Why do people believe that food regulations explain the difference in obesity between USA and EU?

Do they really believe that the EU banning a food coloring or using cane sugar instead of HFCS magically makes Pop Tarts and Doritos healthy? Or is it muh hormones (despite eggs naturally having far more hormones than implanted beef and there being absolutely 0 evidence that hormone implants are harmful)

There seems to be a widespread denial that obesity is caused by personal lifestyle rather than the government.

>HFCS is in EVERYTHING
Its in nothing I buy, which is mostly raw meat, produce, and packaged products that I have read the label of, which is very easy to do. I'm not even some ultra health guy or anything, I definitely enjoy my fair share of unhealthy food, I'm just buying basic products.

It seems like people are buying a bunch of packaged products and driving everywhere then getting mad their lifestyle is unhealthy.

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I ate 5 packs of Doritos a day and am fat. It’s definitely because of the Red 40 in it. Thanks FDA!

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Not all unhelathy foods will make you fat, also not all fatty foods will make you unhealthy.
    Some unhealthy foods will make you develop health problem that have nothing to do with weight gain.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, but people are so convinced that random food colorings and preservatives are the cause of obesity in USA which is obviously bullshit

      Junk food has far more problems than a tiny amount of food coloring that makes marginal if any difference. And there's little to no evidence that HFCS and cane sugar are nutritionally different

      People will post ingredients of Froot Loops in Europe vs USA and claim that whatever ingredients that are present in the US version but not in the EU version are the cause of obesity, ignoring the fact that both versions are ultra-processed high calorie high sugar low nutrition food

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        If it's not something they are putting in the food, then the companies are lying about the calories in the food. I ate nothing but processed foods for 3 months at 1800 calories a day to prove counting calories was all that mattered. It was easier to do with processed foods because I could save the labels as proof. To my surprise I didn't lose anything. I gained 5 pounds. My lifestyle was still the same: walk 5+ miles a day, work maintenance 50 hours a week, skip breakfast and lunch.

        Why didn't I lose weight? I was losing steadily for months before this "diet" and within a month of going back to my high fat/protein diet (about 2500 to 3000 calories a day) went back to losing weight. Either there is something in these foods that is doing something or they are lying about the calories. Either way the answer is not to trust processed foods. In fact, what is the point of your shit? That it's the goyim's fault for believing the israelites?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the companies are lying about the calories in the food
          This is definitely a thing I think, on top of them putting garbage in the food. If you think about how disgustingly sweet processed crap is, there's no way they aren't hitting insane calorie counts with how much corn slop they need to add to ot. They know they'd get way less purchases if they were honest, so they've set it up where they can get away with fake numbers.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Way too many variables to make those claims. Did you track your macros? If you were to claim that eating less protein can lead to caloric excess, okay, but to jump immediately to "They're lying about the calories!" is a little premature.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Wtf are you saying? Did you not read what I said or are too illiterate to understand what I said or is English a second language to you or are you a poorly trained bot? I counted calories based on what the food labels said.

            Either nothing matters in weight loss but calories = food companies lying about calories or food companies are lying about what some of these ingredients are really doing to your body.

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Interesting that you reply with two paragraphs to actual constructive criticism, and your larger paragraph is nothing but drivel.

              So you're saying that you didn't track your macros? You realize that everyone that even gets close to dealing with nutrition will tell you that macros matter, and that CICO is... kind of right?... but it's also more complicated than that. And you may have literally just proved that with your experiment. Of course, I doubt you'll see it that way, since evidently you're married to CICO, and you still have more variables than you could ever hope to rule out, but you might want to consider that it's not as simple as you seem to think it is.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Calorie counting is junk science. A man eating 3000 kcal of refined carbs is going to gain more body fat over time than a man eating 6000 kcal of unprocessed meat(an average weight physiologist tested this and lost weight and gained muscle mass on a 6000kcal meat diet as an experiment). Calories measures how much energy is released when burned, but our cells oxidizes ATP for fuel which is different to burning. There is however no unit of measurement that can be used for this for now. Calories are however useful in showing morons that eating 3 less bags of Doritos and drinking 2 less bottles of soda every day is a good idea.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >an average weight physiologist tested this and lost weight and gained muscle mass on a 6000kcal meat diet as an experiment
            Can you show me?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'd be right happy to

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >an average weight physiologist tested this and lost weight and gained muscle mass on a 6000kcal meat diet as an experiment
            I'm sure an actual scientist with a diploma did a serious n=1 study to prove anything. I believe you.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >our cells oxidizes ATP for fuel
            See this is how anyone who actually knows anything about actual biology and chemistry knows you're just a double digit IQ mouthbreather who takes all of his "knowledge" from facebook and moronic pop articles.

            ATP/ADP reaction is not a redox reaction, it's hydrolytic. ATP is broken down into ADP and phosphate, ADP into ATP is a condensation. No electron transfer between the phosphate and ADP, therefore it's not redox. You don't know shit about frick.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the eternal ketoschizo rears his ugly head

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Why didn't I lose weight?
          Because eating junk food and skipping meals you were starving yourself of nutrition, so your body went into survival mode to hold on to fat which it can use as fuel to survive. Eat meat and fat and you're nourishing yourself with nutrients and so your body doesn't hold on to fat as much because it doesn't need to.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It's having a lot of money and no self control. Even if you're poor, the cheapest food is padded with salt and carbs.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Fresh vegetables and raw chicken is the cheapest food at the supermarket.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Sir. That's a meal. You can even eat 2 if you want to be a fat boy.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                lmao, I guess I underestimated how cheap some slop is.

                Maybe we need to make this shit more expensive.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it's the cause of getting fricking brain cancer and shit, nobody thinks food coloring makes you fat. dumbass

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    When I go back to my home town, some of my family members will think its strange that I choose to walk 10 minutes to a restaurant since they drive by default.

    The neighborhood is perfectly walkable also and the route doesn't cross a single busy street, yet they still drive by default. That is the cause of obesity in the USA, people rely on machines just to go to a nearby place.

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >There seems to be a widespread denial that obesity is caused by personal lifestyle rather than the government.
    Yes and no. You don't have to buy soda, obviously. In the US, sugar is so cheap that pretty much anyone can drink soda all day. In the EU, they tax sugar so it has to be used in limited amounts. They use a combination of real sugar and artificial sweetener, and despite what negative effects might come from artificial sweeteners, we know they at least contribute less to obesity.

    We should push for personal responsibility but if the government is going to do anything it should probably be to make it easier for people to make better choices by making better food cheaper, not junk food.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >better food
      Is plenty cheap. You can feed yourself a balanced diet for $20 a week just by buying fresh produce. The problem is poor people are incredibly lazy and shortsighted. Next time you go to the grocery store, look in the carts of fats and blacks. You know what you're gonna see? 3-4 boxes of soda ($9 a box now), multiple bags of hot n spicy chips ($5 a bag), kiddy cereal like Lucky Charms ($7 a box), and frozen pizzas/fried chicken/hot pockets.
      You wanna know something crazy? Back in the day, foodstamps used to only apply for fresh produce and bottled water/juice. Leftists had the rules changed so you can now buy fast food and processed junk with them because, I shit you not, "it's racist and dehumanising to keep simple luxuries out of the hands of black people".

      What I'm getting at is no amount of government intervention is going to change a problem caused by poor lifestyle choices. At least, not without going full USSR and outright forbidding people from consuming unhealthy shit.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How dare you. How dare you tell people to have some accountability in their life. The audacity!

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The food coloring thing is banned because it's linked with adhd in young kids, not for obesity risks

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >~~*adhd*~~

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        ><((fish))*>

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah I know, but people still post “US skittles vs EU skittles” pretending like Yellow 6 is the cause of the obesity crisis rather than all the sugar in it (which is of course present in both versions)

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >we gave kids a bunch of candy and it made them hyper
      >what could have caused this? must have been the food coloring
      come on

  7. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We visited family in Southampton recently and everyone there was American sized. That was true for most places we went in England. Going to guess it's probably increasingly true for most western countries.

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    as someone who has lost weight by counting calories, it's hilarious watching fatties cope and morons pointing fingers at irrelevant shit.
    you either eat your 1400 (F) / 2000 (M) kcal diet or you don't and get fat or become Auschwitz. sure if you're an athlete you probably need like 3k+ kcal, but that's a unique situation.

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >SAVE ME FROM MY OWN DISGUSTING EATING HABITS BIG DADDY GUVMENT

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    High Fructose Corn Syrup is a meme too. Regular table sugar, which is cane sugar and sugar from beets is sucrose. Sucrose is comprised of two sugars, glucose and fructose, 50% glucose and 50% fructose. The most common form of High Fructose Corn Syrup is 52% Fructose and 48% Glucose. So No you aren't fat because your soda has High Fructose Corn Syrup in it instead of cane sugar, you are fat because your soda has 30 grams of sugar in it, and you drink 7 of them a day.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >because hfcs is the same as cane sugar that means hfcs isnt bad

      all refined sugars are bad for you and should be consumed in minimal amounts. Thank you for repeating corn lobby propaganda, 5 diabetes testing supplies have been deposited into your account.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >all refined sugars are bad for you and should be consumed in minimal amounts.
        anon that was my point, hence this statement,
        >So No you aren't fat because your soda has High Fructose Corn Syrup in it instead of cane sugar, you are fat because your soda has 30 grams of sugar in it, and you drink 7 of them a day.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >because hfcs is the same as cane sugar
        It's absolutely NOT.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >claims HFCS is different than Cane Sugar
          >posts a chart showing per capita consumption in lbs of various different sugars
          anon there is a very slight difference between HFCS and table sugar both are almost entirely sucrose. HFCS just has a relatively small amount of extra fructose in it. If Table sugar is 100% sucrose, the most common form of HFCS is 98% sucrose and 2% fructose. Also sucrose itself is made up of 50% glucose and 50% fructose. What matter orders of magnitude more is how much sugar a person eats rather than whether it is cane sugar, beet sugard, or HFCS. Also starch is basically sugar too. though starch is 100% glucose.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the most common form of HFCS is 98% sucrose and 2% fructose.
            Yeah...You're WRONG.
            There are 2 main kinds of HFCS, 42% used in processed foods and baked goods, and 55% HFCS used in AmeriGulp. The Biggest difference is in the FREE Fructose.
            You aren't as smart as you think you are.
            Those processes you take for granted that convert sugars and starches to usable energy are modeled after a HEALTHY human..
            WHat Nao?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              anon I don't know why you posted your pic. Sucralose is splenda. That is an artificial zero calorie sweetener. I tisn't HFCS. Also the HFCS's you listed 42 and 55 refer to the dry weight percentages of those mixtures. While there is a small amount of other stuff in there almost all the remainder is glucose. That means HFCS 42 has less fructose in it that the equivalent amount of table sugar. I'm not saying HFCS is good I'm just saying it isn't significantly worse or different than regular table sugar.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >checked
                Because I believe you to be in earnest, I won't do the usual/ck frickery.
                I poasted that in relation to a HEALTHY human system. Most are NOT, and have various levels of dysfunction.
                Chlorinated sucrose, or Splenda™ is a KNOWN geno-toxin and has been directly correlated with destrotion of a healthy gut flora, whose symbiotic relationship with mammals has been known for at least a Century.
                There is actually LESS fructose in most food-Bourne,(yeah, I used that term,) HFCS, but it certainly has been a major contributor to obesity,(and I suspect lowered cognition,) as my earlier graph showed.
                Humans are operating on an OS that is at least 100000 years old--Don't think for a moment that there aren't companies cashing in on that.
                Fructose is especially desirable since we always ate as much as we could to fatten up for the cold winter...Getting it yet?/

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >destrotion
                **Destruction
                meh..

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                learn how to use a frickin comma properly before you start talkin about lowered cognition lmao get recked

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you for being someone that looks beneath the headline. Let's also take into consideration that your body possesses enzymes to rapidly break sucrose into glucose and fructose with almost no change in enthalpy, and that fructose and glucose are largely interchangeable from a metabolic perspective. So, as you said, sugar is sugar. The only difference in healthfulness comes down to impurities found in either product.

      >because hfcs is the same as cane sugar that means hfcs isnt bad

      all refined sugars are bad for you and should be consumed in minimal amounts. Thank you for repeating corn lobby propaganda, 5 diabetes testing supplies have been deposited into your account.

      corn lobby's propaganda is that HFCS is better for you that regular sugar? I missed that one.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah people overlook the fact that the other thing that has lots of fructose in it are fruits. Show me the fatty who for their treats is eating 4 oranges a day (which is about the amount of sugar in 1 can of soda).

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah people overlook the fact that the other thing that has lots of fructose in it are fruits. Show me the fatty who for their treats is eating 4 oranges a day (which is about the amount of sugar in 1 can of soda).

        Even if it isn't worse than regular sugar, HFCS is rarely the only low-quality, ultra processed ingredient in junk foods and shouldn't be considered separately.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the propaganda is: HFCS is 'just as healthy' as regular sugar, that there is no chemical difference and its unfair that HFCS is targeted with blame. The implication being: theres nothing wrong with sugar, any kind of sugar.

        but there is something intrinsically wrong with consuming sugar. Thats why it's a logical fallacy.
        And its not just that. The main reason health groups target HFCS is that, due to its cheapness, disproportionate amounts of HFCS are put into food, and this excess grams of sugar per serving is contributing to health problems.

        Yes indeed, HFCS is similar to refined sugar. They are interchangable from a dietary perspective. But this does not mean refined sugar or HFCS is intrinsically good for you. And the fundemental problem with using a cheap sugar substitute (HFCS) is that since its cheaper, you can put more of it in the same amount of food, dramatically increasing the amount of sucrose and fructose your body has to metabolize. And your body metabolizing those substances in large amounts causes health problems.

        If everything was just 'well, 1 gram of sugar from HFCS or 1 gram of sugar from refined sugar', then it wouldnt be an issue. But instead what we get is
        >60 grams of sugar from making the can of soda 90% HFCS.

        Yeah people overlook the fact that the other thing that has lots of fructose in it are fruits. Show me the fatty who for their treats is eating 4 oranges a day (which is about the amount of sugar in 1 can of soda).

        your body doesnt metabolize the entire load of sugar from 4 oranges. You consume it with fiber, which means you shit most of that organge-sugar out before it can be metabolized. 1 can of soda is objectively worse for you than 4 organges specifically because of the prescence of fiber even though on paper they have the same sugar content. And guess what? Most processed food is fiberless, or has very little fiber. Fiber has to be removed to make it freeze easier/store longer/stay shelf stable.

        a can of sugar water gets directly absorbed by your digestive system, giving you the full load of health problems that comes from metabolizing 60 grams of sugar.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >The main reason health groups target HFCS is that, due to its cheapness, disproportionate amounts of HFCS are put into food, and this excess grams of sugar per serving is contributing to health problems.
          Be specific.

          What food is it being put into? You can read the labels of anything you buy, and HFCS is in nothing I buy or even want to buy. Its mostly just in ultra-processed slop that I'd never touch, and if you're eating significant amounts of it that's kind of your fault.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You consume it with fiber, which means you shit most of that organge-sugar out before it can be metabolized.
          Thanks, I will add that to my
          >moronic shit facebook moms say
          compilation

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You consume it with fiber, which means you shit most of that organge-sugar out before it can be metabolized.
          CICO gaygs BTFO..
          But you may be also forgetting 2 very important aspects of HFCS:
          1) Fructose is ONLY metabolised in the liver through glycolysis-(fat then into glucose, which the brain and muscles run off exclusively)
          and 2) the sheer amount of glyphosate the corn is saturated in as a desiccant for harvest.
          You think that residuals don't make it into the end product?
          Here's some other weird shit I found while digging from the Pfizer corpos:
          https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/sweet_science_how_insights_into_fructose_metabolism_are_helping_to_fight_liver_disease
          Oh the ironing...

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fat Anon chiming in: Obesity is entirely a personal lifestyle problem. Not even necessarily over-eating, but can be caused just by being sedentary.
    While foods may have minor effects upon it, it is entirely caused by ourselves and our willingness to be lazy, whether it's by ordering takeaway to just not doing anything.
    Of course there are the ones that eat their own weight in food as well, but it's clear that they are their own enemy.

    The only fat people that legitimately don't know why they're fat are ill. But nearly all fat people pretend not to know because they don't want to be self-aware or are just incapable.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Not even necessarily over-eating, but can be caused just by being sedentary.
      I get what you are saying, but it if you regularly eat more calories than you are burning you are over-eating. Sure eating 2300 calories a day isn't gorging yourself, but if you only use 1800, or 2000 a day you are over-eating. It is important to focus on how much people eat over their activity because eating has a much greater effect on weight than activity. One doughnut can easily bee 400 calories, for most people you would need to do an hour or more of cardio to burn that 400 calories. If losing weight is a person's goal, (or maintaining a healthy weight), it is mush easier to avoid the 5-minutes spent eating that doughnut rather than the hour of walking you need to do to burn that off.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ah yeah suddenly there is just an explosion of otherwise normal people having a personal lifestyle problem compared to a few decades ago

      It's clearly more than just that, of course with personal choices you can stop being obese, but the environment has changed such that it requires a lot more concerted thoughtful effort than before for many people

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Ah yeah suddenly there is just an explosion of otherwise normal people having a personal lifestyle problem compared to a few decades ago
        Yes. I 100% believe that people are choosing to eat worse food and are less active, despite active lifestyle and health fresh food being widely available.

        Do you really believe that food 120 years ago was better than it is today? There was no FDA, and lack of refrigeration meant that processed meats were very common.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >otherwise normal people having a personal lifestyle problem compared to a few decades ago
          People report way more stress, anxiety, and depression than a few decades ago and addictive food is a pretty easy, socially accepted counter to negative feelings for a lot of those people.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >depressed and anxious fatty not realizing he would feel better if he lost weight a day was more physically active.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Do you really believe that food 120 years ago was better than it is today?

          food is a pretty broad subject matter. In terms of fruits and vegetables, and a few other things, then literally, and objectively, and scientifically provable they were. modern technology has allowed us to store lower quality food for longer periods of time. processing lets us mix it all together without killing you. pastruization lets you take low quality stuff and keep it shelf stable for long periods of time.

          Technology isnt always used for good. one of the leading causes of infant mortality in the victoria era, for example, was spoiled milk. milk would be collected, then treated with various chemicals to balance the ph of spoiled milk which would make it no longer sour. but this didnt kill the bacteria in the milk, so people would give their children rotten milk thinking it was 'fresh'. after all, it tasted fresh and smelled fresh so surely its fresh milk! by god, we live in the modern era of the victorian era, our technology has assured us that this is the most purest milk ever to exist! And thus hundreds of thousands of children died.

          To solve this problem all together, the industry shifted to pasturizing milk. Now all milk is boiled and then chilled. Then fat is intentionally removed from the milk to make it more stable and last longer. This removes a lot of nutritents from the milk, making it of a lower quality, but at the same time eliminates the dangers of drinking potentially spoiled milk straight from the store.

          where'd the fat go? whered the nutrients go? the fat goes into other products, but those denurtured nutrients are just tossed out. So milk is objectively less nutritious today than it was 140 years ago.

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People like JaCulinaly actually believe this shit too jej

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    refineds sugars when metabolized will generate lipid droplets as a waste product regardless of caloric intake. this means you will gain small amounts of fake when consuming sugar even if you are starving. when you arent starving, those micro doses of fat get deposited in your body. over the course of your life, assuming you maintain a healthy calorie consumption/life style, you will still end up with these fat deposits in your body, usually around your organs, which is what results in long term chronic health problems.

    its not 400 pound landwhales boosting american health problem numbers, but 150-180 pound people with fatty livers and hearts. its much easier to fall into obesedity as an american due to the prevelance of hfcs and other refined sugars jam packed into their diet.

    regulation wont fix this, but education might. its not like americans enjoy being unhealthy, but they are constantly told incorrect information so they cant make the correct choices to fix their problems.

    daily reminder: calories in, calories out is a coca cola meme from the early 2000s. the human digestive system is way more complicated than a simple arithmatic formula of a+b = c

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fatties are slothful and gluttonous people by nature. Or really just stupid and like any other animal, will simply keep eating if not restricted. For better or worse, I'd say most people are more likely to be the latter.

      Obesity for 90+% of people is simply a matter of caloric balance. If you chronically overeat, you will gain fat, simple as. The average American who b***hes about maybe walking 2k steps a day and eats in excess of 3500 calories a day is overeating, by a massive degree in many cases.
      That's why they're fat. Not some artifical coloring cope bullshit.

      Moreover, the issue with sugars and most processed junk is because they are too calorically dense for how filling they are, in other words, easy to overeat and become fat off. This is why nutrition labels and such exist, but the average fat ass doesn't even know what a calorie is.

      >refineds sugars when metabolized will generate lipid droplets as a waste product regardless of caloric intake. this means you will gain small amounts of fake when consuming sugar even if you are starving.
      Yeah and this fat will be immidiately oxidized for energy in that case... think for 2 seconds moron.

      >Ah yeah suddenly there is just an explosion of otherwise normal people having a personal lifestyle problem compared to a few decades ago
      Yes. I 100% believe that people are choosing to eat worse food and are less active, despite active lifestyle and health fresh food being widely available.

      Do you really believe that food 120 years ago was better than it is today? There was no FDA, and lack of refrigeration meant that processed meats were very common.

      Yes it's a recorded thing how people are eating more and doing less. The vast majority of jobs in western countries are ultra sedentary, office or retail crap. Most people in your grandparents' generation still did some form of manual labor, which allowed them to maintain a healthy weight while eating more because they did more... it's not complicated. The obesity rise isn't some sudden shit either, look at any chart on the topic, it's been a steady rise indicating a trend.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the issue with sugars and most processed junk is because they are too calorically dense for how filling they are, in other words, easy to overeat and become fat off
        yep very hard to overeat if you are eating roasted Cauliflower or Broccoli or even the more sugary natural things like oranges or apples.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine reaching your daily necessary calories eating entirely vegetables that have not been cooked in fat

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I mean, my go to for veggies is tossing them in a bit of olive oil with salt, pepper, and garlic powder and then roasting them on a half sheet in the oven, but even with the extra fat from the Olive Oil I don't think I could reach 1000 calories in a single sitting just eating those veggies.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Yeah and this fat will be immidiately oxidized for energy in that case
        Yes because a body constantly running on glucose will oxidize fat. Think for 2 seconds moron.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Yeah and this fat will be immidiately oxidized for energy in that case
          >Yes because a body constantly running on glucose will oxidize fat. Think for 2 seconds moron.
          moron, do you think a body that is starving is running on glucose? It is by definition glycogen depleted and pulling from fat storage. You think the this new sugar fat will be hidden from the body?

          Here's a hint too moron, litteraly every dietary fat is the same thing as the fatty acids in your fat cells. Fricking moron lmao

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Isn't the explanation for the difference basically portion size?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >get big portion size
      >take half of it home and eat the rest
      lol
      Snacking is probably a bigger component, so many people snack on a bunch of ultra processed foods constantly.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Listen moron, it started when Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold, which caused inflation. To keep food prices down, the government subsidized corn and soy and created the ridiculous food pyramid that recommended 6-12 servings of grains every day as the primary calorie source. All of that combined turned school food into total garbage. People started eating sugar-laden corn flakes/puffs for breakfast instead of bacon and eggs, etc.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >People started eating sugar-laden corn flakes/puffs for breakfast instead of bacon and eggs, etc.
      anon sugary cereals started in the 1930's

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes Kellogg, I know, but most people were still eating bacon and eggs back then. He’s also the reason for mass circumcision in the US.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Government subsidies can affect diet, but most of it is essentially as countries get wealthier food in general, especially the tastier food that is high in sugars and fats become cheaper. This is 25 years ago there was a huge obesity problem in America but not in the UK. America is significantly more wealthy than the UK and the rest of Europe. Now the UK as the UK has also gained more wealth the UK has more of a problem with Obesity. Now you may point out that, "anon people in lower income brackets are more likely to be obese than people in higher income brackets," and you would be right. But a lot of a nation's growth in wealth from people with trait's of personal responsibility, temperance, and self-control applying those traits to their professional life. These traits also help them moderate their own diets. But other folks, without these traits come along for the ride economically by either directly working for the higher income people or getting benefits through welfare programs. This makes all that tasty food more affordable for them in absolute terms. So where these kinds of people might have been able to splurge and a high calorie meal once a month before now, they can do it many times a week or even every meal.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes Kellogg, I know, but most people were still eating bacon and eggs back then. He’s also the reason for mass circumcision in the US.

        lol I've never ate sugary cereals.

        My breakfast growing up was always some combination of bacon, eggs, grits, pancakes, biscuits, cornbread. Do you people have neglectful parents or something?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >lol I've never ate sugary cereals.
          >My breakfast growing up was always some combination of... grits, pancakes, biscuits, cornbread.
          anon, I hate to break it to you but those are the nutritional equivalent of sugary cereals. Do you feel like your parents were neglectful or just doing what felt best for you?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >eggs, cornmeal porridge, and thin starch cakes are the nutritional equivalent of sugary cereal
            Are you moronic

            Bacon I’ll give you, though I still contend it isn’t as bad. None of the items I mentioned contain any sugar (unless you add it)

            • 4 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Are you moronic
              No but I worry you are, or you are just being dishonest. This what what I quoted of your statement,
              >My breakfast growing up was always some combination of... grits, pancakes, biscuits, cornbread
              >grits, pancakes, biscuits, cornbread
              all of these are sugar and fat. There is little to no difference between the carbohydrates in grits, pancakes, biscuits, and cornbread and those in sugary cereals. Bacon and eggs are much better than these because they don't have those carbs and are comprised of fat and proteins which avoids glucose spikes in your blood when eaten.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >he puts sugar in pancakes and grits
                Lol. Also, Are you a keto autist?

                Bacon is processed meat and is absolutely not better for you than pancakes, unless you put sugar in it or put syrup on it like a fatty

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon eating a pound of sugar, a pound of flour, or a pound of baked potato are nutritionally about the same.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Are you moronic

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No but you clearly are have idea about basic nutrition. Enjoy managing your type 2 diabetes.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You're replying to multiple people who realize you're moronic.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Anon you are the only person in this thread who thinks there is a substantial nutritional difference between sugar and starch. I'm also assuming you strongly believe that the way your parents were raised and Meemaw did it is the best way. Also you probably chose which words you use based on how they make you feel rather than their denotation.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so some Chinese dude who eats rice every meal is the same as someone who consumes the same amount of sugar every meal?

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                It's pretty close anon.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Though to add on there are some differences that do matter for example brown rice is better than white rice, and sweet potatoes are better than normal white potatoes.

              • 4 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If you are really interested in learning more about this, look up something called glycemic index for various foods. This number will describe essentially how quickly a particular type of food is converted into pure glucose sugar in your bloodstream. The bigger the number the closer it is to just eating sugar nutritionally. For example, even though Broccoli is mostly made out of carbohydrates just like a potato is, roasted broccoli has a much lower Glycemic Index than say mashed potatoes, because potatoes are just starch which is basically a stream of sugar molecules chained together end to end which very quickly breaks down into just sugar. Broccoli has complex carbohydrates which are also made out of sugar molecules but they are connected in a complicated way like different leaves and branches on a bush so it takes much longer for you body to break it down to just sugar.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Glycemic index is useless cause it's the insulin index that matters and those aren't always correlated.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Glycemic index measures what a food does to the blood sugar levels of a human body. Insulin index measures the body's response. Insulin Index is important for diabetics or people near diabetes. If you want to avoid becoming one of those people looking at foods' glycemic indexes and minimizing the amount of foods with high glycemic indexes is your best bet. Stuff like this is why it is a good rule of thumb to avoid most "No-Fat" or "Low-Fat" food. frequently food companies reduce the amount of fat in a food but then to improve the flavor they will add a lot of carbohydrates. 100 calories of high fat food is generally better for you than 80 calories of high starch food. I'm not saying you have to go full blown keto but you should be conscious of carbs. I still eat pasta, but I always mix in roasted veggies and protein, and usually some chopped Italian Parsley to lower the overall glycemic index of the food. Also I usually only eat it once or twice a week. I still eat rice and mashed potatoes, but I'm not having it as a side for every meal. If I eat breakfast it usually looks like greek yogurt, fresh fruit and black coffee. I also typically add some ground flax seed but that is another chapter. If you don't like that a reasonably portioned breakfast (so at most 500 to 600 calories) of bacon and eggs if great. If you really want to, adding a biscuit is fine. And on occasion having some pancakes or waffles is ok too Just don't make your normal breakfast a stack of pancakes with syrup and a side of hashbrowns and eggs.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Google glucose metabolism.
                Then google fructose metabolism.
                Then google starch metabolism.
                Then realize that starch and sugars are indeed nutritionally very different.
                Then read about muscle glycgoen, starch, krebs cycle, and exercise intensity.
                Then try eating pure starch foods without added fat or sugar and see how fast you get full and won't even be able to look in the direction of food. Without fat/sugar, starch is incredibly satiating.
                I removed most of the fat and sugar from my diet. I do not count kcal. I've lost 5kg in two months, despite multiple lapses due to social shit (going out for beer and pizza). My lifts are increasing. Starch is good. Fat is bad. Sugar is bad. Nutrition pyramid is right.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fat people always lie about their diet.
    >I eat healthy food and exercise every day
    >>are you drinking a pepsi right now?
    >It's the first one I've had in weeks!

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yeah and their stated behaviors are always widely incongruent with their own fatness and even the bodies of normal healthy people. If someone really only eats 2,000 calories every day, that nutritionally balanced with lots of veggies and proteins and minimal starches, plus they are exercising every day that person will be not just normal body weight but very fit, probably under 10% body fat. Whereas if you usually eat healthy but not always and exercise 3 or 4 times a week you ill be normal weight and reasonably fit. But no, some 300 pound Disney Adult has to claim they only eat 1500 calories a day 90% leafy greens and flax seed, and they are exercising for 10 hours a week, but still have a BMI of 40 plus.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Look at the middle east and the various buttfrick-nowhere islands of Oceania and Polynesia
    It's 100% due to a combination of lifestyle and disposable income

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Those islands where obesity is considered a sign of beauty?

      Fatties are slothful and gluttonous people by nature. Or really just stupid and like any other animal, will simply keep eating if not restricted. For better or worse, I'd say most people are more likely to be the latter.

      Obesity for 90+% of people is simply a matter of caloric balance. If you chronically overeat, you will gain fat, simple as. The average American who b***hes about maybe walking 2k steps a day and eats in excess of 3500 calories a day is overeating, by a massive degree in many cases.
      That's why they're fat. Not some artifical coloring cope bullshit.

      Moreover, the issue with sugars and most processed junk is because they are too calorically dense for how filling they are, in other words, easy to overeat and become fat off. This is why nutrition labels and such exist, but the average fat ass doesn't even know what a calorie is.

      >refineds sugars when metabolized will generate lipid droplets as a waste product regardless of caloric intake. this means you will gain small amounts of fake when consuming sugar even if you are starving.
      Yeah and this fat will be immidiately oxidized for energy in that case... think for 2 seconds moron.
      [...]
      Yes it's a recorded thing how people are eating more and doing less. The vast majority of jobs in western countries are ultra sedentary, office or retail crap. Most people in your grandparents' generation still did some form of manual labor, which allowed them to maintain a healthy weight while eating more because they did more... it's not complicated. The obesity rise isn't some sudden shit either, look at any chart on the topic, it's been a steady rise indicating a trend.

      >The obesity rise isn't some sudden shit either, look at any chart on the topic, it's been a steady rise indicating a trend.
      It tracks 1:1 with the introduction and rise of vegetable oils instead of other oils. It's a polyunsaturated fat issue.
      How did half the thread go without anyone mentioning this.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous
        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I could go on but I don't think anyone really appreciates infographic dumps.
          One more after this though.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I hope this is readable, saved it to phone so I'm not sure if it was converted incorrectly.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Seed oils cause obesity
            >look at this malnourished rat that's half it's normal size
            You sure you meant to post that?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/y67CEvs.jpeg

        Has anyone thought that perhaps it's the availability of fat in general that increased? As in, before mechanical oil production we didn't have as much fat to cook with or consume in general? Everyone is arguing about which is better and throwing up graphs about the rise in oil usage; what if it's just that there was barely enough fat to cook with in the first place before vegetable oil hit the scene? That would track with what docs see (vegetable oil is better than animal fat), and also track with obesity rates. Are we arguing about the wrong thing?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          As one fat increased the other fat decreased.

          [...]
          >one thing go up and other thing go ip
          Way to out your 70 iq. You can draw a correlation between any two random things.

          The average moron really is helpless

          You don't have to lash out to hide your inability to understand biochemistry.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't have to lash out to hide your inability to understand biochemistry.
            You can say that as some butthurt reaction.
            But you've actually demonstrated your inability to understand basic argumentation.
            You're a 70 iq moron. Maybe you'd feel more comfortable on Facebook.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Furthermore, "maybe more fat availability" leads to the CICO mindset, whereas understanding the different fatty acid chains leads to the understanding that one causes metabolic disfunction.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/y67CEvs.jpeg

        >one thing go up and other thing go ip
        Way to out your 70 iq. You can draw a correlation between any two random things.

        The average moron really is helpless

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Fatties are just lazy slobs with no impulse control.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      They're not necessarily lazy, but they do have no impulse control.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why do people believe that food regulations explain the difference in obesity between USA and EU?
    Because the people who believe this are either Yuropoors grasping at straws to feel superior or Amerifats looking to blame anyone but themselves.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's not just the food ofc.
    We walk a lot around here. Last job I would walk to and back ~15mins each.
    That's 30 mins of walking each day just for that.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I walk everywhere also, only drive my car about 3 times a month (thinking about getting rid of it, but its an old car that's not worth anything and insurance is cheap so not much point).

      But I'm probably in a pretty tiny minority of Americans. Honestly, I think just walking merely 4 km a day doing your daily activities makes a huge difference for your health. Humans are meant to walk.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I've seen some pretty damning statistics for the US when it comes to that.
        Half my senpai...senpai, is in the Staates (is that filter still a thing? Test!)

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Well. f_am still filters apparently.
          Hasn't it been like decades?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            famine is still a bad thing, and people who say the unfiltered word irl deserve to experience an unending famine

  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Americans are fat because they are stupid. Black folk and beaners are fat and dumb

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >go to europe
    >start exercising more (something you can freely do in any country)
    >start eating less (Something you can freely do in any country)
    >omg i'm losing weight
    >it must be the US fault that I didn't
    I refuse to believe these people are real. His two biggest complaints, car-centric lifestyle and high calorie foods, are both things you can do in Europe if you really choose to. Also fricking lmao at blaming cars. There are at least 16 hours in your day. Even if you work a full time job there's no fricking way you're wasting the other 8 in a car. This dude is just lazy as frick.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The point is people would be healthier if they commuted by walking than commuting by car.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >start exercising more
      >start eating less
      But why did amount increase when he got to Europe?

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >live in america
    >live a sedentary, car-centric lifestyle for the past 6 years
    >dont eat particularly well
    >17.2 bmi
    so you're telling me i've actually been in europe this entire time?!

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't you ask your homosexual friends on twitter? Frick off.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I don't tweet. I only take screenshots and post them on Culinaly

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Americans can't comprehend the correlation between serving sizes and how many calories you eat
    Also when you're in europe people tend to walk a lot more because they're in the big cities where most things downtown are within walking distance so they burn more calories without even realizing.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Also when you're in europe people tend to walk a lot more
      Sure they walk more but even if on average they walk say 5,000 more steps a day that is still only like 300 calories. Europeans just tend to eat far less calories than Americans. They're portion sizes are far more appropriate. And their diet is better balanced.

  26. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >eating rice is as bad as eating froot loops
    Holy shit ketotards should be permabanned

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Ohh anon. You really should research things before you spout off with false confidence. All that is still needed is for you to go blind and frick your mother and you will be the online equivalent of a Greek Tragedy.

  27. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the real question mark is japan. the japanese constantly scarf fried food, carbs, and are notoriously heavy drinkers yet they have a shockingly low obesity rate for a G7 nation

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Japanese also have better discipline and self-control than the average westerner, especially Americans. Plus there is something to cultural momentum. If everyone around you doesn't over eat then you are more likely to not as well. Things like obesity and even Divorce tend to have social contagion effects.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's called eating small portions and walking everywhere

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No it's portion control and walking. The average Euro knows not to over indulge and walks places, while Americans eat everything in front of them because boomers conditioned their kids to clear their plate because "there's hungry kids in Africa". Americans also live a sedentary life. Driving everywhere you could argue has to do with how American cities/suburbs are designed, but you can overcome that easily if you give two shits about your health.

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    maybe natural real food is cheaper here, I dunno

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >absolutely 0 evidence
    can't be any evidence if you hide it

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >twitter screencap
    >it's some numale who thinks that having private transport and being able to drive long distances is the cause of fatties

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its not the cause of obesity, but it is the cause of the disparity in obesity between USA and Europe.

      Of course, obesity in Europe is also high. The main driving factor for obesity would be sedentary life style and people choosing to eat high calorie low nutrition food, which happens in Europe too, but people at least commute by walking more often.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Its not the cause of obesity, but it is the cause of the disparity in obesity between USA and Europe.
        It is a contributing factor, but the main cause is just that Americans eat more than Europeans. If someone walks an extra 5000 steps a day that is about 300 calories. Someone who eat 2300 calories chronically everyday instead of 2,000 won't be obese they will be overweight. But Americans are eating like 2800, 3,000 plus a day. A lot of this is just Americans are wealthier than Europeans. The Median income in America in 2022 was $37,500 the Median income in the EU in 2022 was around 26,000 Euros, which is about $28,000. Also a lot of food is more expensive in the EU versus America. As the EU and other coutnries increase in income and wealth their obesity rates will likely rise as well.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    People will blame literally everything under the sun before saying that them whaling down chips and soda/juice all day is why they’re a flabby lardass. Eat around 2000 calories a day of actual food thats not junk slop and do some jumping jacks and push ups throughout the week, just doing that you will guarantee lose weight.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >ITT: organic chemistry discussed by high school dropouts that probably think oxidization requires oxygen

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      ketoschizos have a compulsive need to shit up every thread with their autism

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    WOW..those frickers can't even write 2 sentences without LYING.
    >If you’re comparing calories, the two main types of dietary sugars — fructose and glucose — are exactly the same. (Sucrose, or table sugar, is a combination of fructose and glucose.) What makes fructose more harmful is the way the body metabolizes it.
    >Are EXACTLY THE SAME

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the BF%s in the OP are healthy for women, with the Euro one kind of too low and risking fertility (but no doubt, they would still be good-looking), but if those are mens BF%s then jeez...

    my theory is that Europe has a lot to see in such a small continent and more enjoyable to walk around on a daily basis. *trying my best to hold my tongue about the rapey and stabby migrants*
    U.S. cities are mostly concrete jungles full of garbage and billboards and undesirables and far less beauty architecturally, of course you want to get around by car to shield yourself from the bullshit and spend less time outside.
    I think places in the U.S. that have more woodsy areas and nice suburban neighbourhoods and an outdoorsy culture, have a higher amount of healthy people. Take Colorado for example. Places like Maine or Vermont, I imagine too.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A sound and reasonable conjecture, anon.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Its true. People really overlook how beneficial even just a little bit of walking can be. Even if you're only burning another 100-200 calories in a day, that adds up over time. The reverse does as well, lots of studies have shown how just a single coke a day can singlehandedly explain obesity rates. If you're eating more than you're burning off it will slowly accumulate over time. If you eat the same amount you always do, but walk more, it's an improvement.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Exercise has very little to do with weight loss. The estimations on actual caloric loss during exercise vary from 20%-30%: if you walk a mile most calculators will tell you that you burned 100 calories (give or take, it'll be close), but your "actual calorie use" will be about 25. Food intake has a MUCH greater impact on weight than exercise. It is very good for you, you're right, but you won't lose much weight from exercise.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yes but this neglects the building of lean muscle mass--which in turn burns MOAR calories.
          We've been fed simplistic food advice from ((SOurces)) all our lives..It's time we stepped up and looked deeper for ourselves.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Trips aside, again, you're not wrong, but the whole "more muscle means you burn more calories" thing is something that people who are just starting to try to lose weight say. Gaining muscle isn't as easy as most guys think.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Gaining muscle isn't as easy as most guys think.
              If someone has done nothing for many years then in the beginning they will add muscle mass quickly, but that will plateau within a couple months maybe just a matter of weeks. Then it will be a very slow process.

  36. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's called burden of proof. Burden of proof always lies on the new thesis, never the old one. Europens have the insufferable habit of preferring food that's been safe, sane and healthy for 30k years over [insert USA Fad here] unless the fad's been proven to be an improvement. So far 0 (zero) USA fads have shown to benefit public health, only corporate wealth. They get kicked out along with EU (Right Wing) legislators who vote for this horseshit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe EU should ban ultra-processed food (actually would make a difference) rather than just making them change a food coloring (makes little to no difference)

  37. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >no x-axis
    what's the time frame on this shitpost?

  38. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    It's because in europooristan food costs 3x as much so they eat a lot less than Americans do. They've been telling us this for decades, talking about how absurdly huge portion sizes are in the US.
    In the US you can eat 1500 calories' worth of carbs and sugar for only $5.

  39. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >everyone avoiding the elephant in the room
    It's black people and hispanics. Remove them from the data and compare white Americans to white Europeans, and the difference in obesity is negligible. Nonwhites are dragging the US data downwards, just like they do in every other statistic. Crime, poverty, scholastic achievement, etc.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >americans are fat
      yeah we know

  40. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >there is no chemical difference
    Completely wrong. Glucose and fructose are completely different chemicals, and and sucrose is not the same thing as a syrup where the glucose and sucrose are floating around separately.
    In addition, HFCS has potentially 4-5 the labeled calories or contaminated with mercury etc. from processes the profiteers claim are no longer in widespread use.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >youtube link
      If it was real, someone would bother to write it down. You might as well be quoting a tiktok.
      >HFCS has potentially 4-5 the labeled calories or contaminated with mercury etc.
      What? It has 4-5x as many calories as it should (which is an insane claim) OR it has mercury in it? You're saying that like those two claims are interchangeable or derived from the same source.
      >Glucose and fructose are completely different chemicals, and and sucrose is not the same thing as a syrup where the glucose and sucrose are floating around separately.
      Potentially interesting, but explain why.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Idiot. Watch the video or read the studies in the description.
        Yes these are some insane results, and your industry is not going to fund more studies to uncover whatever other nasty secrets lie beyond.
        >explain why
        If you don't understand the difference between glucose and sucrose, you need to do more research, it's basic biology.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Idiot, think about it. Calories are labeled according to laws, and all you need to do is check out Culinaly to see that there are guys that weigh literally every scrap of food that they ingest. There are hundreds of thousands of people just in the US trying desperately to prove the labels wrong (like you), you think some schmuck on YouTube is gonna be the first, and then no one else is going to back it up, to the point that it's all over the news, and then HFCS will end up off the market? You think that a 10% swing in fructose vs sucrose is going to up the calories by a factor of 5? Right... It's totally not (You) that's the idiot, it's a government cover up and you're actually the only one that knows the truth. Keep telling yourself that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nutrition labels are not an accurate representation of what your body absorbs and how it is utilized. Next you are going to say it doesn't matter whether you eat fat or carbs because it's calories in calories out.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No, I'm mostly in agreement, though I'm thinking that if the difference in the label and the absorption was significant enough to be a major difference, there would be an outcry and a major overhaul in the "calories per serving" system would follow.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              It's not perfect, but it doesn't matter as far as weight gain/loss goes because the body doesn't absorb 100% of it and no one cares about a difference of a dozen calories. We're already innacurate by not licking clean every single pan, pot, plate, utensiles, etc.
              Now for health that can be more of an issue since a lot of the labeled vitamins and minerals might not be absorbed, leading to deficiencies.

  41. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's walking, unironically. If you walk 3 extra miles a day (really not much), that's ~300 extra calories burned. You walk those extra 3 miles 300 days out of the year, you're burning 90000 extra calories in a year. That's 25 fricking pounds, every single year.
    Obviously you'll eat some or even most of that back, but over a lifetime it adds up.

    Also, the ease of picking up fresh ingredients. In most European cities, you can stop by the store on your walk home. It's easy and convenient to just grab the ingredients you need to cook dinner for that night.
    In most American cities, you have to plan your entire week's worth of meals. Unless, of course, you want to be driving 20 minutes to the grocery store and 20 minutes back (or more) multiple times a week. This is a lot more work than just grabbing what you need when you need it, and so people opt for frozen shit, fast food, and other easily available sloppa.

  42. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We should encourage people to stop being sedentary junkfood-eaters AND demand better food standards.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      no goy, its purely the fat people's fault for being fat. you dont understand goy, the moment you accept responsibility for something then you legally open yourself up to liability. we cant ever admit we were wrong or intentionally decieving you because of the system of legal pitfalls we created to ruin our competition. so take the L goy, its your fault for being a fat new born baby. the fact that you stayed fat your whole life because its all you knew and were trying to lose weight based on incorrect information doesnt matter because now, as an adult ,you must take responsibility for yourself..... so the rest of the industry doesnt. its for the greater good, accept the lie.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        considering the 'food standards' people are complaining about are all regarding ultra processed junk food (besides the muh scary hormones pseudo-science), I would indeed say it is the result of personal responsibility.

        It doesn't matter if Doritos has Red 40 or if packaged pasta sauce uses HFCS if you don't eat any of that slop anyways.

  43. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Everything matters at least a little. Bodies are complex systems. But just because something matters at least a little does not mean that its effects aren't negligible relative to other things.
    Anomalies and exceptions, especially when it comes to people with abnormal medical issues, should also not be generalized as if they apply to everyone.

    I know exactly why I've gained weight over the past 3 years. None of it can be blamed on the food. Even if some of the food didn't sate me, and thus I felt hungry enough to eat more, I was either cognizant of that possibility when I ate the initial food or at the very least I made the decision to eat more knowing that I had already eaten enough.
    I'm not obese despite sometimes pigging out when my insomnia gets the better than me because I counterbalance it by eating a little bit less when my will is stronger. If I want to lose weight all I have to do is stop myself from pigging out, or cut my potions to counterbalance even harder.

    If anything, the only argument that doesn't ultimately lean towards CICO is a somewhat metaphysical argument of if it should be possible for the body to naturally manage hunger signals subconsciously to control weight. But all I have to say to that is: Eat slower you fat fricks. The majority of the obese people I know suck their food down so fast, it's no wonder their body can't hit the breaks fast enough.

  44. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    corn syrup is not allowed in europe
    many types of fast food have strict regulations for how much of certain things they are allowed to contain, like soft drinks having 1/10th the caffeine in europa

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >corn syrup is not allowed in europe
      which doesn't matter since nutritionally cane and beet sugar is the same
      >soft drinks having 1/10th the caffeine in europa
      Yet things like Monster Energy still exists.

      These regulations don't matter. Obesity is also rising in Europe. Urban design is the actual reason Europe is less obese.

  45. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I rarely get out of bed except to use the bathroom or kitchen (I do not work and have basically no social life). I eat one large ~2000 calorie meal a day that I cook from a food kit. I am slightly underweight, live in the US, and have no health issues at all.
    Obesity is not "caused by" lifestyle. Lifestyle obviously impacts the amount of calories you should be eating, but isn't particularly more important than the composition of your diet or the existence of metabolically impactful health conditions. Pointing your finger at a single component of health and loudly proclaiming "this is the only thing that matters! this is what you should focus on!" does more damage to the public discourse around health than anything else.

  46. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's because it's easier to blame
    >THA GUBBBABMENT
    or
    >THA KORPURASHYNS
    Than acknowledge the society we have constructed for ourselves sucks dick and is ruining almost all of our lives
    I don't think your average American has even somewhat reckoned with the fact that in super car based, sprawly societies like ours humans are living in a way that is completely alien to our existence over the entire time span humans have existed on Earth
    We used to walk everywhere, not just as hunter gatherers 150k years ago, but just in Revolutionary America, common people all the way up to the likes of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison usually, not every once in a while but basically every day walked 10 to 15 miles
    They walked everywhere or they rode on horseback
    Americans who never walk anywhere farther than from their car to the gas station counter and back do not understand that our species evolved on Earth for roughly one million years to do the opposite in every way of how we live today
    People sit on their ass all day at work, they sit on their ass in their car and then they sit on their ass at home until its time for bed and the process repeats itself
    Im not going to say which one but I live in an incredibly unhealthy US city in the South
    Super high rates of diabetes, heart disease, etc
    Some of these people look like creatures from a horror movie
    Ass cheeks the size of teenage children, barely able to walk, 30-40 year olds on motorized scooters, just because of obesity
    The reason people blame others for their mistakes is because its easy
    Facing the truth and fixing the situation is hard so nothing changes

  47. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    it's a marketable position
    fat people have an inherent desire to not take responsibility for being fat, and espousing this opinion is a product they desire that they will exchange ad revenue for
    obesity rates in the UK are catching up to those in the US, despite the fact it upholds the EU's food standards

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *