I don't get the picture. Whole potato is complex carb but somehow when you peel, cut and fry it, it becomes a simple carb? Who the frick makes these infographics.
yeah but that's a personal opinions that doesn't do anything to challenge Anon's point. Eating oven baked fries is exactly the same as eating a potato, they're even better if you actually leave the skin.
Just put a little bit of oil. Just enough to coat the fires and leave a thin layer on the tray. An oil with higher saturated fat levels is better, like avocado oil. Also, parboil your fries with a tablespoon of vinegar for about 8 minutes before baking. They will be much better.
I am talking specifically about the potato/fries example. I take the potato and deep fry it in beef tallow. How does it influence the structure of carbohydrates in the potato compared to let's say baked potato of boiled potato. The added fat is out of the question since I am talking about the carbohydrates.
This. Anyone who defends it is a moron. Bread and potatoes are still technically complex carbs doesn't matter if they are fried or refined or whatever. and fruit is simple carbs
the person who made this infographic might have thought about IG or something
okay so if pasta and bread are complex carbs THE FRICK DOES THE DISTINCTION MATTER TO US?
from all practical purposes GI is the only thing that matters
it's a chemical distinction that low-carbers thought was important for some reason. but it isn't really. boiled potatoes even though they are starch and tehrefore complex are almost like pure glucose the moment they get into your stomach, and from that perspective are actually much worse than fries or chocolate
We can even go a step further. All carbs are just suger molecules strung together. The shorter the string, the faster it breaks down and spikes your blood sugar.
Unless you are an athlete or a literal chimp swinging around in trees all day, you aren't burning through your sugar reserves fast enough to need simple carbs.
It's npcs who have not the first idea what they are talking about. They don't care about actual biochemical and nutritional realities, but some quasi israeli/Islamic understanding of certain foods as "good/bad". These are the same idiots that believe pizza is an ultraprocessed food, despite agreeing that bread and cheese are each neolithic tier regular processed food.
And if some American now replies to me about what he considers pizza, he should just hang himself.
>i dont get how donuts are a simple carb, its made out of wheats and deepfried in seed oil while sugar glazings are on top
Thats how moronic you sound
moron.
Because the skin has been removed and because its been fried in troony-oil...
The skin isn't the only container of the complex carbs.
Because you’ve deep fried it in oil and added moron amounts of calories. Then you turn around and dip it in sugar sauce.
[...]
The problems with the typical burger meal is not the burger itself, but the soda and the fries.
>Because you’ve deep fried it in oil and added moron amounts of calories. Then you turn around and dip it in sugar sauce.
Adding oil doesn't destroy the complex carb nature of the potato.
There’s no such thing as a complex carb. It’s a ketard delusion. The reason why “processed foods” are bad for you is because they add in shitloads of oil and/or sugar, often because doing so increases the longevity of the food. There’s a reason why twinkies last forever.
>Pizza is healthy!
You have to be Italian nobody else is in so much denial about food.
>cheese >’maters >olive oil >flour
What’s bad here again?
>Carbs are bad. CICO? That's a total meme. You can eat 10000kcal per day and lose weight easily with a keto diet. But 2500kcal per day with any carbs at all will make you fat. Woah, look at the time, it's powershitting hour! I am a real man who weighs 400 pounds, not like those athletic twinks!
>Oh, the method to becoming a billionaire? Just make billions more than you spend
-CICO mentality
Human body is way too complex for CICO to be useful guidance for weight loss. Only people I know who promote CICO are the types of dudes who couldn't gain a pound of fat if they wanted to. These dudes love to act like experts on weight loss. They all have a story about a time where they lost 2 lbs in their sleep. Literally the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.
Nutrition and understanding how different foods effect your body is the only real method to lose more than 40 lbs and maintain that.
This image pisses me the frick off. >Carbs are short for "carbohydrates". Carbs are carbon molecules with a hydrated backbone. Carbs are used to describe polysaccharides. Polysaccharides are strings of monosaccharides. Monosaccharides are basic, simple sugars. Carbs contain many simple sugars that the body must break down in order to use first. >Simple sugars are termed "sugars" in nutrition labels and are appended to carbs. Carbs are basically long sugar molecules. Simple sugars are readily taken in by the body and turned to glucose for energy. >A "simple sugar" is a single unit of sugar. A "complex sugar" is a disaccharide, or a sugar with two sugar molecules stuck together. >A carb has no complex nor simple denotation by the fact it is a polysaccharide, a long chain of sugars that must be broken down. >There's no fricking simple or complex carb you fricking reprobate.
No, frick you. The types of starch don't fricking matter, they're still carbs.
Amylopectin is a branching, cascading chain of glucose molecules. Amylose is a relatively well organized chain of glucose molecules. They break down the same fricking way.
yes, simple carb = sugar. but there are no real rules so sometimes its described wrong.
also its funny how sugar is bad but carbs are good, seems dumb, its all sugar.
Meanwhile he windsurfs at almost 80 and started a clinic that helped thousands while people like Shawn baker sell supplements and yell "haha meat good" to pump up his own ego
The complex carbs vs simple carbs dichotomy is food-pyramid-tier moronation. Honey contains "simple carbs" yet it's way better for you than whole wheat pasta. Also, fruits are simple carbs (AKA sugar), not complex carbs (aka starch).
The amount you'd have to eat for there to be any positive effects from the antioxidants is so large that you'd turn into a diabetic or die long before you were able to eat that much honey.
It's the same type of moronation that has alcoholics and mom science gays thinking that a glass of red wine every day is good for you because of the antioxidants in it. Meanwhile the actual antioxidant content is so fricking low that they would need to consume about 150 glasses of red wine for there to be any noticable effects, and by that point they're long dead from alcohol poisoning
stupidity is natures way of weeding out the idiots. let it happen. care for yourself, dont waste time trying to alter others shit diets, even if they listen they will never thank your or say you helped. human nature.
This image is basically >Food fat people like to overeat on >Less tasty food
Theyre all the same.
The worst thing here is the sneed oil that cooked the fries and the donut
CICO schizos will never acknowledge that if you ate a calorie restricted diet devoid of sugar and carbohydrates you would lose weight faster than the same amount of calories but included carbs and sugar.
Alright let me explain this for you morons in simple terms so you can understand it. It takes different amounts of time for your body to digest different forms of food. If you have a form of food that is easily digestible like sugar and you eat more of it than your body currently needs for its current energy usage, then that energy gets stored as fat. Slower to digest foods means slow-release of energy which is used to run your body while easy to digest foods means quick release of energy which is stored in fat.
Calories in, calories out is still a perfectly valid concept, if you put on fat by eating a bunch of sugar and then fast, your body will burn the fat you stored to supply itself with energy. The problem though is hunger which is mostly reliant upon blood sugar levels. If you eat a bunch of sugar, then once your body is done storing it as fat, your blood sugar levels start to drop and you get hungry again. If you are still digesting your food though your blood sugar will remain higher longer and you won't get hungry meaning the person who eats foods that are "slow release" will end up eating fewer overall calories. Fewer calories in with same amount out =weight loss.
So essentially it is extremely important to target foods that your body digests more slowly. Just look up glycemic index of foods for a rough guide.
If simple carbs are bad because high in sugar and low in fiber, then why don't 1kg sugar packets just get suplemented with like 100-200g fiber from psyllium husk or some shit so everything we eat doesnt cause diabetes anymore
I don't get the picture. Whole potato is complex carb but somehow when you peel, cut and fry it, it becomes a simple carb? Who the frick makes these infographics.
>i dont get how donuts are a simple carb, its made out of wheats and deepfried in seed oil while sugar glazings are on top
Thats how moronic you sound
You can make fries in the oven, without adding any oil. How is that any more unhealthy than a baked potato?
Tastes like shit
yeah but that's a personal opinions that doesn't do anything to challenge Anon's point. Eating oven baked fries is exactly the same as eating a potato, they're even better if you actually leave the skin.
no oil air fryer fries taste fine to me
Just put a little bit of oil. Just enough to coat the fires and leave a thin layer on the tray. An oil with higher saturated fat levels is better, like avocado oil. Also, parboil your fries with a tablespoon of vinegar for about 8 minutes before baking. They will be much better.
We do that. Sometimes I like paprika on them the old lady likes rosemary.
I am talking specifically about the potato/fries example. I take the potato and deep fry it in beef tallow. How does it influence the structure of carbohydrates in the potato compared to let's say baked potato of boiled potato. The added fat is out of the question since I am talking about the carbohydrates.
Cooking does break down complex molecule chains.
Been consuming potatoes wrong my whole life. Gonna start eating them raw now.
Enjoy crapping your brains out. Dont do it man. Do NOT.
Unfortunately/fortunately, polymerization of simple sugars into complex sugars like Carmel is also achieved by cooking.
Because the skin has been removed and because its been fried in troony-oil...
Just like how pic related works
Eating bread all the time is pleb behavior
Anyone who drinks soda regularly is a moron too.
I totally agree, but the point is still that the so call balanced meal according to normies becomes junk food when you pile it up.
It’s an issue of processed vs unprocessed.
Make your own burgers at home with fresh ingredients and it is 10x healthier for you.
Nobody asked
Who has bread and juice with their supper?
You would be surprised. People think bread and juice are healthy because they are plant based.
Because you’ve deep fried it in oil and added moron amounts of calories. Then you turn around and dip it in sugar sauce.
The problems with the typical burger meal is not the burger itself, but the soda and the fries.
This. Anyone who defends it is a moron. Bread and potatoes are still technically complex carbs doesn't matter if they are fried or refined or whatever. and fruit is simple carbs
the person who made this infographic might have thought about IG or something
okay so if pasta and bread are complex carbs THE FRICK DOES THE DISTINCTION MATTER TO US?
from all practical purposes GI is the only thing that matters
Gi doesn’t matter
Ciconbabyy
it's a chemical distinction that low-carbers thought was important for some reason. but it isn't really. boiled potatoes even though they are starch and tehrefore complex are almost like pure glucose the moment they get into your stomach, and from that perspective are actually much worse than fries or chocolate
The ones in the left are cheaper
Sugar = simple
Starch = complex
Some foods have both
We can even go a step further. All carbs are just suger molecules strung together. The shorter the string, the faster it breaks down and spikes your blood sugar.
Unless you are an athlete or a literal chimp swinging around in trees all day, you aren't burning through your sugar reserves fast enough to need simple carbs.
It's npcs who have not the first idea what they are talking about. They don't care about actual biochemical and nutritional realities, but some quasi israeli/Islamic understanding of certain foods as "good/bad". These are the same idiots that believe pizza is an ultraprocessed food, despite agreeing that bread and cheese are each neolithic tier regular processed food.
And if some American now replies to me about what he considers pizza, he should just hang himself.
moron.
The skin isn't the only container of the complex carbs.
>Because you’ve deep fried it in oil and added moron amounts of calories. Then you turn around and dip it in sugar sauce.
Adding oil doesn't destroy the complex carb nature of the potato.
>Pizza is healthy!
You have to be Italian nobody else is in so much denial about food.
There’s no such thing as a complex carb. It’s a ketard delusion. The reason why “processed foods” are bad for you is because they add in shitloads of oil and/or sugar, often because doing so increases the longevity of the food. There’s a reason why twinkies last forever.
>cheese
>’maters
>olive oil
>flour
What’s bad here again?
>What’s bad here again?
>cheese grease is bad
Use a paper towel homie, or eat a style of pizza with less cheese
>Carbs are bad. CICO? That's a total meme. You can eat 10000kcal per day and lose weight easily with a keto diet. But 2500kcal per day with any carbs at all will make you fat. Woah, look at the time, it's powershitting hour! I am a real man who weighs 400 pounds, not like those athletic twinks!
moxyte
who are you quoting?
CICO is fake
CICO is real.
CICO is real but keto makes the CO go up and the CI go down.
>Oh, the method to becoming a billionaire? Just make billions more than you spend
-CICO mentality
Human body is way too complex for CICO to be useful guidance for weight loss. Only people I know who promote CICO are the types of dudes who couldn't gain a pound of fat if they wanted to. These dudes love to act like experts on weight loss. They all have a story about a time where they lost 2 lbs in their sleep. Literally the epitome of Dunning-Kruger.
Nutrition and understanding how different foods effect your body is the only real method to lose more than 40 lbs and maintain that.
I literally lost 50 lbs since Christmas with cico lmaooo
Over half a year to lose 50lbs is kind of slow, anon.
This image pisses me the frick off.
>Carbs are short for "carbohydrates". Carbs are carbon molecules with a hydrated backbone. Carbs are used to describe polysaccharides. Polysaccharides are strings of monosaccharides. Monosaccharides are basic, simple sugars. Carbs contain many simple sugars that the body must break down in order to use first.
>Simple sugars are termed "sugars" in nutrition labels and are appended to carbs. Carbs are basically long sugar molecules. Simple sugars are readily taken in by the body and turned to glucose for energy.
>A "simple sugar" is a single unit of sugar. A "complex sugar" is a disaccharide, or a sugar with two sugar molecules stuck together.
>A carb has no complex nor simple denotation by the fact it is a polysaccharide, a long chain of sugars that must be broken down.
>There's no fricking simple or complex carb you fricking reprobate.
No, frick you. The types of starch don't fricking matter, they're still carbs.
Amylopectin is a branching, cascading chain of glucose molecules. Amylose is a relatively well organized chain of glucose molecules. They break down the same fricking way.
I kek'd. Have a (You).
Plus you're right. Who the frick thinks fruit would go in the complex carb section over fries.
yes, simple carb = sugar. but there are no real rules so sometimes its described wrong.
also its funny how sugar is bad but carbs are good, seems dumb, its all sugar.
like simple sugar bad but complex sugar good. how?? its the same molecule in the end, difference cant be that big
>muh corporate art
name one corporation in the picture, fricking moronic zoomer
we used to call shit in op clipart, moron
Big sugar
Why did they choose to use clipart of a battery?
I think that’s an energy drink
>still eating carbs
Ngmi. A real man survibes on nothing but butter.
This man is a genetic freak who can spontaneously regenerate his oxaloacetate stores.
>Current year
>Not being a cyborg
Ngmi
>Fruit is a complex carb
What are glyphosphates
This just looks like processed vs unprocessed food
gmo vs processed
>all the people saying to not eat carbs are fat
>all the people saying to not eat fat are slim and healthy
McDougall looks moments away from death with no muscle mass and looks like he is on the verge of forgetting his name.
>McDougall looks moments away from death with no muscle mass and looks like he is on the verge of forgetting his name.
enjoy that heart attack
not doing this again
>not doing this again
Do you ever get tired of doing this, Moxyte?
>Do you ever get tired of doing this, Moxyte?
Some of the worst mental illness I've ever seen in my life.
Show us your fave Jimmy Moore again. For old times' sake.
Why is he roiding for that?
Kys Moxyte
You have an eating disorder.
Meanwhile he windsurfs at almost 80 and started a clinic that helped thousands while people like Shawn baker sell supplements and yell "haha meat good" to pump up his own ego
I'm really addicted to medjool dates now but they're higher glycemic index than sugar. Are they goyslop?
Nature's candy. Having a few here and there is no harm unless you are nocarb shizo.
all modern fruit are designed for maximum sugar delivery. genetic abominations. just dont overeat
>they're higher glycemic index than sugar
Fricking rice has a higher glycemic index than sugar. Table sugar has surprisingly low gi.
>table sugar
ESL?
have them after your cardio sesh and it's
you do do cardio, right anon... ?
I have never seen anyone with a decent physique that doesn't eat carbs. Simple as
The complex carbs vs simple carbs dichotomy is food-pyramid-tier moronation. Honey contains "simple carbs" yet it's way better for you than whole wheat pasta. Also, fruits are simple carbs (AKA sugar), not complex carbs (aka starch).
>SUGAR IS HEALTHY WHEN IT COMES FROM LE BEE!!
Literally, yes
The amount you'd have to eat for there to be any positive effects from the antioxidants is so large that you'd turn into a diabetic or die long before you were able to eat that much honey.
It's the same type of moronation that has alcoholics and mom science gays thinking that a glass of red wine every day is good for you because of the antioxidants in it. Meanwhile the actual antioxidant content is so fricking low that they would need to consume about 150 glasses of red wine for there to be any noticable effects, and by that point they're long dead from alcohol poisoning
JUST
STOP
EATING
>Fruit
>Complex carbs
Just because you dont understand the terms doesn't mean its wrong
It's one half step above eating a spoon of sugar.
Nothing I said is wrong
>2983
>people don't understand anything and just agree with media personalities who also don't understand anything
stupidity is natures way of weeding out the idiots. let it happen. care for yourself, dont waste time trying to alter others shit diets, even if they listen they will never thank your or say you helped. human nature.
There isn't one single thing in this picture besides maybe the fruit that I would consider to be food.
its actually crazy how many food religions there are nowadays kek
>banana
>complex carbs
This image is basically
>Food fat people like to overeat on
>Less tasty food
Theyre all the same.
The worst thing here is the sneed oil that cooked the fries and the donut
CICO schizos will never acknowledge that if you ate a calorie restricted diet devoid of sugar and carbohydrates you would lose weight faster than the same amount of calories but included carbs and sugar.
That’s not true thoughbeit
it is true, but it's just extra water weight from not eating any carbs
Thermodynamics motherfricker, do you know it?
Alright let me explain this for you morons in simple terms so you can understand it. It takes different amounts of time for your body to digest different forms of food. If you have a form of food that is easily digestible like sugar and you eat more of it than your body currently needs for its current energy usage, then that energy gets stored as fat. Slower to digest foods means slow-release of energy which is used to run your body while easy to digest foods means quick release of energy which is stored in fat.
Calories in, calories out is still a perfectly valid concept, if you put on fat by eating a bunch of sugar and then fast, your body will burn the fat you stored to supply itself with energy. The problem though is hunger which is mostly reliant upon blood sugar levels. If you eat a bunch of sugar, then once your body is done storing it as fat, your blood sugar levels start to drop and you get hungry again. If you are still digesting your food though your blood sugar will remain higher longer and you won't get hungry meaning the person who eats foods that are "slow release" will end up eating fewer overall calories. Fewer calories in with same amount out =weight loss.
So essentially it is extremely important to target foods that your body digests more slowly. Just look up glycemic index of foods for a rough guide.
>you gotta confuse the muscle
If simple carbs are bad because high in sugar and low in fiber, then why don't 1kg sugar packets just get suplemented with like 100-200g fiber from psyllium husk or some shit so everything we eat doesnt cause diabetes anymore