Having been brought up in a high carb (oriental diet, rice mostly) I noticed that many of fast food (exclude beverages) that I can buy here are low in carb but high in fat.
It seems really hard getting products that are high in carb. If I wanted to get enough carbs I end up consuming more fat. So I end up with an adaquate of carb but extrodinary high intake of fat (esp dairy and animal fat). Excess calory consumption with an adaquate supply of carb but too much fat and probably protein
If you want finished fast foods, they're going to be carby and fatty. It's the nature of the industry because that's what the consuming public will buy. What's stopping you from buying fruit and bread and whatever you might want in that bread to suit your tastes? Or cooking some rice and bringing it with you? Stop in at Popeye's and get some of their "Dirty" rice. Hit one of the (generally inexpensive) fake Chinese buffet restaurants and pick and choose. You have options, just not at the average drive through window.
Um, Taco Bell. Er, Long John Silver's. Uh, KFC. Uhm Pizza Hut.
Right. Red meat everywhere...
What's causing obesity is ingesting too many calories compared to daily usage. That's entirely up to the person ingesting. Forget blaming others for your condition. Finger points to you.
No, sludgewit. That they aren't red meat. And that if you want to avoid it, it's very simple. And if you want higher carb offerings, go where they sell them or make your own. Like all the fast food places that sell salads that you put dressing on, not them. Want no fat at all? Simple. Want high carb? Ask for a biscuit or roll or two. Want some protein, little fat and lots of carbs? Salad with grilled chicken breast and croutons. There's always a way if you want to do it instead of just talking about it.
HTH.
No. It isn't. You claimed it was a kind of food in a kind of foodservice type. Because you have a bogus understanding of your own responsibility in the situation. Everything about what you eat is up to you. If you choose it, you take the full responsibility for its effects. You can eat fast food and not get fat, but it presupposes discipline on your part.
I would deny that fast food has any more responsibility for obesity than the middle aisles of every supermarket. Where the cookies and cereals and canned foods are stacked in gleaming invitation. And when all is said and done, it's the customers who are the final arbiter, not the sellers.
Don't want to be fat? No prob. Cut back on the calories. Write that down. It'll be on the final.
Hey, f****it. You keep missing the message. Here it is for the last time. Fat people are fat because they ingest more calories than they use. It doesn't matter the source, really. So after reading that, everything else you've posted below this is pointless and just an opportunity for you to go all white-lipped and intense. Your blood pressure is through the roof, your capacity to understand simple sentences out the window, and your ability to recall what you posted diminishing with the meaninglessness of your insistence. The fat is in your head.
I offered *several* choices, most implicit in the names cited. Like pizza. Like tacos. Too fast for you to follow, right? They certainly aren't the only ones, but enough to demolish your assertion that it's all red meat and no carbs. See how logic works? No, I didn't think so.
However you need to look up what "non sequitur" means and take it to heart. You're the guy who only knows how to use a hammer so everything looks like a nail to you. You have one note in your symphony. Fat, fat, fat, fat, fat...
Could you be more dense and stupid? That was rhetorical and you've already answered it.
Of course you would. It's that one note symphony again... Fat, fat, fat, fat, fat and not a word about sugar. Or processed grains.
And opinions like that are crap. Like some foods are evil. Like the fact that people are choosing what they want to eat is somehow evil. Like anything but what you believe is somehow evil. Like that frantic insistence will transform and uneducated opinion into fact.
As fat *contains* more calories, ounce for ounce, than carbs or protein, an equal amount will have more calories. That's called "identity" and is part of the definition. As for what comprises most people's diets, you're simply full of crap and not worth discussion.
You just answered my rhetorical question. The one where I asked if you could be more dense and stupid... That one.
If someone's diet is 80% fat and 10% protein (presumably the remaining
10% is some mysterious nutrient from the mothership), it's not really a balanced diet. Right? And above I say that it should be balanced. Right? Now how could something that obvious get past you? And you're the one that mentioned "cutting out" macronutrients. Notice I said nothing about preserving any ratios.
What's so desperately hard to understand about "consume fewer calories than you're burning?"
So, in the interest of economy, I'll just quote a bit from above that should answer all your questions, eerily stupid as they are:
My conjecture is more in keeping with your hyper-windbag behavior. BTW, alcohol is another macronutrient - 7 calories/gram. Perhaps the mothership ships down an occasional frosty one. Carbs and alcohol. Winner.
One answer to a complex question. The archetypal definition of the foolish fanatic.
Right. And here comes that one-note symphony again. Fat, fat, fat, fat, fat...
And didn't read what it said before typing.
You worry too much about "they" and ignore the "me" in all your raving. It's a good life policy to mistrust people who have *the* answer. Like you do. You herd pretty much the entire rest of the human race into one, idiotically small category - everybody but you eats too much fat. And you have an exclusive grasp on truth. Never mind the science. Never mind empirical data. Never mind decades of experience.
That's not "cutting out," its "reducing." See the difference, word-wizard?
Hmmmm. I see you're intent on proving you *can* be more dense and stupid. You say "people" eat 60-80% of their intake in fat and should reduce it to 20-30%. That pretty much defines reducing calories, doesn't it? You're so intent on being disagreeable that now you're disagreeing with yourself.
Have a cup of tea and calm down. A nice low-fat cookie. Blowhole.
My conjecture is more in keeping with your hyper-windbag behavior.
Actually, I don't drink much - maybe a glass of wine once a month or so. But I notice you added the word "required" where I didn't include that. Argument for its own sake. Sad.
In fact, I've said reduce calories from all sources, haven't I. That comment is in response to your single-thought mantra. "Everyone should reduce fats because everyone eats too much fat." One answer for everyone.
No. They recommend what I did. Ingestion of lower caloric intake from all sources than used, while maintaining a balanced diet.
I believe you're unutterably stupid. Other than that, I'm open to ideas about how people can achieve good weight levels with balanced diets.
I'm still waiting for you to offer a bit more substance than this to support your assertion. You keep skirting the implication is that if only these unidentified people would reduce their fat intake - no matter what else they do - they'll lose weight.
It's very interesting that when you're nailed to the wall, you try to characterize me - and falsely at that. I assail you for being of one, isolated view and you try to make it sound as though it's a prejudice against your one-note idea. The fact is that I don't really care how people achieve good weight levels. It will finally boil down to reduction of caloric intake, ideally with a good balance of nutrients.
I'm not promoting LC. But, ironically, there's a mounting body of evidence that mindlessly restricting fats, as you suggest, is damaging. Not that I'd expect that the info would matter to you and your hobby-horse.
If you're going to call me names, at least have the intelligence to delete your words above that prove otherwise. Here, featherweight, your words from above:
"And how do we cut back on calories? By cutting out protein?"
Obviously, they don't mean the same thing. Poor guy...
Sweet Jesus, you are a dim one. I haven't said reduce carbs. I said to reduce calories from all sources. Not just fat. Not just carbs. And certainly not protein.
I want to say "reduce calories" because that's the laws of physics in action. Ingest fewer calories than you expend and you'll lose weight. All very simple. Keep trying, molasses-mind...
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.