Image not available

640x640

TheAmericanDream.png

🧵 Untitled Thread

Anonymous No. 16154612

Why hasn't something like picrel been created yet?
I can't think of a reason why imitation food that offers less energy than it takes to be digested would be beyond our current technology.

Anonymous No. 16154638

>>16154612
Eat shit

Anonymous No. 16154645

>>16154638
Wow, such a well-thought-out /sci/entific reply.

Anonymous No. 16154654

>>16154612
Obviously doesn't work. We already have artificial sugar, caffeine, tabasco, rice cakes, vegetables, all sorts of low calorie stuff that tingle your senses and bloat your belly yet leave you unsatisfied. You might as well invent the matrix. That's how degenerate you are: seeking stimulation without consequences. You're the epitome of a coomer consoomer.

Anonymous No. 16154658

>>16154612
There are a few key reasons why we don't have more true "zero calorie" foods widely available:

Biological limitations - All edible foods contain calories from nutrients like carbohydrates, proteins, fats, etc. Even foods marketed as "zero calories" like diet sodas contain a few calories. The human body requires a minimum number of calories for basic metabolic functions.

Manufacturing challenges - Creating foods that are genuinely calorie-free is extremely difficult from a manufacturing standpoint. Food substitutes have to mimic the taste, texture and mouth-feel of regular foods, which requires some caloric components.

Lack of demand - For most consumers, extremely low-calorie foods or beverages that still provide some calories are sufficient for dieting purposes. There is limited commercial incentive to invest heavily in true zero-calorie products.

Regulatory hurdles - Food regulators tend to prohibit labeling products as "zero calorie" if they contain even tiny amounts of calories, to avoid misleading consumers.

In essence, while reducing calorie counts is feasible to a point, formulating genuinely calorie-free foods that also taste good and are safe for consumption at scale remains an enormous technical challenge for food science that hasn't been overcome yet. Low but not zero calories is more realistic currently.

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16154659

>>16154645
It is the response your shitty thread with the obvious answer deserves. Besides I'm pretty sure eating shit gives you way less energy than your digestive system would use.

Anonymous No. 16154663

>>16154645
It is the response your shitty thread with the obvious answer deserves. Besides, I'm pretty sure eating shit gives you way less energy than your digestive system would use.

Anonymous No. 16154666

>>16154612
Just eat vegetables and drink water, fatty, celery takes more energy to chew than it provides and water takes energy to process, but doesn't provide any and I think your problem is more along the lines of why can't celery have twice its weight in sugar and still be like celery.

Anonymous No. 16154671

>>16154663
Only because its going to make you sick so you throw up all the other calories you eat for a while.

Image not available

307x200

file.jpg

Anonymous No. 16154708

>>16154612
It's possible to create but the texture and taste will be off. The cost will be high. It will give you diarrhoea. It won't leave you feeling satisfied after eating it.
What's the market of people who would buy that?

Just eat veggies and konjac/shirataki.

Anonymous No. 16154727

>>16154612
Just eat less, fatty

Anonymous No. 16156317

If you don’t digest it it gives you the shits. Artificial sweeteners and artificial fat (olestra) have been invented; wouldn’t be hard to combine them with cellulose and artificial flavouring to make fake food but it’d be essentially flavoured cardboard that makes you shit yourself. No one would buy it other than maybe some anorexic foids

If you want to chew something tasty without consuming calories just chew some gum

Anonymous No. 16156319

>>16154654
>coomer
You can say cumbrain now. The word filter was lifted. You don't need to continue using the Reddit term