this post was submitted on 11 Jul 2024
308 points (90.7% liked)
Funny
6470 readers
479 users here now
General rules:
- Be kind.
- All posts must make an attempt to be funny.
- Obey the general sh.itjust.works instance rules.
- No politics or political figures. There are plenty of other politics communities to choose from.
- Don't post anything grotesque or potentially illegal. Examples include pornography, gore, animal cruelty, inappropriate jokes involving kids, etc.
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The butter won't make him fat but the pasta will.
Calories in/calories out. Butter is fat and some sugar and protein. Pasta is mostly carbs. But they all become calories, and if you eat more calories than you burn, they will be stored as fat.
The poster above is correct thay sugar is the easiest for your body to turn into calories, and carbs are basically complex sugars. Fat is also fairly easy for your body to convert to calories, and it is usually more dense. Protein is the hardest, but even protein will make you fat if you eat enough of it.
If you want to lose weight, burn more calories than you consume. Everything else is nuance.
As someone who’s quit sugar and vegetable oils: this food will have more calories with the butter, but it will keep full for longer
The dumbing down of nutritional science and metabolic understanding so we can teach high schoolers a "health" class has resulted in disastrous knock-on effects from which it will take decades for the human body to recover.
What? This isn't suggested or taught in any high school curriculum I know of. Not only that but it is technically true and most people who actually diet do more research than "starve yourself" because who is too lazy to do research but not too lazy to make a huge lifestyle change and constantly exert control over their purchasing/prep/eating habits? Decades for the body to recover? I mean, if you literally starve yourself to near death to the point where you cause organ damage you might never fully recover I guess, but seriously, nobody is doing that without already having severe issues beforehand. The overarching suggestion of "eat less calories if you want to be less fat" is effective and non-harmful advice as the majority of people who remain overweight tend to overeat. Which is unhealthy and can take decades for the human body to recover.
Your comment is incorrect in many different ways.
No. The butter in my fridge has almost no sugar (0.6g in 100g) and almost no protein (0.7 g in 100g).
For comparison: The pasta I have at home have more sugar (most have roughly 3g in 100g) and way more protein (12g in 100g).
Are you sure you're not simplifying too much?
Also, "just" eating less or more calories is not that easy if you ignore the side-effects. Carbohydrates will make you hungry very soon unless mixed (or eaten after) fibers, fat and protein. Which you should do anyways for health reasons.
I think the person you’re trying to correct was making the same point as you.
They were simply trying to demonstrate that butter isn’t 100% fat.
Butter has 4.5x more calories than pasta by weight. It has roughly 100 calories per Tbsp.
If she adds 2 Tbps of butter to his meal preps daily, he would gain (or at least, not lose) 1 lb of body fat roughly every 16 days.