Is there a food worse than this for getting /fit/?
I just had about 50g of cheese on a sandwich (white bread) and my myfitnesspal basically shit itself with all the saturated fat.
>still believing dietary fat has something to do with bodyfat
>still believing the "saturated fat is bad" myth
White bread is 100x worse for you than any kind of cheese you'll find in a grocery store.
Fuck bread. Nutrient-barren fluff and a sure fire way to spike your blood glucose. Like, there's literally nothing to gain from eating it, except for fat. Fucking pointless.
Shame it's a one-way ticket to Flavortown. Bread, you delicious bastard.
>he doesn't eat home baked whole grain spelt bread with oats on top in moderation.
>all protein and flavour
There are so many god-tier foods you Murricans miss out on.
There are studies coming out which show that full fat cheeses are protective against metabolic syndrome. They're also more nutritious, replete in fat soluble vitamins when compared to lower fat cheeses. These same studies have shown that low fat and fat free dairy do NOT confer protections against metabolic syndrome.
Eat your full fat dairy and enjoy it. It isn't 1992. Saturated fat was never bad for you.
Not him but:
"There are studies coming out..." is not something I'd wager my health on.
My advice is:
>base your diet on what your great grandparents ate (except if you're Irish lol)
>about 0.7g/lb protein
>everything else in moderation
>don't eat the same stuff every day, or every week
Cheese is pretty calorie dense, yeah...but any source of fat is going to be. Egg yolks are pretty fucked.
Doesn't mean they're unhealthy...it just means it'll throw off your macros.
unsaturated fats are very important, as partially essential (the body can only produce some unsaturated fats, not all of them). You should make sure that at least a third of all fats you consume are unsaturated (which is not really hard).
You should generally avoid transfats.
You need quality cheese like this, don't get the cheap stuff is all
>It just means you have to eat less to be satisfied.
yeah, fat plays a role in satiety...but it's a lot easier to blow your daily calories out of the water by eating fatty foods than it is by eating protein or carb rich foods.
9 kcal per gram, bro. it's just math.
cheese triggers opioid receptors
It depends on the cheese, goats cheese has a higher protein/fat ratio than cheddars, knob cheese and human smegma has the highest ratio naturally and science is still unsure what american cheeze even contains.
>There’s a lot of conflicting information about saturated fats. Should I eat them or not?
>The American Heart Association recommends limiting saturated fats – which are found in butter, cheese, red meat and other animal-based foods. Decades of sound science has proven it can raise your “bad” cholesterol and put you at higher risk for heart disease
>Significant science on the subject came out as recently in November. That’s when the American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology issued new diet and lifestyle guidelines that recommended limiting saturated fat to 5-6 percent of total calories. The guidelines were developed by some of the nation’s top scientists, who for five years studied existing research to help healthcare professionals treat their patients.
>When you hear about the latest “diet of the day” or a new or odd-sounding theory about food, consider the source.
Too many people on /fit/ have a HAES mentality about saturated fats. They'll google "saturated fat is good for you" and gobble up blog posts that pander to them and claim that professional health institutes are all involved in a conspiracy to hide the truth.
Blog posts that cite this exact meta-analysis and pretend that it's a summary of all the evidence on saturated fat, and that it changes everything we thought we knew.
In reality the paper hardly covers anything and was heavily criticized when it came out
>It is well established that saturated fat intake is associated with increased concentration of serum cholesterol (4), and that serum cholesterol concentrations are associated with CHD and CVD (5). Therefore, serum cholesterol concentrations lie on the causal chain between saturated fat intake and CHD and CVD and to adjust for serum cholesterol concentrations in a meta-analysis will obscure the effect of saturated fat intake on these health outcomes. Yet 7 of the 16 studies included in the meta-analysis of CHD events, and 4 of the 8 studies included in the meta-analysis of stroke events, were adjusted for serum cholesterol concentrations. These studies accounted for nearly half of all CHD and CVD events included in the meta-analyses (see Table 1). Adjustment for serum cholesterol concentrations will inevitably bias the estimates of effect of saturated fat intake toward the null hypothesis.
Here's a set of videos that breakdown most of the studies involved in the meta-analysis
The study only exists because the National Dairy Council paid for it to be made, and one of the authors (Ronald Krauss) also takes money from the Cattlemen's Beef Association and the Atkins Foundation.
You gotta go for that grey cheese, it's literally just protein and tastes awsome!
>i have zero reading comprehension: the post
the "heavily criticizing" articles you posted simply supply unexplored paths not taken and questions not answered
they don't necessarily disagree with the study's findings
go shill your low fat vegan lifestyle somewhere else c u c k
>the "heavily criticizing" articles you posted simply supply unexplored paths not taken and questions not answered
>they don't necessarily disagree with the study's findings
Ahahahahahahaha, absolutely not. Maybe your idea of disagreement would be to reply with "get fucked, kuck faggots" but that's not how scientists talk to each other. They point out huge flaws in the study's methodology and bring up all the other evidence that links saturated fat to heart disease that the authors didn't consider, which also led to some of those flaws (not considering in their analysis thats saturated fats raise cholesterol and that adjusting the data for cholesterol concentrations would fuck up the associations) even though it's simple stuff that anyone doing this kind of analysis should have already been aware of.
Touched on recently by Harvard in this article that also quotes Frank Hu who was one of the authors of the meta-analysis you posted
>People who replace saturated fat (mainly found in meats and dairy foods) in their diets with refined carbohydrates do not lower their risk of heart disease, according to a new study led by researchers at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. On the other hand, those who replace saturated fats with unsaturated fats (found in vegetable oils and nuts) or whole grains lower their heart disease risk.
>“Our research does not exonerate saturated fat,” said Hu. “In terms of heart disease risk, saturated fat and refined carbohydrates appear to be similarly unhealthful.”
Even the author of that study doesn't agree with the way people are using it say saturated fats are fine.
>being so buttblasted about the existence of an ethic-ruled diet you don't follow you have to bring up the subject everytime you antagonize something
just become vegan, bro. it won't hurt you.
I am capable of having morals and standing for them. Animals are not.
Wild animals do what they have to do to survive, that's their morals, and on their circumstance, it's correct one.
It's not the actions themselves that are wrong, it's the circumstance.
The two circumstances are very different and beyond 'comparison'.
Today, the only reason humans kill animals is lust. It's no longer a need. To kill under that circumstance is not correct.
An animal kills to eat or when threatened, it has no choice.
And you can trust a wild animal on that, I tell you.
Remembering, to chose against itself is not a choice. Nature punishes anything that carries that trait in its 'instinct'.
But one have to be really dumb to be unable to understand something so basic.
>Wild animals do what they have to do to survive, that's their morals
Do you know the difference between instincts and morals? Or do you use the two interchangeably to give off the illusion of stupidity?
>only reason humans kill animals is lust
Food, sport, pests, to protect human lives, clothing.
I am starting to think it isn't an illusion.
>kill under that circumstance is not correct.
Based on what? Your completely subjective morality but yet you speak in absolutes.
>Nature punishes anything that carries that trait in its 'instinct'.
Isn't your entire premise based upon humans superseding natural instinct?
>moral beings should rule themselves with correct morals
Yep, yep it is.