Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

1.4K

(post is archived)

[–] [Sticky] • 3 pts

FYI There's no need to delete and repost when you want to change your post's titles.

Just go inside your post and edit the title with the grey pencil next to it (left side - 5 minutes window)

[–] • 0 pt

Oh okay thanks, didn't know that.

[–] • 6 pts

You could lose weigh that way, but eating sugary shit would make you hungy all the time.

It would be best to eat good food (lots of meat) and limit crap foods to a minimum.

Exercises is also very important.

[–] • 4 pts (edited )

Edit: sauce: ^ some reading

I am no food expert but yes.

Calories is what matters. I remember seeing an argument and a guy posted many sources to studies all concluding that calorie source (sugar vs fat) doesnt matter when it comes to weight gain.

A nigger is a nigger. A calorie is a calorie.

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Actually was trying to find sources and 1st one I find is opposite of what I said: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15113737/

But that one says higher protein and lower sugar. More protein might lead to keeping more muscle thus quicker weight loss.

I think what I was thinking about what just fat vs sugar if protein intake is the same.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

What you eat governs if your body is burning fat for energy or carbohydrates. People live in the wilds of Alaska and are healthy and fit eating animal protein and lots of fat. Glen Villanueva "Life Below Zero" is a great example.

[–] • 0 pt

Lol nah even that is not correct, there's differences in niggers, some are fairly smart but rare, some can't dance, some are way too skinny...

[–] • 0 pt

No. All blacks are niggers. Period.

[–] • 1 pt

Pretty much, yeah.

I was in the middle of integration and was used like some kind of experimental pawn or something, back in the mid sixties. Gross.

[–] • 0 pt

nigger ≠ nigger

is sum nigger logic if you ask me 😉

[–] • 0 pt

Lol but seems to be correct, but it's outliers, the exceptions to the rule(s).

[–] • 0 pt

That's what they harp on here, but it's not true.

[–] • 2 pts

It's not quite that simple. A diet of empty calories with few nutrients will make it more difficult to burn the calories consumed. Not enough protein and muscle mass will be lost, lowering resting metabolism. Lack of vitamins and essential elements will also slow metabolism. Sugar is easily metabolized. High protein diet uses more energy to digest. Calories in calories out is valid when a relatively balanced diet is being discussed.

[–] • 1 pt

> Calories in calories out is valid when a relatively balanced diet is being discussed.

Exactly, from my 'research.'

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

And here we have somoene who completely ignores what calories out means. It includes what the metabolism does, and will do, might do and has to do with the food. But he conveniently ignores it to claim it's not so simple when it is quite literally that simple.

Stop ignroing what calories out entails. It entails all of what you say is complex, which isn't complex. It's just more than your physical activity that people stupidly think is the only way calories out should be taken.

Calories in calories out is valid when a relatively balanced diet is being discussed.

No. Again. Always and forever valid.

[–] • -1 pt (edited )

That'd not how calories are measured. A calorie is a unit of energy. How it is metabolized is not a factor in measurement. Dumb nigger.

[–] • 0 pt

When in that post did I state how a calorie is measure? Please screenshot and outline so I know. I ask because I didn't.

You are just angry because you're a fat fuck and want to (((HAES))) poal like was done with voat.

[–] • 2 pts

Calories in/out is a good guide BUT it hugely simplifies the complex metabolic processes that are involved when there's weight gain or loss. For example certain ethnic groups gain significantly more weight than their white counterparts when HFCS replaces regular sugar in their diet. Another example is when on a very low carb diet ie. ketosis where your calories come from is critical to the diet.

But if you're trying to lose weight the old fashion way by cutting daily caloric intake to 1200 calories then it pretty much doesn't matter where the calories come from. The average adult uses 2000-2400 cals a day so running caloric intake at a deficit is going to result in weight loss regardless.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

Yeah but don't go down the 1200 a day route. It won't last.

It takes less will power to add to your routine than take away.

So eat 2400 and burn 3000.

There is the whole satiation thing too, jeff cavaliere has good advice. Apart from he hates cardio. Cycling, running or walking is easiest to do long term.

[–] • 0 pt

Apart from he hates cardio.

I seem to be hearing that a lot, that if you're over 40 it decreases testosterone, some do refute this though.

So I'm stuck in the middle.

[–] • 0 pt

Well it wasn't a discussion about the ins and outs of dieting, I just used 1200 cals as an example. But FWIW I've known several people who have permanently lost a shit tonne of weight doing 1200 cals/day. But, to your point, I've known many more people who have tried it and given up because 1200 calories is not very much food and that's a tough diet to do.

Exercise complements a diet but losing weight through exercise alone is difficult. I know that's not what you're saying; I'm just making the point.

I'm a low carb proponent myself. I'm talking 30g a day ie. not quite keto. I have yet to meet someone who has given it an honest try and it not work for them. After 2-3 day of low carb you literally stop craving sugar and for most people that's 3/4 of the diet battle right there.

[–] • 2 pts

Pretty much agree with you on everything. I finally tried LCHF after struggling all my life with bad diet advice that led me to failure and discouragement.

I fell off the wagon recently and am disappointed with my weight gain but at least now I know what works. Traveling for the last year has broken my routines and being super consistent is a big component.

My main point is that when I was at peak LCHF, probably 1-2 months in with no cheating and almost 100% consistent routine from week to week, it was so easy to say no to ANYTHING that anyone put in my face. When I did feel like cheating, I'd put a TEASPOON of that cheesecake in my mouth and savor it for several minutes, but inevitably I'd feel sick a few minutes later which prevented me going back for seconds.

Anyone looking to lose weight, cut out ALL sugar, alcohol and flour for two weeks. Veggies are your staple turns out most people hate veggies because they don't know how to use spices and seasoning. Spoiling your taste buds with sugar and carbs is like doing so much blow every day that eventually you need a kilo just to feel something.

When you eliminate all the crap, you realize how good animal fats can make vegetables taste. Or how amazing brussel sprouts roasted with siracha taste. If you can reset your senses around food for 2-3 weeks and live off basic yet nutritional food it will make the rest of your diet way easier. I lived off sauerkraut and ground meat for weeks.

[–] • 0 pt

>For example certain ethnic groups gain significantly more weight than their white counterparts when HFCS replaces regular sugar in their diet. Another example is when on a very low carb diet ie. ketosis where your calories come from is critical to the diet.

I would imagine it's more than just certain ethnic groups.

[–] • 2 pts

Well actually it's just niggers. Genetically they tend towards fat anyway -- especially females -- but HFCS causes them to really pack on the pounds. There was a time when nigger chicks were all slim at least until they hit their 30s. But now they are all fat fucks. Even the ones that are relatively skinny today are fat compared to before HFCS (and fast food in general).

[–] • 1 pt

>Well actually it's just niggers.

Or any fatty that's been that way a long time. I think.

Man when I look in the grocery cart of some of these negros on a scooter, I have to look away.

But get a vaccine y'all hear?

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

...BUT it hugely simplifies the complex metabolic processes that are involved when there's weight gain or loss.

No it does not. Not even a little bit. Not remotely. Not at all. These complex metabolic processes ARE STILL IN CALORIES OUT.

I don't get how you fat fucks don't understand this. Calories out isn't literally only what you do at the gym, or for exercise, or work etc. in a willful sense. It also includes what your body does without your conscious choice.

Why this is so hard for you dumbasses to understand as you push these jewish lies is absurd.

Another example is when on a very low carb diet ie. ketosis where your calories come from is critical to the diet.

Irrelevant as fuck. Being in a state of ketosis is still dictated by CICO. You just source your muscle glycogen from fat rather than carbohydrates.

[–] • 0 pt

a calorie is a unit of energy, it is the amount needed to raise the temp of water 1 degree, as such calories are all that matter. your body may metabolize certain things differently than other people but calories tend to be consistent. the reason CICO is a thing is due to newtons 2nd law where the energy entering/exiting a system is always equal

[–] • 0 pt

You would disagree then with this fellow and many others I guess.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zZBiTfIp4Q

[–] • 1 pt

high fructose is fucked on so many levels, addiction will do many things to a human body. keep in mind though a thyroid condition can give a max increase in weight of ~15 lbs, although enough to make one obese but not enough to become morbidly obese

[–] • 2 pts

Bullshit...thyroid meds had me drop 100 pounds easily in a couple months. Then another 30 over the following year without dieting a bit. With dieting another 30 came off pretty easily without counting calories, just not eating sugar shit. I'd love to see your medical degree, because losing a whole fucking person from just taking a pill for a thyroid is a big fucking deal.

[–] • 0 pt

Yes. Because it is. Everyone who thinks they're smart and argues with this doesn't understand the "calories out" part. Hot sauce has virtually no calories but has a high thermic effect which causes the body to burn calories due to this. Protein has a high thermic effect. It's estimated that for every 100 calories of protein eaten that 30 are used to process the calories.

These are the parts people miss. Intentionally so due to their wanton retardation. When all you eat is icecream, made up of sugar which the body easily converts to adipose tissue and is also high in calories: you're going to b e fat. When you eat a high amount of protein (animal meat is protein, fruits vegetables etc do not contain protein), of the same amount of calories; you're going to be much better off. Due to what I stated above about calories out.

People ONLY look at calories in and ignore 90% of the calories out equation.