6 ms·
> the food tends to be highly processed and low in nutrients This type of food is - coincidentally - always extremely high in calories. But the relationship i
by brandonmenc 5y ago
> the food tends to be highly processed and low in nutrients
This type of food is - coincidentally - always extremely high in calories.
But the relationship is orthogonal. You can make processed non-nutritious food that is low in calories, and you can make healthy food that is high in calories. The former happens rarely.
- adsfasdfadsf222 5y agothis is wat I eat, high calory, cheap, and very nutritious: breakfast: 6 raw eggs lemon juice (1 lemon, squeezed) 378 calories in total, of which 227 are fat and 144 protein. just enough sugar to help you digest it without bloat. awesome anabolic effects from the eggs. lunch: 6 raw eggs 200ml whole unhomogenised milk (raw if possible) similar effect but even more anabolic dinner: 200-300g of fresh steak (beef) cooked blue. can be replaced with lamb or other nutritious meats, but certainly not chicken breast which has nearly no nutritional value whatsoever compared to something like sardines
- jjeaff 5y agoWhere do you get your eggs? Or is the salmonella part of the weight control?
- raducu 5y agoI'm always quite scared of salmonella, so I tend to overcook everything with eggs in it, be it pudding or some pasta sauce -- mostly scared for my 3 year old daughter, I've lived on a subsistence farm and used A LOT of raw eggs and never got any issues. I wish there was a salmonella vaccine for humans and be done with it, because raw-ish eggs can be quite delicious.
- adsfasdfadsf222 5y agoi get them from a warehouse in asia where they're left in the yard in the sun all day in 30c heat. there is no problem whatsoever salmonella is a problem of industrial farming
- tekknik 5y agoa dozen eggs a day and you’re getting what, 6x daily cholesterol intake?
- cugs 5y agoDon't know how people are STILL concerned about egg intake. The science has been out for over a decade at this point. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-3010.2008.01735.x?casa_token=yigzOMnlujAAAAAA%3AK_vgM22OE6yrW-ORRzv9gds8LHLug6JwXBqpvaGUC9kPYb8yPy_HGZXK2-rveRu-ZBunDvICvHIA3Q https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-3010...
- tekknik 5y agoProbably because this article: 1) Doesn’t say it has no effect, it has “clinically insignificant especially when compared to saturated fat”. Not the same as no effect. 2) “ However, in the minds of the public, cholesterol in the diet, specifically from eggs, continues to be viewed with suspicion and that view is still reflected in the advice of some professionals.” Professionals are still telling people to reduce cholesterol intake when your blood results show high cholesterol. How many people do you think spend every waking hour scouring for new health articles? This is also just one study, maybe let’s not invalidate the many years of people reducing cholesterol intake to reduce cholesterol so quickly?