What's the most unhealthy thing you like to cook?

crack

File: Scene-Metal-Obama.jpg (31KB, 469x528px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 469x528px

It's probably my lasagna lol
But damn it's tasty (if I do say so myself).

File: 1482359781549.jpg (87KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 640x426px

If i'm cooking it's usually the healthiest possible version of whatever it is. I'm not spending time on something that hurts my body. [spoiler]unless it's mashed potatoes because i load that shit with butter cream cheese and salt[/spoiler]

Come on this is /CK/, I know there are at least a hundred disgusting motherfuckers lurking

>>8562547
So why didn't you just answer with "mashed potatoes" you preachy fuck

I've started making curry, that adds a few hundred calories to my chicken and rice I guess.
It's almost impossible to make something extremely calorific if you are not dumping bags of sugar into it

>>8562524
That doesn't look particularly unhealthy, high calorie does't mean unhealthy.

>>8562524
eggs

I need at least 5 or 6 eggs with my breakfast and that alone boost my cholesterol to over 400% DIV

if you factor in the bacon, sausage, corned beef hash, toast, butter, and everything else, shit is getting out of hand

My fried rice probably has more oil than it should.

Popcorn and then I melt half stick of butter on top

7-11 nachos when I fill the container with 3 lbs of cheese and buy a separate bag of doritos to bring home

>>8562595
>he fell for the dietary cholesterol meme

>>8562605
just use the kernel seasons spray with salt flavor if you don't want it to be very unhealthy except for the sodium

>>8562566
I used to be a fat-ass, and I think it was mostly pasta that got me there. Sugar isn't great for you for other reasons, but you have to use a lot of it before it actually adds a lot of calories to a dish. Dem noodles though..

>Original question
I can't think of anything I make that I would describe as excessively bad. Not trying to be preachy like >>8562547, but I'm still kinda paranoid about putting the weight back on, so I'm fairly careful with my day to day diet. I still eat junk food occasionally, but it's usually made by other people.

I like to bake.


Cookies.

File: 13642840_169729173440056_2045821281_n.jpg (35KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 480x480px

Not really something I "make" per se, but every once in awhile I'll fry up a whole plate of pic and eat them as a meal with some sour cream.

>>8562524
Baklava. The sheer amount of sugar, honey, and corn syrup is staggering.

Every time I make brownies I have no fucking self control and eat the entire pan in one sitting.

Especially if they have dark chocolate.

File: anal beads.jpg (117KB, 1358x764px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1358x764px

>>8562524
Depends on how much "cooking" is involved.

My guilty pleasure is queso blanco easy melt (HEB's Velveeta brand) melted with hot Rotel and some chili powder and cumin.

Serve aformentioned chile con queso with Calidad tortilla chips.

If we're talking actual cooking, probably a jalapeno and cheese stuffed bacon-wrapped pork loin. I usually serve this with loaded mashed potatoes made with plenty of butter, cheese, green onion, bacon fat, and spices.

melted cheese with chorizo. the greasier the better.

File: balooney.jpg (167KB, 728x409px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 728x409px

Don't know about about cooking but I LOVE myself the cheapest deli meat I can find in a store every now and again.

probably vegetable oil. pure unhealthy fat. plastic bottle. probably something to that whole plastic seeping into the oil meme. no monounsaturated, pure saturated, etc

>>8562524
cheesecake

>>8562791
>vegetable oil
>pure saturated

You just went full retard

Deep fried everything.
Fat pancake stacks
Bacon, ham, eggs, fried toast, machaca
Homemade milkshakes
Homemade doughnuts
alla Genovese
Cakes
Brownies
Fudge
Caramels
Velveeta cheesy shells

how the fuck am i 17 BMI

>>8562620
>a contrarian pseudoscience soccer mom blog said it's bullshit so it must be true

>>8562919
>unironically being the soccer mom

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2015/03/02/us-guidelines-dietary-cholesterol-limits.aspx

>>8562933
>Mercola.com

Killed any chance of your argument being taken seriously and I was on your side. Don't use kook sources trying to shill you """"herbal"""" supplements, anon.

>>8562933
>mercola
Can't tell whether you are trolling or legitimately retarded, but just looking at the url the quack is probably referring to the draft report that they got sued over for having egg industry employees on the committee

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/01/08/doctors-call-usda-a-shill-for-the-egg-industry.htm

The final published report now says this

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-1/a-closer-look-inside-healthy-eating-patterns/

>As recommended by the IOM,[24] individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern.

>Strong evidence from mostly prospective cohort studies but also randomized controlled trials has shown that eating patterns that include lower intake of dietary cholesterol are associated with reduced risk of CVD, and moderate evidence indicates that these eating patterns are associated with reduced risk of obesity.

>>8562935
>>8562958
This is an exact quote from healthcare.gov this guy linked

>Adequate evidence is not available for a quantitative limit for dietary cholesterol specific to the Dietary Guidelines.

So again, what's your point exactly?

>>8562958
Nice out of context quoting which leaves out this little nugget.

>The Key Recommendation from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines to limit consumption of dietary cholesterol to 300 mg per day is not included in the 2015 edition

Also, that citation quotes a guide published in 2002. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12449285 which in itself hasn't been updated to match modern cohort studies. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22037012
http://www.openaccessjournals.com/articles/dietary-cholesterol-and-diabetes-what-do-we-know-about-this-relationship.pdf
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/103/3/895.short

>>8562976
>legitimately shilling for Mercola

How much did they pay you? Be honest, anon.

>>8562976
What is your point? A threshold for risk cannot be determined, so the recommendation is "as low as possible"

>>8562989
Translation: We tried to establish a limit and got BTFOed by science, h-here let me just quote a guide from 2002 and dance around the issue instead of offering definitive statements.

American nutritional science boards are a fucking joke.

>>8562982
>which in itself hasn't been updated to match modern cohort studies
How would these change anything? They're low quality evidence and don't account for substitution effects, much like the pro-saturated fat ones. That Finnish cohort for example does not even appear to account for cholesterol-lowering medications.

>>8562997
The IOM report they cite sure makes it look like some no-threshold relationship

>There is much evidence to indicate a positive linear trend between cholesterol intake and low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). A Tolerable Upper Intake Level is not set for cholesterol because any incremental increase in cholesterol intake increases CHD risk.

Sounds more like you're just nitpicking without any better data to put forward

>>8562982
How exactly is my quote out of context? They are using old guidelines as the proof becomes more substantiated that there is NO relation. That is exactly why it is not put in the 2015 guide.

Do you look at old guides on how tobacco is actually good for you and believe that? Science changes my dude, there is nothing wrong with being incorrect about something.

>>8562989
Again, my point is there is no relation as the sciences become clearer by the study which is why they cannot say for a FACT about having a limit on cholesterol because it would be a blatant lie.

>>8562524
Cheap ramen with added butter and hotsauce. Like 700 calories, so much fuckin fat, no protein.

>>8563052
>Again, my point is there is no relation as the sciences become clearer by the study
What study?

>which is why they cannot say for a FACT about having a limit on cholesterol because it would be a blatant lie.
Insufficient evidence for a quantitative dose-response does not mean a qualitative one hasn't been established. I'm unable to tell you the exact extent of brain damage smashing your head into your keyboard like a retard will generate, but we know that it isn't good for you.

>>8562524
pizza
I eat whole pizzas all the time like nothing

>>8562595

you're an idiot

>>8562524
Fudge