File :-(, x, )
Pic related Anonymous
Tortilla! I'm calling you out.

For years, for centuries, your wheat-derived carb goodness has ravaged diets of first world counties. Along with your accomplice BREAD and his derivatives in their darkest (white) or most innocent (100% whole-grain) forms, you have single-handedly mixed yourself in with fats and protein, causing the storage of said fats in all those who consumed you. But I'm calling you out now and telling you to fuck off, because I have found the ultimate substitute.

/fit/

I present to you the best replacement for tortillas and bread ever: stove-cooked egg. Spill that shit on a pan, spread it real thin, and let it crisp up nice and quick. Flip over once it hardens just to be sure. Let it cool, and you'll find yourself with something far better than tortillas, albeit similar in form factor.

Slap a few slices of meat in there and don't be afraid of mayonnaise any longer--your new meal is all fat and protein, with a few measly carbs that'll be burned through all too quick. A safe evening snack is attained, and all the benefits of ketosis while you sleep are near.

Thank me later.
>> Anonymous
>>309694
i'm not going to thank you because what you just described is a fucking omelette, faggot
>> Anonymous
>>309716
Hey fucker. Cook it thinner and harder. Thank me later.

It's over, wheat, you're finished!
>> Anonymous
>>309716

haha, oh wow
>> Anonymous
>>309716
This has officially saved the thread. I love you anon.
>> Anonymous
>>309737
>>309736
>>309716
same person
>> Anonymous
>>309747
actually no I only posted the "fucking omelette" comment

so GTFO and stop pretending to be a mod
>> Anonymous
>>309730
HEY ASSWIPE, MOTHERFUCKING OMELETTE
http://www.101cookbooks.com/archives/skinny-omelette-recipe.html
>> Anonymous
This thread is bad. Really bad.
>> Anonymous
What's wrong with carbs anyway? Don't like having energy?
If you are concerned with having too much fat in your bread, then why not just buy wholemeal flour and bake that shit yourself?
>> Anonymous
>>309780
Carbs are good. Fats are good. With protein, both are even better. But when put together, fats and carbs do no mix well. When you eat them together, your body utilizes the carbs for energy and then the fat next--but when both are there at the same time, fat is going to get stored as bodyfat.
>> Anonymous
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPraKwW98yY

who needs OP when you have merrill howard kalin.
>> Anonymous
>>309786
And in this way, sandwiches are kind of horrible. Fat in the mayo and fat in the meat. You can kill those off and have some weird sort of carb orgy cabob, but that's not a sandwich bro.

OP's solution solves the problem. Best of all worlds. OP for president of /fit/!
>> Anonymous
>>309786
>>309791
I see. Thanks for explaining that.
>> Anonymous
Just tried this. Mayo + meat + egg tortilla = win and god.
>> Anonymous
>>309791
or instead of fatty mayo use avocado and get protein and deliciousness!
>> Anonymous
bitches dont know shit about tortillas, theyre good to eat, theyre good as a snack, mexifag here so it might be my genes but ever since I born I have taken my meals with 2-3 tortillas and im fit as a motherfucker, although i run 30 mins everyday out of the pleasure of running
>> Anonymous
>>309842
winrar

>>309843
mexicant
>> Anonymous
>>309747

lol ur dum bro
>> Anonymous
>>309858
not your bro, pal
>> Anonymous
>>309870
not your pal, friend
>> Anonymous
>>309904>>309870>>309858
all three of you need to shut the shit up
>> Anonymous
just tried OP's master plan for lunch today. shit was fucking great. usually bread doesnt contribute much to the taste, but mayo + turkey breast + egg tortilla shizz = ultimate victory, taste-wise

although i guess the mayo made it pretty heavy in the fats...
>> Anonymous
>>309786

This only depends on how many carbs you eat. Anyone who knows the basics of biology knows the following:

Glucose and glycogen are the preferred fuels for everything in your body. It burns the most efficiently and anytime a carb is put into your body, cell mitochondria grab it first. All carbs, whether it's from white sugar or whole wheat pasta, turn to glucose. Sometimes the glucose is strung together to form glycogen, which is simply a lot of glucose molecules in a chain that is used to fuel more complex organs (for example, your skin).

The catch is that you hit a bit of a "soft cap" with carbs. A general estimation for the average human is that once you ingest more than 50 grams of carbs in one sitting, your body starts using less of it. Ingest 40 carbs, and all will likely be used for fuel. Ingest 80 carbs, and maybe only 60 or 70% is used. When combined with fats and protein, your body will want to use even LESS carbs immediately. Then we get into fat storage due to too many calories all at once.

It's more about how much you eat in a single sitting, not how much you eat in a day. Let's say you're hungry, so you eat 800 calories. In reality, your body was likely only asking for 500 or less. Excess is stored as fat. Doesn't matter if all you ate were carrots. EXCESS WILL ALWAYS TURN TO FAT.
>> Anonymous
>>311118

cont.

And the reason low carb diets "work" is because your body prefers carbs as primary fuel. Roughly 80% of your energy will come from carbs in a "normal" diet and your body has been used to that for thousands of years. When you remove carbs, your body panics and goes right to fat for energy, because fat is more efficient as energy than proteins are. Proteins are efficient at rebuilding muscles and organs, not so much for primary energy, despite having the same calories per gram as carbs.

Do low carb diets "work"? Yes, but they're terribly unhealthy and against nature. Anytime you're eating a low carb diet, you're in starvation mode. I see a ton of people who do low carb ending up with loose skin and no energy after the first few weeks. Gee, wonder why? You're starving yourself.
>> Anonymous !ErY2TknG0w
>>311131
A low carb diet when done properly will leave you with low energy for the first couple of days as your body adapts and goes into ketogenesis. After that you're fine.

I did keto for months and I weight trained 3x a week. Naturally I had to rest longer between exercises and reduce my volume though.

You're 'starving' yourself on any fatloss diet really.
>> Anonymous
>>311118
>>311131

So what's the best way to diet?
>> Anonymous
>>311236

Eat what you'd normally eat, just cut calories. Don't give up steak and potatoes or pizza or whatever...just portion control it and don't eat it daily.

You should always be getting a good balance of fats, carbs and protein. If you keep your carbs in check, your cells will not panic. When carbs are drastically lacking, cell mitochondria (if you don't know, they're what processes energy for your cells) get freaked out and take out too much fat way too quickly...the same thing your body does when it's starving. If a controlled amount of carbs are kept in your diet, your cells will not panic and will only casually use stored fat, this is ideal for healthy and aesthetically pleasing weight loss in most cases.

Now, I'm a nurse, and in my experience us nurses usually outweight doctors in matters of nutrition. Doctor so and so might have a Ph.D, but doctors are not generally as educated on nutrition since that's more of a nurse thing in hospitals. The hospital I work at has a lot of patients coming in for plastic surgery, mainly abdominoplasty after pregnancy or massive weight loss. In my experience, some of the worst cases of loose skin are from patients who did not exercise and used Atkins. They'll come and cry about how they're "ashamed to be thin" now that they're 170 pounds, but covered in a sleeping bag of flesh. The easy answer is that this would not happen in a lot of cases if they took an educated approach to diet and exercise, but far too many people are eager to subscribe to the fad diets that claim "sit on your butt, you can lose weight fast!". Life's golden rule is that anything that comes easy has a downside, I don't care what it is.
>> Anonymous
>>311697

cont.


I only advocate low carb diets for people who would medically qualify as morbidly or super-morbidly obese, because for them they often need immediate weight loss, since they could have a heart attack at pretty much any given second.

So, balance out your energy sources. Don't eat too many carbs in ONE SITTING. Exercise and drink a lot of water. Don't cut your calories by more than 25% of what your BMR requires. It's quite simple.

>>311147

Low carbing can work decently when combined with dedicated exercise, but it's still nowhere near healthy or efficient. It's just a fad with a lot of junk science behind it.

Yes, you're technically starving your body of resources on any calorie reduced diet, but keep in mind not all calories are the same. You need caloric intake from all sources, even the occasional treat that is nothing but simple sugars and fat. If you cut out any significant source of energy that your body is used to, you're only hurting your metabolism and organ health in the long run. Trying to fuel your vital organs with nothing but protein is like trying to run a Corvette on unleaded 87...just not ideal.
>> Anonymous
>>311697

I don't frequently compliment people (mostly due to my own insecurity), but you're a very intelligent person for being a nurse.

I was originally literally 50% (!) body fat. I'm worried as fuck about loose skin... I'm down to about 25% right now, and I can stretch it pretty far... I'm not sure what I can do....
>> Anonymous
>>311712

In cases of morbid obesity, skin elasticity is a different issue. The people I was talking about were usually no more than 200 pounds or 30% bodyfat, it was just that they lost weight very very rapidly. If you look at pictures from the Holocaust or American POW camps in China/Burma during WW2, you'll see a lot of "loose skin" on soldiers/prisoners who were probably no more than 140 pounds to start with. Anytime you rapidly lose weight, your skin has no fighting chance to keep up with the fat loss.

If you were very overweight in the past, you'd need to consider what your heaviest weight was and how long you've been overweight. If you were at 50% body fat for more than five years, it's closing in on the point where you may have caused too much emergency skin to develop and it can't be taken back in without surgery.

The issue with extra skin in very obese people is that they have a lot of stretch marks. Stretch marks are literally what the name implies, they are scars that you get because your skin was forced to stretch out more than it's regular capacity. The result is that the skin is pulled thinner and becomes loose. There's a chance you won't experience loose skin when you've met your goal, though. If your body is, for some reason, producing or receiving absurd amounts of the protein collagen, it will greatly help your skin.

So, remember that "loose skin" really comes in two forms. One is caused because you lost weight too quickly and your skin never adapted to the weight loss. The other is because you were so obese that your skin was abnormally stretched to compensate for weight gain.

Don't worry. The average full abdominoplasty costs around five to six thousand dollars. Anyone with a decent job and a budget can afford it within a year or less, that's why they're so popular. If you live anywhere in California, look up a Doctor Pousti, he's one of the best.
>> Anonymous
>>311712

Furthermore, the best mindset to take is to not think about it until you've hit your goal of body fat percent. 12% is what I'd consider to be an ideal amount of body fat for any healthy male, going as high as 15% is fine as well. Body composition is way more vital than body weight, as I'm sure you know.

Keep in mind that you can't accurately judge these things until, again, you're at your ideal weight. The surgeons who do the tummy tucks at our hospitals often reject patients who come in wanting a tummy tuck when they still weigh 250 pounds, because it's senseless and more dangerous to do it with patients who are not at a healthy weight to start with.

Keep monitoring your skin. Check to see if there is actually fat in the skin. Skin won't tighten up if there's fat in it, but you'll know if you have lost elasticity if you get down to, say, 160 pounds and 14% body fat, yet still have obnoxious looking folds of skin on your stomach or thighs.

But, again, a tummy tuck is a good option if you do experience this. It's not a completely massive bank breaker for any working adult if you can keep a budget for a while. It's quick and simple, you're generally done in three hours (more or less depending on your needs) and only stay in hospital for a few days. Most patients are back to normal in 1-3 weeks.

I know it's a concern. Self-esteem is just as important as physical health. For now, however, keep remembering that you're becoming a much healthier person who is drastically reducing his risk of heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>311758

I'm in Canada, unfortunately, but thanks. I don't think I'd need an abdominoplasty... a large percentage (I'm afraid to say majority, but it may be close to it) of the skin on my lower abdomen is all stretch marks. It's ridiculous... there's no way I can ever take my shirt off at a beach. I'm just planning to look good clothed.

Oh well...
>> Anonymous
>>309843

mexicunt NO ONE enjoys running...these are WHITE FAT people not skinny runts. idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>311774

If they're red, remember that they'll fade to your skin tone in time. A lot of women, including me, have them on the breasts due to unlucky genetics. Growing big boobs too fast during puberty caused it, but they're barely noticeable now.

If it's an interest for you, there is surgery for stretch marks. There's physical removal and there's laser treatment. The latter is extremely expensive. The former is fairly risky. They both don't guarantee perfect results.

A collagen lotion with vitamin E can help, provided you get used to applying it daily.
>> Anonymous
>>311793

Can we see pics of your ti-... ...stretch marks?
>> Anonymous
Nurse, as much as I respect your knowledge and time taken to post here, there's one hitch in your thinking that's made me question your education.

>>Roughly 80% of your energy will come from carbs in a "normal" diet and your body has been used to that for thousands of years.

Humans haven't evolved much in those thousands of years. Humans in a "normal" evolutionary diet ate primarily fat and protein. The body converts fat into glucose for mitochondria, or stores it--no questions asked. The introduction of carbs into our diet came with agriculture, something which over the ages had wrought humankind with malnutrition and a more sedentary lifestyle--this part is irrelevant, but it goes back to carbs. It's good to have that glucose, it's great to have that primary source of energy, our body loves it--but when you give it to us in such highly concentrated forms as via fruit and vegetables, our muscles get so overstimulated by it that they burn themselves down without adequate protein to counter it in combination.

Fats are the ideal macronutrient. Like stem-cells, they just basically adapt perfectly to the body's needs--the side effect is storage if too much is consumed, but the better side effect is that it mobilized stored fat for metabolism very quickly and soon if nothing else is available. If you keep deficiting in bursts at a time with "grazing" 6 meal a day eating habits primarily from fat while still at an overall deficit, this is the proven way to lose bodyfat efficiently. Protein on the side is helpful any time to curb metabolism's effects on muscle catabolism.

I'm not a nurse or a doctor, but I'll be damned if my nutrition class at UCLA taught me lies from researched professors.
>> Anonymous
>>311867

Your muscles are pretty much the last thing in your body to see use of carbs. It goes to all of your vital organs first. That was my point as to why they're essential to a healthy life. Your organs do not run as efficiently without carbohydrates. To boot, carbohydrates do what the name implies - they greatly aid in hydrating your body if water is not available.

I understand the importance of fat and you make a good point. Fat only has a bad reputation due to the 1980s junk science fueled diets. The ONLY bad thing about fat is that it comes in two bad flavors: saturated and trans. Any other fat is vital to your body, especially unsaturated fats which your body can not produce on its own.

It's easy to prove the efficiency of fats and glucose. Just look at the large energy spike one gets when consuming something like a Snickers bar. Anybody who regularly partakes in enduring physical activity knows the importance of quick release energy. Another example is when people have had a long day at work and are very hungry, on the drive home many people will be unable to resist stopping at a fast food place because their body is craving fats and quick carbs. People forget that an intense craving for something always means you are being told by your body that "this" is the most efficient form of energy for that given moment.

And I agree with you that oversaturating a diet with carbs is a bad idea. That's why I advocated balance to include fat and protein. These three things work together. If we didn't need them, our bodies would not be capable of processing them.

Unfortunately, the same thing is happening today that happened to fats 15 years ago. They're being demonized by people who do not understand their own bodies or how nutrition works. We see it in the hospital daily - if a patient is offered anything that sounds remotely like a "quick fix", they'll take it regardless of whether or not they completely understand how it works.
>> Anonymous
>>311888

We still want to see your delicious fat tits.
>> Anonymous
>>311888

Furthermore, the reason we've developed such "carb friendly" bodies is because ancient humans' diets consisted more of carbs than animal proteins. They didn't have the technology we have, they didn't have geography, they didn't know much about animal habitats and living patterns, etc. Hunting was a game of luck. If they didn't get lucky enough to bag a mammoth in a group hunt back in the day, their only options were to forage for nuts, fruits, vegetables, fungi, etc. to survive. That's why we're omnivores...it was an evolutionary trait that developed out of necessity. Had we not adapted to a lack of animal meat, we'd simply have starved, especially during some of those ice ages where the only foods available were tubers and such that could actually grow in cold climates. At one point in human history (all I remember off the top of my tired head is that it was "an" ice age, I can't remember the exact period), we almost went extinct due to starvation because of how scarce animals became. It was estimated that only eight to ten THOUSAND humans were alive during this period and they made it through due to omnivorous habits.

That's an extreme case, but it illustrates why carbs are so great and how versatile the human body is. For overall health and efficiency, you need a balanced diet, though. It seems a lot of people have trouble understanding this concept. The only thing that is "evil" is gluttony.
>> Anonymous
>>311888
>>The ONLY bad thing about fat is that it comes in two bad flavors: saturated and trans.

Let's not worry about that here. In /fit/, I'm sure it's assumed that we who care about diet stay away from the bad fats as much as possible.

>>People forget that an intense craving for something always means you are being told by your body that "this" is the most efficient form of energy for that given moment.

Cravings are not an accurate measure of need. If you eat too many simple sugars/carbs, and even fat and carbs in excessive combination, your cravings will exceed by far your body's needs for them. When I talked about muscle, I included vital organs in my explanation, don't get me wrong. An overflow of carbs will overwork your muscles and through the extra work cause them to demand more carbs. You won't be losing any bodyfat while constantly hitting the carbs hard--too much, and there'll be some inefficient storage of them as fat. But if too little (as when after a very quickly absorbed carb intake, your muscles demand more glucose, and you don't supply it any longer), more glycogen will leave your muscle than is ideal and shit's going to break down because of it. It's like leading someone on--if you make them think they're going to get more, and you cut off supply suddenly, they're not going to end in the the best condition. This isn't efficient in the end, but sure, I guess the ride is pretty fun.


Anywho, I'm the OP. I advocate eating fats with protein, carbs with protein, but keeping carbs the fuck away from my fats. I assume here at /fit/, we want the very best results for ourselves, and because this is it as far as nutrition goes, that's why I prefer the egg tortilla substitute I came up with.
>> Anonymous
>>311911
>>their only options were to forage for nuts, fruits, vegetables, fungi, etc. to survive

Not so much vegetables nor fruit. Those were much a rarity, if you're discounting grass that's too much cellulose to be used for energy. Fungi maybe, but that's also mostly fiber that's undigestable. And, nuts are mostly fat and protein, not carbs.

Agriculture developed due to dense population growth and because of overhunting of animals nearby. The starving humans were forced to experiment with sustainable agriculture. The very basics that first emerged were wheat and the like, and fruits were something the Greeks pioneered into human tradition. Everything we eat now in terms of vegetables like tomatoes and potatoes, carrots and spinach--all the fruits we can think of and have great access to--these are all very fucking new to human evolution (which is stalled for sure). With lower population density, ancient man didn't starve as much as you'd think--the animals were vastly available and he was a masterful hunter in a group. Ancient man DID eat mostly protein and fat.
>> Anonymous
ITT: Evolutionary nutrition
>> Anonymous
>>311118
Excess turns to muscle you lazy faggot.
>> Anonymous
>Doctor so and so might have a Ph.D
>Doctor
>Ph.D

I don't blame you not taking advice from a doctor who isn't a medical doctor.
But I there's a reason why you are a nurse.
Because of fucking retarded things like that.
>> Anonymous
We're getting out of topic.

I eat about 8 tortillas a day and yes, i'm mexican and no, i'm not a fatass, and im not sick or anything like that.
>> Anonymous !ErY2TknG0w
>>311706
The fact that not all calories are the same is exactly the premise that low-carb diets work on. We could type an entire thread on the pros and cons of that diet but I doubt we're even talking about the same thing thanks to fads like Atkins and your average person who doesn't know how it should be done properly.

>>311888
>>311911
Carbohydrates still require water for metabolism, just less so than fat or protein.

Also, the fact that carbs are the most easily digested macronutrient doesn't necessarily mean they're the best for us. That's just how biochemistry has worked out.

What ancient diets consisted of is highly debated, but its not likely to have been high carb. The only edible high carb foods would have been fruits which are highly contested by every animal in a given habitat.
Also, if you look out hunter-gatherers that still maintain that sort of lifestyle, they mostly eat tuberous roots and stems which are high in fibre, difficult to digest and yield low proportions of digested carbs.