I'm trying to learn a bunch of recipes from gordon ramsay and marco pierre white and they use so much oil and butter and fat it makes me worry I'll become fat.
Is the caloric intake much worse after you cook in oil? Nothing is deep fried or flat out unhealthy but it's like every step requires a really good drizzle of olive oil.
>>7571480
yes. if you cook with two sticks of butter and a half bottle of oil every day expect to be a fatass.
they don't eat like that every day/meal.
>>7571510
but where do I learn to make really tasty shit without this amount of oil? I know the british use a lot of fat in general too but goddamn.
>>7571480
Yeah, they do use a lot of oil/butter, but if you pay attention you'll see that most of stays behind in the pan rather than in your food. You only consume a fraction of the amount of oil used.
Oils and fats are actually an important part of your diet.
As long as you avoid excessive frying or use of butter, there are many benefits to using oil and fat in your cooking.
However, not all fats are created equal. You should avoid hydrogenated and trans fats where possible, though these are becoming harder and harder to come by.
While saturated fats, like those found in butter and other dairy products, have also received negative publicity in the past, there is some indication that they may not be as bad for you as previously thought.
Main take-away message is that you shouldn't be afraid to use fats and oils in your cooking, as long as you avoid saturated or trans fats, and so long as you practice reasonable moderation.
>>7571518
In the last line, I meant to say "hydrogenated and trans fats", rather than "saturated and trans fats".
watch the last 30 seconds of this it's worth it just for the last line
https://youtu.be/iZp77eAdP_s?t=117
>>7571532
>trans fat
avoid anything that says "hydrogenated ___ oil" or "partially hydrogenated ___ oil", often it'll be palm kernel oil. I think some products can still have trans fat even if the nutrition information says 0grams, if it's under 0,4999grams per serving.
>>7571532
>what are some things to avoid if you want to refrain from them?
Trans fats are a non-issue if you're cooking from scratch like Ramsay or MPW would teach you. They are rare-to-nonexistent in nature. The only things that contain more than trace amounts of trans fats are artificially processed foods.
>>7571532
Palm oil should generally be avoided.
It is often heavily processed and modified before it reaches the market, and it is a major cash crop in developing countries, where quality control is not as strict.
Also, monocultures of oil palm are one of the leading causes of rainforest degradation, if you're a hippy and care about that kind of thing.
>>7571562
Which is largely moot. When did you last see a French-trained chef like Ramsay tell you to use palm oil?
>>7571577
i don't care what oil you use if you cook like he does every day you are going to put on 20 pounds in a month
>>7571610
Not true at all. Look at Indian food for a good example. Half of their diet is oil. Not to mention cultures that consume a lot of fish and olive oils. Fat are no different than any other food, and provided you arent a lardass NEET that sits around on their computer all day, you should be fine.
>>7571610
So I guess the idea of portion control doesn't exist for you, huh?
>>7571674
its the most calorie dense food you eat. there is nothing inherently wrong with eating it but if you eat it 4 times a day 7 days a weak there is no fucking way you aren't going to exceed calorie intake you need.
most of these chefs do not eat this shit every day/every meal and the ones that do are all obese as fuck.
>>7571678
>portion control
A very important point. Ramsay does use a lot of oil/butter, but notice how large his serving sizes are. During his cooking videos he often mentions that the protein on a plate--like a piece of fish or cut of meat--should be about the size of a deck of playing cards. The food might be rich, but that's far from an Amerifat(tm) size serving.
>>7571480
Sugar makes you fat clarified butter and olive oil is good for you and also helps with weight lose also try coconut oil im on a paleo diet and these are the fats i use and lard and ive lost 20+ lbs
> fat makes you fat
Is this 2005?
>>7571773
i don't eat lard or coconut oil and the paleo diet is fucking stupid and probably really unhealthy for any extended period of time
ive never been obese or had 20 pounds of fat to lose via fad diets
>>7571777
I want ketofags to go
the fact is that lipids contain more energy per mass than any other macronutrient and eating the same mass of oil compared to protein or carbs will indeed make you fatter
There is no particular reason to use a lot of fat, it doesn't even improve the taste. I go for 25-35g on the main course of the day. That's 2-3 tablespoons of oil.
If an instructional video suggests to use olive oil all the time, it's an indication that the chef is incompetent and dependent on meme ingredients.
>>7571480
>cooking
>not knowing dick about nutrition
I cant stand people like you
>>7571826
op here
it's not the fact that it's fat that worries me, it's that it's much denser calorie-wise and I don't know what % of what I use in the cooking process goes into the actual meat and how it changes the amount of calories, which isn't good if you're trying not to over indulge.
I would love to just make a bunch of absolutely delicious diners every day of the week, but if they all include using 1 pound of butter I'll just end up terrible.
>>7571845
>entire point of their dishes is creating indulgent dishes
>i don't want to over indulge
cook them less frequently or eat less of it then. they aren't nutritionists they are just making shit they tastes good, looks good and incorporating a bunch of trendy meme shit (muh olive oil is superior to all oils) to impress pretentious foody faggots
eat sensibly for most meals and then make a nice dinner/recipe or some shit. if you spend 3 hours a day in your kitchen drinking butter and olive oil you are going to be a landwhale like most of /ck/
>>7571860
then where do I learn to make such healthy while still tasty recipes?
maybe I should look at fragrents more than fats
>>7571820
>There is no particular reason to use a lot of fat, it doesn't even improve the taste
One of the reasons has nothing to do with taste, but rather the heat transfer between the pan and the food. Other dishes require enough liquid fat to properly baste.
Marco is so fuggin sexy
>>7571845
>it's that it's much denser calorie-wise
Except that's not true. We already told you that very little of the fat goes into the food; most of it stays behind in the pan. You can see this with your own eyes.
>>and I don't know what % of what I use in the cooking process goes into the actual meat
I agree that's hard to visualize, but it's easy to determine when you are cooking. Take how much oil you put into the food, subtract what's left over in the pan and the difference is what's in the food. A-B=C. Basic arithmetic.
>>7571845
What you have to remember is that these guys are top tiers chefs and the meals they produce are not everyday fare.
Up until the first world war Brits and French were pretty much on an equal par culinary wise.
The Brits took a nose-dive during the Wars because of rationing on their little island and they took a long time to catch up (nearly 40 years)
But let's be realistic, a big mac is good but to eat one at every mealtime would be a bad idea!
>>7571688
depends how much of it you eat 4 times a day 7 days a week.
you really don't know what you'e talking about.
>>7571893
>surrender to germans with little resistance
>keep cooking extravagant food for nazis
>keep producing wine for nazis
>rest of the world rations to feed troops to liberate your country
>germany falls
>french act superior snobs and tout their elegant dining
>dumb americans eating spam and powdered milk. what savages they have no respect for fine ingredients
fuck the french
>>7571893
>The Brits took a nose-dive during the Wars
Not true at all. British food was way behind the French, even according to their own. Mrs. Beeton's--a classic English cookbook from the Victorian period--laments the poor reputation of British cuisine several decades before WWI.
>>7571908
I suggest you learn abit about Mrs Beeton and her age when she wrote this.
Brits call the French 'Frogs' . . .But do you know the reason why the French call the British "les rosbifs" ????
There are many works of art that depict the French jealousy of the English and their beef.
>>7571931
What does Mrs. Beeton's age have to do with the fact that she quotes several contemporaries regarding the deplorable reputation of their own cuisine? She didn't write the text herself, anon. She's the editor. The text inside comes from contemporary sources, except for the foreword and a handful of recipes specifically credited to her.
I think it speaks volumes that they put down their own cuisine when one would expect them to be putting down the French instead.
>>7571886
>Except that's not true
except it literally is, lipids contain 9 kcalories/gram while proteins and carbohydrates contain 4 kcalories/gram
You should use them sparingly
Obviously humans need fats. Just not too much
>>7571979
she is just proving how high class she is by shitting on everyone around her
its the same shit everyone on /ck/ tries to do
>omg i can't believe he added sugar to his tea
>fucking pleb
>all americans are shit
>should have had a triple hopped IPA or $200 bottle of 10 year old wine instead with his lunch
>>7571777
No. Its a medical consensus for the past 80 years
>>7571695
>over half the calories you'd need in a day
Probably more like 600, but honestly without the ice cream it would be a perfectly fine breakfast
>>7571996
It's not kcalories you fucker. 1kcal = 1calorie. 1kcalories is 1000 calories
>>7571515
Have you seen how much butter Ramsay puts IN scrambled eggs?
These guys cook good food, not good for you. It's all about finding that balance between the two.
>>7572009
this is b8
>>7571820
Jamie Oliver?
