all 72 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 31 points 5 months ago

Wait. That's illegal.

  • source
  • [–] 87 points 5 months ago (22 children)
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    Depends on how many calories you've burned and how many you've eaten. It could be a break-even smoothie, you don't know

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    Unless you ran to a farm to milk a cow, then to a different farm to pick the fruit and back home, it's very unlikely to be close to break even.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (16 children)

    You don't understand what I said then. You do not know the necessary information to make the judgement on whether this will make a person gain weight: you do not know

    • the ingredients in the smoothie (could be fuckin yogurt, milk and berries for all you know, which could be like 100-200kcal)

    Or

    • the amount of calories that person has or will burn that day (if they are in a caloric deficit higher than the calories in the smoothie, it will not cause weight gain)

    The existence of calories don't automatically cause weight gain, excess calories cause weight gain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Then it isn't for gaining, it's for enjoyment. My point remains the same, we don't know whether this smoothie will push this person into caloric excess, and I'm sick of people making asinine statements about things they literally could not know about.

    Additionally, to judge food on whether its purpose is for gaining and losing weight is some eating-disorder-ass shit, which I have no fucking tolerance for. Food is neutral and holds no moral implications, and its purposes extend to fuel and enjoyment, exclusively.

    Seen way too many friends almost die from this kind of rhetoric to not say anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    I don't care if people think im taking it too seriously. That kind of rhetoric 100% influences people who are vulnerable to eating disorders.

    The person in the original post who said "for enjoyment" was trying to counteract that kind of rhetoric, and to respond with "for gaining then" is fucking asinine -- and I'll admit I responded emotionally, but I've been bombarded with subtle, plausibly deniable jabs about food like this my Entire. Fucking. Life. On all sides. I'm tired of it, so ya, I'll call it out when I see it even if somebody thinks im taking it too seriously, because if it helps one person reading it feel heard and avoid falling into disordered eating, it's a net positive imo.

    I know a lot of people don't consider fatphobia to be a real problem, but I consider it a tool of fascism since it's a really effective way to keep women weak. What better way to ensure they are easily controlled than to create a beauty standard that requires starvation?

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -10 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Lol at the amount of calories you think are in milk yogurt and berries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    1/4 cup 2% milk: 30kcal

    1/3 cup Greek yogurt: 100kcal

    1/2 cup frozen mixed berries: 39kcal

    Plus ice and maybe zero calorie sweetener if you want it.

    Total estimated calories: 169kcal

    Which is between 100 and 200kcal.

    Not every smoothie has a bunch of added sugar. I've literally made smoothies like this before. That's how I know. How often do you track calories, my dude?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I think you’re right in this argument, but that’s a tiny smoothie. It’s barely more than a cup.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Ice has no calories and takes up a lot of space in smoothies. Again, ive made smoothies like this so many times and theyre delicious. Smoothies do not have to be huge -- i understand when you're purchasing one they tend to have more stuff in them to get the value you're paying, but homemade smoothies tend to be about a cup or so, plus ice.

    To get mathy:

    All of those add up tp roughly 1.1cup without ice

    1.1cup translates to 312ml

    1 can of soda, beer, whatever is 355ml (diff is 43ml)

    If you put ice in a glass, you can easily fill it with a can.

    If you add a decent amount of ice to the smoothie, it'll be a very reasonably sized smoothie. It may not fill a pint glass, but I do not want to drink that much smoothie lol

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    I mean, whole milk is 62 kcal per 100ml, plain yoghurt is 66 and berries are another 60... So for a glass of smoothie (I would assume around 20cl), it's quite realistic for it to be maximum 150 kcal, even accounting for some sugar to sweeten it...

    Or am I totally wrong with my calculation?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    We're going to be using different measurements, but the gist of it is that the glass pictured is 16 to 22oz in size. 8oz (one cup) of milk is about 150 calories. Yogurt (plain) is generally the same, unless you use low fat lite yogurt. So just filling the cup with only yogurt and milk is 300 calories. Blueberries are around 80 a cup.

    So there's just no real way you're getting a smoothie that size under 200 calories.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago

    Ah, so gaining then.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Not enough people seem to realize you can do things for the love of the game

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    I had a coworker who would ask me every single time she saw me eating a salad "Decided to eat healthy today?" And I was like "Goddamn, do you see all this ranch? I just like leafs, yo."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago

    For the love of the shakes

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    I regularly make smoothies as a breakfast replacement. They're adapted from Brooke Goldner's green smoothies, but altered to be more of a meal in itself. Can't give exact numbers because I just eyeball it, but I densely pack dark green leafy vegetables til it's about 40% full (the more variety of leafies the better), rolled oats, pumpkin seeds or walnuts, frozen mixed berries (again variety is best), ground flax seed, and raisins or dates to sweeten.

    I make this for health benefits as well as the convenience of a fast breakfast, and yet it just so happens to taste great too. Stop believing the nonsense that it has to be either one or the other.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    Is that a metal straw? I wonder how hard it would be to clean one of those.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Easy. You get nice little brushes like a pipe-cleaner.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    as much as I care about the environment, I'm too autistic to have a cold metal straw in my mouth

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I much prefer them. For one, I feel like they feel as cold as the drink, which is highly satisfying. And for two, I find the texture of plastic kind of nasty, as well as the thought of whether I am consuming microplastic particles through the straw

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    In our house, it's for pooping

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    Impossibru!

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Hold up, we can just do things just for enjoyment?
    ...really?

    But, how will our overlords benefit from this?

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago* (26 children)

    There's no food that makes you burn calories instead of absorbing them. So all food is for gaining weight, exercise is for losing weight (or starving yourself).

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    Most vegetables are far less calorie dense than virtually all other foods. In addition, plants and fungi are high fiber foods. Fiber is well known to promote satiety, being a natural way to promote our own body's expression of glp-1 hormones.

    One of the biggest challenges in weight loss is that most people's appetites are survival machinery evolved to avoid starvation at all costs in environments that may potentially be lacking in food - but we now live in an industrial environment that not only has removed all the ways we would normally get exercise naturally through physical labor; but has surrounded us at every angle by extremely calorie dense junk food that's specifically formulated to be addictive and hijack that survival machinery.

    Exercise is important but you can't out-exercise a bad diet, and starvation (which is exactly what a calorie deficit is) does not work either. Any method that works has to be able to deal with our toxic food environment. That's why the glp-1 drugs are popular even though they tend to plateau. And that's why vegans tend to average the lowest body weight of any dietary group.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    Ah btw, why do they group fruits and veggies together? Fruits are also relatively calories dense.

    And also corn, wtf. Corn is potato and beans category.

    While i agree with your point (exercise or not, you'd need to change your meal plan to lose weight that keeps), that graphic has issues.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah I do agree about the fruits, that is a little strange. Fruit would probably sit somewhere between veggies and beans. Maybe they just average it?

    I think it's just the issue of trying to simplify things. You can endlessly get into the details and end up with a monstrously complicated and useless infographic that is technically accurate. For example, even in the category of vegetables alone - carrots are technically more like potatoes, but colloquially still seen as a vegetable. And corn, despite being a grain is nutritionally more on the starchy side making that also more like potatoes.

    But if the graphic reflected all that, the basic idea would get lost.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    It depends wildly on the fruit and vegetable. For example, cabbage is about 0.25 calories per gram but carrot is 0.36, and strawberries are 0.32. An apple is 0.5. (All numbers from Wolfram Alpha).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    Can you elaborate on the calorie deficit not working part? Because energy deficit is pretty much the only way to lose weight as the body will make up that deficit by using it's own fat stores.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    It often doesn't work in the sense that people try to achieve a calorie deficit by eating less, which causes their appetite to increase significantly. Many people are unable to resist overeating in our industrialized societies that constantly bombard us with addictive foods. So yes, a calorie deficit is necessary, but it's also necessary to have a way to deal with appetite or else maintaining a calorie deficit becomes unsustainable.

    That's why plant-centric diets are a great choice - you can eat as much as you want to satiety, and still be able to lose weight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    There are about 150 kcal in a litre of lettuce smoothie

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    A lettuce smoothie is not the same thing as eating lettuce. By turning it into a smoothie, you increase the calorie density and make it much easier to consume a higher quantity faster. That is likely enough to turn it into a higher calorie food.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (2 children)

    Not really, the calorie density is exactly the same per kilo. It's just easier and quicker to drink one litre smoothie than to chew through a kilo of lettuce.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    In order to avoid having to list exceptions to the above posts statement, you are now required to sprinkle a bit of sugar on every icecube you consume.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment