it goes.
Notice how two posts ago humans had an average ph comparable to a pig or horse and now the tranny is making it about fasted vs active digestion and going on a tangent over multipliers (which again doesn't matter in this context, human stomach acid can process bones and the only limiting factor is our trachea, same for most of the boogeyman pathogens like e coli)That's how you know someone is running to chatgpt between every other reply, not because they're convinced of their ideas but because they're emotionally charged and feel the NEED to replyNow watch xer/them move the goalpost and make it about me saying humans are scavengers
>>77235331>we can handle meat from animals raised in controlled environmentExplain raw fish then or deer meat without getting mad or going on a tangent. The only issue with pork is worm parasites which i can concede (but only because your stomach acid breaks down the protective capsule of the eggs before they're transported to intestines, not because it cant actually burn the worm itself), other animals are mostly fine.
Guys youve been arguing about antinootrient schizo nonsense for like 7 years straight now. Please just eat
>>77235340>The only issue with pork is worm parasites which i can concede (but only because your stomach acid breaks down the protective capsule of the eggs before they're transported to intestines, not because it cant actually burn the worm itself), other animals are mostly fine.You really should eat raw pork before claiming you can digest it properly.
>>77235344Wog skill issues all meat is 100% digestible AND absorbable to humans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett
>>77235346>Wog skill issues all meat is 100% digestible AND absorbable to humansStating a lie doesn't make it true. Also, I know you just searched at Google and don't know people only eat small portions of mett.
>77235348>Wog stomach skill issues>Wog typo skill issues>/aus/ is back up again (wog central)It all makes sense
>>77235230It seems that you don't know what additional or premise means. Nutritious means containing nutrients. Vegetables contain nutrients, That's an objective fact that nobody would dispute. Your additional premise that you added on top of it was that the nutrients are destroyed in cooking, which you provided no substantiated evidence for. Again, this is basic logic. You shouldn't engage in discussions if you don't have a grasp of such.
>>77235523 Semantics.https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nutritious>providing nourishment, ESPECIALLY TO A HIGH DEGREEwhich plants dont. They're poor in nutrients, contain malabsorbed forms, and have phytochemicals that inhibit the absorption of nutrients and are also destroyed by cooking(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6049644/), totalling to 0.>That's an objective fact that nobody would dispute. Appeal to majority >Again, this is basic logic. Begging the question.Your jewish shaming tactics of arguing are USELESS against me
>>77232581>I wonder at what point in history did people relegate their thinking to slogans and guidelines.ca WW2 propaganda stuffs.
>>77232432For me it's>tuna avocado rolls >general tsos>shrimp fried rice>for protein hibachi steak onions and mushrooms>ramen with broccoli and green onions
>>77235608Oh and either ginger/onion/onions steak sauce or sriracha mayo for anything but steak. You can also marinate beef in onions+sesame oil+sugar and some noodles with oil then sugar and deglaze in teriyaki and add green onions. Shrimp tempura with the Sriracha mayo is peak though add it to fried rice with green onions.
>>77235617>in whatever than whateverIt's gonna burn add a little water. Usually restaurants use water heavy sauces and msg. Just add shredded kombu and let it cook in for the same thing.
>>77235316based post
>>77235685>Replying to yourself after being CRUSHEDIt's over
>>77235543Sorry I didn't read past the word semantics in your post, since you're obviously not engaging in good faith I won't reply further. I'm sorry that your bias is so ingrained that you refuse to actually have good faith discussions. I hope in the future that you can be more open-minded and whatever is happening in your life to make you so hard and unchanging improves. I'm going to hide your posts and reply chains now, since you're going to keep replying with angry attempts at witty one-ups. As is your nature, since you can't engage in an actual legitimate discussion. Have a good day.
>>77235608Man, that all sounds so delicious.
>>77232432you can add shitaki noodles or regular ones for more satiety with low calories
