>112 grams of filet mignon
>7 grams from fat
>24 grams of protein
>only 160 calories
>82 grams missing
where are the other 82 grams?
Is this right?
I feel like there should be at least 400 calories per 100 grams of meat.
Nutritional Information is so confusing
calorie counting is for weenies anyway
Anon...
Can you explain it?
You insert it in your mouth and swallow to achieve hydration
What?
My question is: where do the other 82 grams come from?
Water you moronic homosexual
It evaporates when you cook it
How should I count the calories then?
It's 112 grams after the evaporation?
If it doesn't evapore will it increase the calories?
No you fricking moron. You use the weight before cooking it to count calories. Evaporating the water won't change the amount of calories, but it will change the amount of calories per 100g (while also weighing less because of the water being gone). Makes sense no?
Does water have calories?
>counting calories
Lol. Lmao, even.
this ad is not lying
It is lying.
Post more redpills about powdered carbs please
Here's the video mentioned in that post:
And here's another video on the same subject:
Lots of redpills in there. Covers food structure, other forms of processing, cooking, and also food timing. Hormone response is explained in detail.
Don’t know what this study is, who performed it, how anything was measured or how it was done, but you homosexuals seem to think that cherry picking data proves your point when really it just makes you as moronic as the average vegan. Was this study ever reproduced? If not, it’s not even worth reading.
Energy toxicity is pretty much guaranteed to make you fat.
The reason “carnivores” and ketotards lose weight is because they’re eating more satiating food and subsequently less calories by virtue. I know this first hand from following a keto diet for over a year. I lost weight but didn’t realize I was eating under maintenance until I started counting.
On the contrary, there are thousands of reproducible human studies showing caloric restriction as viable means of lowering a1c, lipids, obesity, bg, etc…
There's a ton of converging data on this.
For example human studies where one group is given an unlimited calorie low-carb diet and the other group is given a restricted calorie low-fat diet. There's a surprising amount of these (~9). The unlimited calorie low-carb group wins every time.
This is strong evidence that the calorie dogma is wrong. Hormones cause obesity, not calories.
>unlimited calorie
This is a meaningless statement. Unless it’s measured and correlated, there’s nothing defining “unlimited”
Unlimited, in this case, could still mean the subjects were eating under their maintenance.
Ideally they would have still tracked and measured their food in secret to show that they are actually eating substantially more than the calorie restrictive group.
Unlimited means 'no limit'. They did not limit their calorie consumption.
Here's another study. Same results. Unlimited calorie diet has better outcomes than restricted calorie.
This aligns perfectly with the evidence in pic related:
lol. Read slowly.
Again “no limit” is meaningless because they could STILL be eating under maintenance while thinking they’re eating more. Fat and protein will always be more satiating. “No limit” can be “limited” unless it’s tracked.
Either there was a limit or not. In that study there was no limit for the low-carb group, aka unlimited.
Here's another unlimited calorie group getting better results than a restricted calorie group. There's a surprising number of these studies. All show the same thing: unlimited calorie low-carb results in greater weight loss.
Bro are you fricking moronic?
You’re not proving to me that they’re not eating less calories. You’re just saying it’s “unlimited” and guessing that these people are eating 5 sticks of butter and 4 steaks per day?
Just because they don’t have a limit, doesn’t mean they’re not limiting themselves. It’s not tracked so you don’t know what they’re consuming.
What aren’t you understanding?
Yes he's moronic but collectively we're all more moronic because he's shitting up 15 different threads with this garbage and we're all still responding to him.
Calories don't cause obesity. See:
Also here's a study where the low-carb group ate *more* calories. They lost more total body fat and 3x more abdominal fat.
Both groups restricted calories in this experiment, so you can’t really say that calories don’t cause weight gain. There are infinite amount of variables here l, including quality of food, amount of exercise, etc…
For instance the low fat group only had 15% of their calories come from protein. That’s like 55g of protein total. Comically low, in comparison to the VLCK group who were getting around 130g of protein.
I don’t understand the diet dogma, if it is indeed genetics and hormones, you would be more open to the fact that no two people would eat the same ratios of macros. Which is why the calorie approximation is king.
'Calorie approximation' has no utility. See:
You keep embarassing yourself. I suggest you actually read the pic I am linking you to.
Again, you fricking stunad, you’re approximating calories based on set macros. Not just calories. No ones telling you to eat half a pound of sugar to fulfill your calories (even though you absolutely would lose weight like this). You need to hit your protein requirement at the very least. Carb/fat split is arbitrary and just preference, as shown by thousands of studies.
The study you linked had magnitudes different protein intakes between the two groups. Bonk fricking study for morons like you to cherry pick. People this dumb should not be allowed to post here.
And I’m not doubting the efficacy. I’ve lost weight on keto. A substantial amount.
For me, not enough to alter my life so substantially, especially because my muscles didn’t blow up until I started introducing carbs again.
I like going to to eat and trying new things without being that annoying diet autist asking what they cooked their meat in, and if shit has breadcrumbs in it or whatever. It’s just annoying.
You have to be very subnormal to believe that
just look up calories in sugar
Calories matter but only as they relate to macronutrients. You will lose weight eating only sugar if you stay under your TDEE. But you will also feel like total shit and will be hungry all day.
IIFYM is a huge part of CICO, which you weirdos like you conveniently leave out when spamming these odd 1950s posters.
If you’re counting calories, you’re tracking macros.
This method works for literally every single body builder that has ever competed. Its old news, has always worked, and will always work as a means of losing weight
>How should I count the calories then?
Are you literally 50 IQ?
>It's 112 grams after the evaporation?
It's 112g as is
Meaning 112g of that raw meat have 7g fat and 24g protein and after you cook it, no matter what size/weight it ends up at, it will still have 7g fat and 24g protein
>where are the other 82 grams?
Most food are not PURE usable macronutrients in weight, and the raw meat as an example contains a lot of water
Protein is a type of chemical
Water is a specific chemical
24 grams of the meat are chemicals classified as protein
82 grams is water
24 is fat
Not sure if this is what you mean but you should know that : 1 gram of protein = 4 calories, 1g of fat = 9 calories, 1 gram of carbs = 4 calories. If you were to add up the calories for 27g of protein, 7g of fat and 0 carbs there are it would account for the entire caloric amount listed 160.
Finally an anon that has the correct answer. I tip my hat to you.
Here's how it works. In the US, the FDA allows for a 30% margin of error on all products. So food companies often purposely underreport the amount of calories the food has and overreport the amount of protein it has on their labels. So in practice, you can assume the calories in the food are about 130% of what is stated and the protein is only 70% of what is stated. They do that because protein is healthy whereas high calories are perceived to be not healthy.
>>82 grams missing
See
Side note why is the FDA so shit? They have it in writing that food companies can lie to you, they approved the AspireAssist, and they don't even pretend to regulate dietary supplements.
They hate you and want you dead
this would get a salient point across if OP had base level intellect.
It’s water weight anon. You sound like one of those homosexuals who break out a scale and weigh your 6oz steak, and get pissy with the waiter when its only 5oz.
Same with the morons that ask if they weight their rice before or after cooking it.
Like did you failed kindergarten?
That shit only absorbs water you fricking buffoon.
why are you buying filet in a bag like this? don't you have a farmer or a butcher near you?
Yeah anon why don't you live in 1954 before your neighborhood butcher was raped out of business by Sam Walton?
sorry your neighbors are morons who shop at Walmart but there's multiple butchers within two miles of my house.
because not every gram is a carb, fat, or protein, dumb b***h
so what it is?
I suspect you're trolling (well done if so, plenty of bites) but in case you really are sitting there breathing through your mouth getting sweaty about whether water is a carbohydrate or a protein;
> Food is made up of many different parts
> Not all of those parts are classified as fats/proteins/carbohydrates
> Along with those thing, food also contains minerals, vitamins, etc
> The weight of those things is fairly minimal, often measured in milligrams
> Food was once a living thing, and like all living things contains water
> Water is a chemical made up of two hydrogen molecules & one oxygen molecule
> Water has weight. This is what comprises the 'missing' part of your steak - hydrogen & oxygen.
> While Hydrogen and Oxygen do have a caloric value, it is not in a form which is bio-available, and so your body can't use it for energy.
edit: sorry, i dumbed there for a minute. I meant atoms, not molecules. A water molecule has three atoms: two hydrogen (H) atoms and one oxygen (O) atom.. Excuse me while I sit in the corner for a minute.
thank you for the comprehensive explanation
Not OP. Pick up this tenderloin the other day in the frozen section. It’s stuffed with cheese and shrimp, but somehow the macros are pretty damn good.
What’s the deal? This seems to good to be true.
You conveniently omitted the serving size.
It says 113g
Sounds about right. Pork is pretty protein heavy for the calories.
Dunno what proportion of that 113g is bacon and cheese though. Not a whole lot by the looks of it.
You have to be 18 or older to post here
>p*rk
Frick off hadji
It is haram and you will go to hell
you think nutrition facts are base on objective reality?
LOL
it's all made up
the nutrition label is smarter than you, just relax and don't overthink it.
If the only substance in the meat was protein and fat, you’d have a gelatinous goo.
The israelites stole it
No way you're legitimately this moronic right? (7x9)+(24x4)=159 and they round up.
OP it says 2 servings per containers, so its 320 calories and 48g of protein, which is very good. bon apetite
It's water & salt solution you moron. They pump meat full of it to upcharge you as it's all priced by weight.
Because that's how much it weighs RAW but the nutritional information is for when it's cooked