No, and there is not a single serious study suggesting it does >Inb4 people post that one moronic study from the 70s where the participants were chain smokers
Because the WHO said it based on shoddy research (if you look it up the entire article was made by vegans and vegetarians, which they didn't even bother disclosing)
Just like how they recently added aspartame to the list.
There is absolutely no basis for either.
It's just that one conforms with the "meat bad" narrative and the other does not.
That's why "experts " are so vocal in saying the aspartame claims are bogus but do not speak up about the mwat cla being bogus.
That said, were only talking about fresh meat here. The story might be different for processed meats.
You're sorta on the right track. The problem is that people are moronic and don't know how to interpret scientific research, they get spoonfed a clickbait article title (RED MEAT CANCER) by a journalist intern who's last science class was a C in gen chem 101, and for some god aweful reason the public debates the NEWS ARTICLE instead of the actual published journal. It's stupid shit.
Important things include 1) Risk is not the same thing as Hazard, and you could have a massive Risk with 0 Hazard or vice versa or somewhere in between and 2) the effect size and what that means for an individual vs. a general population. Processed meat is what is generally talked about (you touched on), but for some reason people tend to drop the "processed" (the important part) and just stick to "red meat". It's a nightmare to watch people talk about a shitty news article as if the scientists wrote it themselves. >t. scientist who's had local news articles written about my work and it was literally WRONG. Like not even misinterpreted, just wrong.
Never, ever, ever read a news article and debate anything said in it or take it as anything other clickbait which got the science wrong. Go straight to the article, and if you can't interpret the article, you probably don't know enough to debate the claims (just in general. I don't pretend I know shit about other fields if its too dense our not contextualized).
>Consumption of red and processed meat and breast cancer incidence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Cancer. 2018 Dec 1;143(11):2787-2799. doi: 10.1002/ijc.31848. Epub 2018 Oct 3 >Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020456. Epub 2011 Jun 6. >Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis. Nutrients
. 2019 Apr 11;11(4):826. doi: 10.3390/nu11040826.
I don't know what you were hoping for. You can't run RCTs on all cause mortality because it takes too long. All the evidence is speculative but you still have to eat something. The speculative evidence all points to beans/fish/veg/whole grains over red meat/full-fat dairy/refined grains
You can RCT cholesterol levels, not all cause mortality. The cholesterol RCTs show increasing red meat has no effect relative to regular diet, and a worse effect relative to increasing legums, fish, and whole grains. Christ you fricking Black folk are so moronic I don't know why I even come here. You're like a literal child.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>You can RCT cholesterol levels, not all cause mortality
There are RCTs powered for mortality and they're just not cited as I've said
8 months ago
Uvo11
Link me. No way that gets past ethical review even if you could afford it.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Since the thread is about cancer but was also no change in mortality. There will never be a study more expensive and this null result gets ignored and morons like you lap it up none the wiser >The Women’s Health Initiative, therefore, studied a low-fat diet, achieved in large part by reducing red- and processed-meat consumption, among almost 49,000 women (Beresford et al., 2006); about 30,000 followed their normal diets and almost 20,000 were assigned to low-fat diets. After 9 years, the rate of colon cancer was almost identical in the low-fat and control-diet groups. These studies strongly suggest that the observational studies are not supported by dietary intervention studies at either the precancerous or malignant tumor stages of colon cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015455/
8 months ago
Uvo11
That's cancer, not heart disease. Heart disease takes decades to develop and the risks are detectable before events. This makes it too expensive to rct and also unethical to run using hard endpoints because you would have a good idea of the results before people starting dying.
8 months ago
Anonymous
So does cancer. And you ignored this
Even more the low red meat low fat "heart healthy diet INCREASED heart disease. Another result you will never be told >The only significant finding in the original 2006 WHIRCDMT publication was that postmenopausal women with CHD randomised to a low-fat ‘heart-healthy’ diet in 1993 were at 26% greater risk of developing additional CHD events compared with women with CHD eating the control diet. A 2017 WHIRCDMT publication includes data for an additional 5 years of follow-up. It finds that CHD risk in this subgroup of postmenopausal women had increased further to 47%–61%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8296783/
the opposite of what you would predict gay
8 months ago
Uvo11
1. Low fat and low sat fat are not the same thing.
2. I remember there was very little evidence that the control and treatment groups were even eating different macros.
3. Even if they did, if the low fat group substituted away all fat, including mufa and pufa for refined grains (which is what Americans do), that could easily have a great negative impact on heart health than the mixture of fats they were substituting away from.
The balance of evidence is still overwhelming that sat fat is not heart healthy
8 months ago
Anonymous
how many billions of dollars must be spent to prove that? it wont be because its wrong. thats the largest most expensive study and it showed the opposite of what you propose. how does that cognitive dissonance feel gay?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>how many billions of dollars must be spent to prove that?
It HAS been proven. You just refuse to believe it because you don't want to. You have been brainwashed by low carb grifters.
8 months ago
Anonymous
the largest most expensive RCT of all time showed exactly the opposite. keep huffing that copium
8 months ago
Uvo11
See
"Rather these findings are better explained as a direct consequence of postmenopausal women with features of insulin resistance (IR) eating a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet for 13 years. All the worst clinical features of IR, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in some, can be ‘reversed’ by the prescription of a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet."
Shocker. The study you cited makes exactly my point-- substituting away from all fat to refined carbs is also unhealthy, perhaps more so than a mixture of sat and unsat fat.
I could make a trial that shows sat fat is heart healthy if partipants in the non-fat arm substituted to drinking mountain dew all day. This was my original point about the 1950s american diet: you'll outdo the average american just by not getting obese or diabetes, but you will still have a high heart disease risks relative to meds and japs.
And I idk if this was you, but yes, heart disease did spike in the 1950s and then come down. Just google heart disease over time
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I could make a trial that shows sat fat is heart healthy if partipants in the non-fat arm substituted to drinking mountain dew all day
you are straw manning hard to prove some moronic point. they didnt remove sat fat and start drinking soda. youre welcome to look into the data and check if im wrong (you wont and im not)
8 months ago
Uvo11
Black person the study you cited explains the high heart disease risk in the low fat arm by pointing to how the low fat arm substituted to refined carbs, causing diabetes and secondary diabetic dislipidemia. I'm quoting you back you're own fricking evidence and you're disagreeing with it. You've shown that sat fat isn't the most unhealthy thing you can eat. That doesn't mean its a good idea.
8 months ago
Anonymous
im disagreeing with your interpretation. how about this, what can you replace saturated fat with that doesnt cause heart disease? carbs? no, as youve conceded. pufa? no and i could dump all the RCTs failing to support this. protein? maybe but i dont know of any compelling evidence
8 months ago
Uvo11
Here's the first study I posted on red meat. Just use red meat as a proxy for sat fat.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35258870/
Using ldl and hdl as endpoints, red meat is:
No worse and possibly better than an equivalent amount of standard American diet.
Worse than fish (proxy for omega 3 pufa)
Worse than beans and legums s (proxy for low GI carbs)
Worse than whole gains (proxy for moderate GI carbs)
I don't remember if they had a proxy for mufa but I'd guess it's worse than mufa too
8 months ago
Anonymous
than fish (proxy for omega 3 pufa) >Worse than beans and legums s (proxy for low GI carbs) >Worse than whole gains (proxy for moderate GI carbs)
these are associations and all directly contradicted in the experimental tests like
Since the thread is about cancer but was also no change in mortality. There will never be a study more expensive and this null result gets ignored and morons like you lap it up none the wiser >The Women’s Health Initiative, therefore, studied a low-fat diet, achieved in large part by reducing red- and processed-meat consumption, among almost 49,000 women (Beresford et al., 2006); about 30,000 followed their normal diets and almost 20,000 were assigned to low-fat diets. After 9 years, the rate of colon cancer was almost identical in the low-fat and control-diet groups. These studies strongly suggest that the observational studies are not supported by dietary intervention studies at either the precancerous or malignant tumor stages of colon cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015455/
Even more the low red meat low fat "heart healthy diet INCREASED heart disease. Another result you will never be told >The only significant finding in the original 2006 WHIRCDMT publication was that postmenopausal women with CHD randomised to a low-fat ‘heart-healthy’ diet in 1993 were at 26% greater risk of developing additional CHD events compared with women with CHD eating the control diet. A 2017 WHIRCDMT publication includes data for an additional 5 years of follow-up. It finds that CHD risk in this subgroup of postmenopausal women had increased further to 47%–61%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8296783/
8 months ago
Anonymous
>You've shown that sat fat isn't the most unhealthy thing you can eat
you keep ignoring that sat fat was replaced with "healthy carbs" or that was the idea. why should this be the case? and MUFA id say is in the same camp as protein as i say in
im disagreeing with your interpretation. how about this, what can you replace saturated fat with that doesnt cause heart disease? carbs? no, as youve conceded. pufa? no and i could dump all the RCTs failing to support this. protein? maybe but i dont know of any compelling evidence
8 months ago
Uvo11
"Rather these findings are better explained as a direct consequence of postmenopausal women with features of insulin resistance (IR) eating a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet for 13 years. All the worst clinical features of IR, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in some, can be ‘reversed’ by the prescription of a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet."
Shocker. The study you cited makes exactly my point-- substituting away from all fat to refined carbs is also unhealthy, perhaps more so than a mixture of sat and unsat fat.
8 months ago
Anonymous
so diabetes cause heart disease not cholesterol? why does saturated fat matter? see
the most well controlled RCTs showed they make no difference or they cause heart disease. and no the fraudulent Hooper et al paper doesnt prove otherwise as you always post gay
8 months ago
Uvo11
Its called diabetic dislipidemia. Having diabetes fricks with your cholesterol. Saturated fat is not the only cause of fricked lipids, and fricked lipids arent even the biggest risk factor to heart disease (smoking is).
Its like you have a "one thing" answer to everything. Clearly lots of shit causes and protects from heart disease.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Clearly lots of shit causes and protects from heart disease.
absolutely. but theres still no compelling evidence saturated fat has anything to do with it. nearly all the review papers of all the literature come to the same conclusion
>fricked lipids arent even the biggest risk factor to heart disease
maybe, maybe not >diabetes and insulin resistance, in addition to hypertension, obesity, and smoking, appeared to be the strongest risk factors for premature onset of CHD
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33471027/
8 months ago
Anonymous
This is my view on it. As long as you are thin you should not worry about heart disease unless you have a serious genetic risk of it.
great now have you read any criticisms of this paper? of course not. nor will you ever read the paper either
8 months ago
Anonymous
heres a PHD who has published in the space explaining her interpretation of the paper >1) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on total mortality.
2) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on CVD mortality.
3) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on CHD mortality.
4) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on fatal heart attacks.
5) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on non-fatal heart attacks.
6) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on CHD events.
7) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on strokes.
The one significant finding, again, was for CVD events where it was claimed that the risk ratio (RR) for CVD events from meta-analysis was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). Analysis 1.38 (of a number of analyses), on Page 159, ran a sensitivity analysis for RCTs that did actually reduce saturated fat – excluding studies that aimed to reduce saturated fat but didn’t – and the one finding for CVD events ceased to be significant.
https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2020/06/cochrane-saturated-fat-reviews/
8 months ago
Anonymous
and more criticism >Although the Houtsmuller trial takes only 4.7% of the weight in the Cochrane meta-analysis, removing the trial changes the overall result from a 17% reduction to a statistically non-significant 12% reduction. >For one, the lead author (Dr. Houtsmuller) has been suspected of fraud. In fact, Cochrane noted this on multiple occasions. >To quote from their 2018 paper (2): >We found Houtsmuller 1979 to be at high risk of other bias as concerns about fraud of the first author were raised around his later research (on cancer diets). >Not to mention the lack of blinding. Even the American Heart Association excluded the study because "those reading the ECGs were not blinded to treatment assignment" (4).
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/DietaryDiary/the-houtsmuller-trial-a-case-research-fraud
8 months ago
Anonymous
more inadequate trials included. read the whole article if you want the details but even the cochrane researchers previously excluded these trials for said reasons >The most obvious reason is that both trials were "multifactorial" or involved multiple interventions. That is, the interventions involved much more than just saturated fat reductions. >In 2018, Cochrane conducted two reviews on polyunsaturated fat where they completely excluded both STARS and Oslo. Why? Because the trials were "multifactorial" (11,12).
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/DietaryDiary/saturated-fat-cochrane-the-stars-oslo-trials
8 months ago
Uvo11
I gotta go dude.
8 months ago
Anonymous
cheers. itll be here later for you to ignore
8 months ago
Uvo11
I skimmed the paper and read the critique. It seems like it could be a fair critique-- the meta analysis doesn't have a strong finding that interventions aimed at reducing saturated fat reduce events.
I see three possible explanations:
1. Saturated far doesn't affect heart disease
2. The interventions aimed at getting people to reduce saturated fat don't work
3. Saturated fat does affect heart disease but the effect is small enough and the data is noisey enough that it doesn't get picked up.
2 and 3 seem like much better explanations than 1. If you accept 1 you either have to deny that saturated fat raises non hdl chol, which is a huge bullet to bite, or deny that non hdl chol affects heart disease, which is another huge bullet to bite. The rcts connecting sat fat to non hdl chol are definitive -- go look some up if you don't believe me.
There aren't any RCTs connecting non hdl chol to heart disease and there never will be for ethical reasons, but the association data and mechanistic data is pretty strong. There is also statin trial data that shows in a randomized setting that reduction of ldl secondary to statins is associated with better outcomes.
Its also true that the interventions from their Cochrane trials sounded pretty weak-- things like "advice to reduce saturated fat" I would guess has about zero impact on the average persons behavior-- they don't even know hat saturated fat is.
So even if you think the Cochrane trial reveals nothing I still think its pretty clear that saturated fat or something like it (perhaps only some kinds of sat fat?) Increase heart disease over mufa/pufa/whole grains.
But you do you man.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Two likely not valid see
heres a PHD who has published in the space explaining her interpretation of the paper >1) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on total mortality.
2) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on CVD mortality.
3) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on CHD mortality.
4) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on fatal heart attacks.
5) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on non-fatal heart attacks.
6) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on CHD events.
7) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on strokes.
The one significant finding, again, was for CVD events where it was claimed that the risk ratio (RR) for CVD events from meta-analysis was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). Analysis 1.38 (of a number of analyses), on Page 159, ran a sensitivity analysis for RCTs that did actually reduce saturated fat – excluding studies that aimed to reduce saturated fat but didn’t – and the one finding for CVD events ceased to be significant.
https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2020/06/cochrane-saturated-fat-reviews/
>on Page 159, ran a sensitivity analysis for RCTs that did actually reduce saturated fat – excluding studies that aimed to reduce saturated fat but didn’t – and the one finding for CVD events ceased to be significant.
This is in the Cochrane paper itself assuming you have no problem with the inadequately included trials. As for 3 if its such a small effect that decades and billions of dollars can't produce convincing data (subjective but I'm not alone in this assessment) how much can it really matter? If effects are real they should get bigger the more studies and money you throw it at. >If you accept 1 you either have to deny that saturated fat raises non hdl chol
Some types of saturated fats do in some individuals I'm just not convinced it is causally linked to heart disease. As for statins you can find review papers by independent experts that there is a small benefit but its not related to how much LDL is lowered see
https://i.imgur.com/Yhc5xPz.gif
Great now post the conflict of interest statement for that paper. Of course you won't gay but here's clear evidence they are lying to serve their corporate sponsors >White symbols: trials included in the analysis by Ference et al.; black symbols: excluded or ignored trials; squares: primary-preventive trials; round symbols: secondary-preventive trials; stippled line: regression line for the included trials; full line: regression line for all trials.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391#
Alternatively read the COI statement on
https://i.imgur.com/yj6ppaF.png
>If im wrong please post a good study that shows saturated fat in thin people causes significantly more heart disease.
Saturated fat consumption raises LDL, which is causally linked to CVD
and ask yourself if you're really going to get an unbiased view of the literature from these people
8 months ago
Anonymous
And here's the link for the paper in
https://i.imgur.com/yj6ppaF.png
>If im wrong please post a good study that shows saturated fat in thin people causes significantly more heart disease.
Saturated fat consumption raises LDL, which is causally linked to CVD
since the anon that posts it NEVER posts it with the source lest people read it and come to their own conclusions
8 months ago
Anonymous
Even more the low red meat low fat "heart healthy diet INCREASED heart disease. Another result you will never be told >The only significant finding in the original 2006 WHIRCDMT publication was that postmenopausal women with CHD randomised to a low-fat ‘heart-healthy’ diet in 1993 were at 26% greater risk of developing additional CHD events compared with women with CHD eating the control diet. A 2017 WHIRCDMT publication includes data for an additional 5 years of follow-up. It finds that CHD risk in this subgroup of postmenopausal women had increased further to 47%–61%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8296783/
Yes it probably does. There are a few large studies pointing at it, and mechanistics explanations underlying the causes have been put forward, and they are credible. So it is unlikely to be just a correlation/causation confusion.
However, 1) size effect is modest, it's nothing like smoke although both are classified as "probable carcinogenic", 2) the carcinogenicity might be due to compounds formed at high temperature, so slow cooking at low temperature or eating it raw might help, 3) carcinogenicity might also be due to preservatives, so avoiding processed meat might help, 4) eating fibers together with it might help, 5) adding spices (cannot remember which) might avoid the formation of a some of the carcinogenic compounds at high temperature.
Basically yes it likely does, but not that much, and if you eat it unprocessed, raw or slow cooked with spices at low temperature, eating fruits and vegetables on a side, you might reduce the impact.
>Probably >likely >probable carcinogenic >might be >might help >might avoid >might reduce
Clearly the science have been settled once and for all by these two "credible" studies.
I honestly believe if you eat good food like raw milk, steaks and meat from a grass fed deer, cow, bison etc, natural honey, yoghurts, kefir, a shit loads of berries and other fruits and avoid carbs as well as goyslop you would be healthier than 99% of the world
You'll definetly outdo the average American, but you will increase the rate at which you get heart disease.
What you're describing is basically the 1950s american diet-- you should expect to get 1950s American outcomes. They were:
1. Low obesity rates
2. High rates of heart disease
Most of the foods you described are high in saturated fat. This does increase the rate at which people develop heart disease. Luckily, the interventions today are much better than in the 1950s. If your lipid levels rise dramatically over time, which they may or may do depending on your individual factors, your doctor will prescribe you statins to bring them down. This will dramatically reduce your risk of heart disease, capturing the benefits of both worlds. Its a good time to be alive.
Almost all heart disease is caused by people being obese or losing the genetic lottery. If im wrong please post a good study that shows saturated fat in thin people causes significantly more heart disease.
>If im wrong please post a good study that shows saturated fat in thin people causes significantly more heart disease.
Saturated fat consumption raises LDL, which is causally linked to CVD
Great now post the conflict of interest statement for that paper. Of course you won't gay but here's clear evidence they are lying to serve their corporate sponsors >White symbols: trials included in the analysis by Ference et al.; black symbols: excluded or ignored trials; squares: primary-preventive trials; round symbols: secondary-preventive trials; stippled line: regression line for the included trials; full line: regression line for all trials.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391#
>Only *OXIDIZED* LDL causes heart disease
Wrong. This is a debunked ketolard talking point that has been long refuted.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Ok, provide the source.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Ok, provide the source.
It's up to you to prove your point.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Here. Now you.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/5/2/e000898.full.pdf
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Omega-6 vegetable oils as a driver of
coronary heart disease
Completely flies the face of literally all the research that screams that vegetable oils are more heart healthy than saturated fats
8 months ago
Anonymous
Ok but your argument is...? Or is it just an appeal to authority?
Your (flawed) assumption is that LDL cholesterol causes CHD.
Following that logic, avoiding saturated fat (which raises healthy, non-oxidized LDL) is indeed logical.
The problem is that your initial assumption is wrong. Not LDL, but oxidized LDL is to blame.
If you do not make the distinction and only measure total LDL levels then it's not that hard to understand why you would make that mistaken assumption since sneed oils and linoleic acid consumption is very high among the general population. A lot of them would also have high amounts oxidized LDL.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>oxidized LDL is to blame.
Discredited ketogifter talking point.
8 months ago
Anonymous
then how do vegetable oils cause heart disease even when they reduce cholesterol?
8 months ago
Anonymous
>then how do vegetable oils cause heart disease even when they reduce cholesterol?
I have no clue what you are talking about. Vegetable oils, when compared to foods with saturated fats in them perform better across the huge body of research.
8 months ago
Anonymous
the most well controlled RCTs showed they make no difference or they cause heart disease. and no the fraudulent Hooper et al paper doesnt prove otherwise as you always post gay
8 months ago
Anonymous
>the most well controlled RCTs showed they make no difference or they cause heart disease
RCT's for diseases that take DECADES to develop?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Again. Back up your claim.
Oh wait you can't. You're a mentally ill vegan who does nothing but post missinformation every day, all day on mongolian basket weaving forum.
What a pathetic little creature you are.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Again. Back up your claim.
I'm not going to prove the negative.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm not going to prove the negative
moron. You clearly don't know what this means. Don't use words that you don't understand in hope they make you sound smart.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Listen he found one single study that refuses 80yrs or human nutrition research and the chiropractor on YouTube told him it's right. So he's never going to listen to any reason or data you provide.
You can't because it's not RCT able. What you can do is RCT saturated fat on cholesterol levels, which is pretty much what my red meat study above shows. Just google scholar "saturated fat cholesterol rct" to get your own results.
Then you rely on the cohort study data and mechanistic data for cholesterol on heart disease, which is also very strong.
The saturated fat-> heart disease finding is only one step below the sugar->diabetes finding and it's been known for 70 years. Over time the target had been narrowed down (ie its sat fat and not all fat) and on future it may be narrowed down further (perhaps only some kinds of sat fat).
But your overall point that being in shape and low bodyfat is more important than having perfect diet is correct. I eat red meat and full fat cheese and still have nonhdl c below 1.5mmol because I'm young and fit.
They did not have a heart disease problem. They had population growth and the data that was shared to make it seem like heart attack were more common by that ansel keys moron were not per capita. All these years later and there are still people like you quoting this bullshit
>I honestly believe if you eat good food like raw milk, steaks and meat from a grass fed deer, cow, bison etc, natural honey, yoghurts, kefir, a shit loads of berries and other fruits and avoid carbs as well as goyslop you would be healthier than 99% of the world
No, unless you char it obviously. There is a correlation between high consumption of red meat and some harmful behaviours like smoking/drinking that explains the worse health outcomes of people who eat a lot of meat, but there's no proof whatsoever that they're caused by meat and not the other stuff that we know for certain are bad.
but the increase in risk minuscule
not zero, but small
there are way easier ways to decrease your cancer risk
like >don't move near major roads - PM2.5 >don't eat ultra processed foods >don't drink alcohol / smoke / take drugs in general >don't be in the (strong) sun for too long / use sunscreen
i could go on and on
all these listed things have a way higher and better documented risk of cancer and are way easier to avoid
>risk of cancer
Not risk just associations. The only one strong enough to infer causality is cigarettes and lung cancer. The rest could just be noise from garbage studies
Stop talking out of your ass. Alcohol, processed foods, air quality and sunburns are all confirmed causes of cancer. These all cause DNA damage in certain organs and that means it is directly linked to getting a cancerous cell. You need a lot of specific DNA to get fricked before you get cancer so you might get burnt often and not get a melanoma, but you are at a waaay higher risk than a guy that never gets out of his cave.
>Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking. Compared to the highest sun exposure group, life expectancy of avoiders of sun exposure was reduced by 0.6-2.1 years.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26992108/
Here's your garbage association data. Stay in your cave and die gay
Black person being in the sun is obviously healthy. This study has nothing to do with skin cancer you dumb mother fricker. Why would your midwit ass post a study about all-cause mortality when talking about cancer risk factors?
The simple fact is that UV causes dna damage, dna damage is causally linked to cancer. Or do you disagree with that too lmao.
>Or do you disagree with that too lmao.
I do. But even if youre right (youre not) the point is the health benefits of some sun exposure outweigh that small risk youve imagined. How will you cope next gay?
8 months ago
Anonymous
Enlighten me then what cancer even is if its not just a combination of DNA mutations that causes a cell to start multiplying without the normal cell division controlling mechanisms.
8 months ago
Anonymous
mitochondrial damage might be the cause not the DNA mutations. the mutations could be down stream. this would also explain the oncogenic paradox (tumors with no mutations/driver gene mutations in normal cells that dont act like cancer)
8 months ago
Anonymous
But then it would be mitDNA damage since daughter cells have the cancerous properties. So still DNA damage. Have a study backing up this claim? Im genuinely curious.
8 months ago
Anonymous
sure have a read
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26217661/ >(1) Normal cells beget normal cells. (2) Tumor cells beget tumor cells. (3) Transfer of a tumor cell nucleus into a normal cytoplasm begets normal cells, despite the presence of the tumor-associated genomic abnormalities. (4) Transfer of a normal cell nucleus into a tumor cell cytoplasm begets dead cells or tumor cells, but not normal cells. The results suggest that nuclear genomic defects alone cannot account for the origin of tumors, and that normal mitochondria can suppress tumorigenesis
8 months ago
Anonymous
Very interesting famalam.
>However, the role of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the origin and progression of cancer is controversial. We were unable to find any pathogenic mtDNA mutations in a broad range of chemically induced and naturally arising mouse brain tumors (Kiebish and Seyfried, 2005).
This is so weird to me. The shit mitochondria duplicate into more shit mitochondria but they were unable to find specific faults in the mtDNA. Im not surprised though that the mitochondria is so pivotal in cancer since excess energy is mandatory for the extreme growth most cancercells have. Gonna be interesting to see how cancer research progresses over the next decennia.
>People who live in the Blue Zones, areas that have the longest living populations on earth eat diets very high in carbs and low in fat and animal products. >Not only do they live longer, they live very healthy and active lives until the very end. >IST continuously spouts the nonsense that everyone would be the paragon of health if consumed MORE red met and drank whole milk.
Seethe lying gay >From a USDA Foreign Agricultural Report we learn: “Annual average consumption of luncheon meat per person in the prefecture [of Okinawa] is about 14 cans (340 g per can)/year. It is even more impressive when you learn that Okinawa, with only 1.1 percent of the total Japanese population, is responsible for over 90 percent of the total luncheon meat consumption in Japan. The local menu using luncheon meat ranges widely from stir-fried vegetables to rice balls. ‘SPAM omusubi’ (see photo) is particularly popular.” The Okinawans also eat more hamburger than people in Japan
https://nourishingtraditions.com/true-blue-zones-okinawa/ >The state-specific introduction of birth certificates is associated with a 69-82% fall in the number of supercentenarian records. >the designated ‘blue zones’ of Sardinia, Okinawa, and Ikaria corresponded to regions with low incomes, low literacy, high crime rate and short life expectancy relative to their national average
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/704080v1
>deli meat has a link to cancer
even that is still just a very weak association likely as a result of confounding. real experiments have shown no effect
Since the thread is about cancer but was also no change in mortality. There will never be a study more expensive and this null result gets ignored and morons like you lap it up none the wiser >The Women’s Health Initiative, therefore, studied a low-fat diet, achieved in large part by reducing red- and processed-meat consumption, among almost 49,000 women (Beresford et al., 2006); about 30,000 followed their normal diets and almost 20,000 were assigned to low-fat diets. After 9 years, the rate of colon cancer was almost identical in the low-fat and control-diet groups. These studies strongly suggest that the observational studies are not supported by dietary intervention studies at either the precancerous or malignant tumor stages of colon cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015455/
I'd say you probably shouldn't eat meat for every meal but having at least one meat based meal a day should be ok. I tend to eat chicken more than red meats
>washing removes everything that permeated into the produce >organic food doesn't use pesticides
top kek
Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer in humans unless you spend a 30yr career spraying it on farm fields every day from dusk to dawn.
drink some then, just water it down or put it in a humidifier, that should be safe right, don't worry that it's also been linked to plenty of neurological disorders which have conveniently exploded in the citizenry in the last few decades :^)
When are people going to stop searching for the holy grail of foods. Everything comes with benefits and drawbacks. The sun is necessary but also gives you skin cancer. Eat the steak.
>The sun is necessary but also gives you skin cancer
evidence is very weak at best >We therefore conclude that the large increase in reported incidence is likely to be due to diagnostic drift which classifies benign lesions as stage 1 melanoma. This conclusion could be confirmed by direct histological comparison of contemporary and past histological samples. The distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by solar exposure
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19519827/
No, and there is not a single serious study suggesting it does
>Inb4 people post that one moronic study from the 70s where the participants were chain smokers
Why do people keep saying it?
Because the WHO said it based on shoddy research (if you look it up the entire article was made by vegans and vegetarians, which they didn't even bother disclosing)
Just like how they recently added aspartame to the list.
There is absolutely no basis for either.
It's just that one conforms with the "meat bad" narrative and the other does not.
That's why "experts " are so vocal in saying the aspartame claims are bogus but do not speak up about the mwat cla being bogus.
That said, were only talking about fresh meat here. The story might be different for processed meats.
You're sorta on the right track. The problem is that people are moronic and don't know how to interpret scientific research, they get spoonfed a clickbait article title (RED MEAT CANCER) by a journalist intern who's last science class was a C in gen chem 101, and for some god aweful reason the public debates the NEWS ARTICLE instead of the actual published journal. It's stupid shit.
Important things include 1) Risk is not the same thing as Hazard, and you could have a massive Risk with 0 Hazard or vice versa or somewhere in between and 2) the effect size and what that means for an individual vs. a general population. Processed meat is what is generally talked about (you touched on), but for some reason people tend to drop the "processed" (the important part) and just stick to "red meat". It's a nightmare to watch people talk about a shitty news article as if the scientists wrote it themselves.
>t. scientist who's had local news articles written about my work and it was literally WRONG. Like not even misinterpreted, just wrong.
Never, ever, ever read a news article and debate anything said in it or take it as anything other clickbait which got the science wrong. Go straight to the article, and if you can't interpret the article, you probably don't know enough to debate the claims (just in general. I don't pretend I know shit about other fields if its too dense our not contextualized).
The relative risk associations of processed meat are barely any different than for red meat. Both are tiny and unreliable
>aspartame GOOD
kys shill
jews
jews and WEF want to ban beef.
There are numerous recent peer-reviewed studies showing that red meat contains carcinogens.
Post 3
>Consumption of red and processed meat and breast cancer incidence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Int J Cancer. 2018 Dec 1;143(11):2787-2799. doi: 10.1002/ijc.31848. Epub 2018 Oct 3
>Red and processed meat and colorectal cancer incidence: meta-analysis of prospective studies. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20456. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0020456. Epub 2011 Jun 6.
>Effect of Red, Processed, and White Meat Consumption on the Risk of Gastric Cancer: An Overall and Dose-Response Meta-Analysis. Nutrients
. 2019 Apr 11;11(4):826. doi: 10.3390/nu11040826.
not real evidence just weak associations
I don't know about cancer, but red meat gets connected to heart disease and all cause mortality in pretty much big studies. Here's one I just read:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35258870/
The caviat is that if you're substituting away from goyslop red meat is good. If you're substituting away from "doctor Gregor" style foods, its bad.
I still eat red meat.
>153 articles, including one randomized controlled trial and 152 prospective cohort study
Great so 99% junk not worth anyone's time
I don't know what you were hoping for. You can't run RCTs on all cause mortality because it takes too long. All the evidence is speculative but you still have to eat something. The speculative evidence all points to beans/fish/veg/whole grains over red meat/full-fat dairy/refined grains
There are more RCTs not cited and they all show no effect of red meat
You can RCT cholesterol levels, not all cause mortality. The cholesterol RCTs show increasing red meat has no effect relative to regular diet, and a worse effect relative to increasing legums, fish, and whole grains. Christ you fricking Black folk are so moronic I don't know why I even come here. You're like a literal child.
>You can RCT cholesterol levels, not all cause mortality
There are RCTs powered for mortality and they're just not cited as I've said
Link me. No way that gets past ethical review even if you could afford it.
Since the thread is about cancer but was also no change in mortality. There will never be a study more expensive and this null result gets ignored and morons like you lap it up none the wiser
>The Women’s Health Initiative, therefore, studied a low-fat diet, achieved in large part by reducing red- and processed-meat consumption, among almost 49,000 women (Beresford et al., 2006); about 30,000 followed their normal diets and almost 20,000 were assigned to low-fat diets. After 9 years, the rate of colon cancer was almost identical in the low-fat and control-diet groups. These studies strongly suggest that the observational studies are not supported by dietary intervention studies at either the precancerous or malignant tumor stages of colon cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7015455/
That's cancer, not heart disease. Heart disease takes decades to develop and the risks are detectable before events. This makes it too expensive to rct and also unethical to run using hard endpoints because you would have a good idea of the results before people starting dying.
So does cancer. And you ignored this
the opposite of what you would predict gay
1. Low fat and low sat fat are not the same thing.
2. I remember there was very little evidence that the control and treatment groups were even eating different macros.
3. Even if they did, if the low fat group substituted away all fat, including mufa and pufa for refined grains (which is what Americans do), that could easily have a great negative impact on heart health than the mixture of fats they were substituting away from.
The balance of evidence is still overwhelming that sat fat is not heart healthy
how many billions of dollars must be spent to prove that? it wont be because its wrong. thats the largest most expensive study and it showed the opposite of what you propose. how does that cognitive dissonance feel gay?
>how many billions of dollars must be spent to prove that?
It HAS been proven. You just refuse to believe it because you don't want to. You have been brainwashed by low carb grifters.
the largest most expensive RCT of all time showed exactly the opposite. keep huffing that copium
See
I could make a trial that shows sat fat is heart healthy if partipants in the non-fat arm substituted to drinking mountain dew all day. This was my original point about the 1950s american diet: you'll outdo the average american just by not getting obese or diabetes, but you will still have a high heart disease risks relative to meds and japs.
And I idk if this was you, but yes, heart disease did spike in the 1950s and then come down. Just google heart disease over time
>I could make a trial that shows sat fat is heart healthy if partipants in the non-fat arm substituted to drinking mountain dew all day
you are straw manning hard to prove some moronic point. they didnt remove sat fat and start drinking soda. youre welcome to look into the data and check if im wrong (you wont and im not)
Black person the study you cited explains the high heart disease risk in the low fat arm by pointing to how the low fat arm substituted to refined carbs, causing diabetes and secondary diabetic dislipidemia. I'm quoting you back you're own fricking evidence and you're disagreeing with it. You've shown that sat fat isn't the most unhealthy thing you can eat. That doesn't mean its a good idea.
im disagreeing with your interpretation. how about this, what can you replace saturated fat with that doesnt cause heart disease? carbs? no, as youve conceded. pufa? no and i could dump all the RCTs failing to support this. protein? maybe but i dont know of any compelling evidence
Here's the first study I posted on red meat. Just use red meat as a proxy for sat fat.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35258870/
Using ldl and hdl as endpoints, red meat is:
No worse and possibly better than an equivalent amount of standard American diet.
Worse than fish (proxy for omega 3 pufa)
Worse than beans and legums s (proxy for low GI carbs)
Worse than whole gains (proxy for moderate GI carbs)
I don't remember if they had a proxy for mufa but I'd guess it's worse than mufa too
than fish (proxy for omega 3 pufa)
>Worse than beans and legums s (proxy for low GI carbs)
>Worse than whole gains (proxy for moderate GI carbs)
these are associations and all directly contradicted in the experimental tests like
>You've shown that sat fat isn't the most unhealthy thing you can eat
you keep ignoring that sat fat was replaced with "healthy carbs" or that was the idea. why should this be the case? and MUFA id say is in the same camp as protein as i say in
"Rather these findings are better explained as a direct consequence of postmenopausal women with features of insulin resistance (IR) eating a low-fat high-carbohydrate diet for 13 years. All the worst clinical features of IR, including type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in some, can be ‘reversed’ by the prescription of a high-fat low-carbohydrate diet."
Shocker. The study you cited makes exactly my point-- substituting away from all fat to refined carbs is also unhealthy, perhaps more so than a mixture of sat and unsat fat.
so diabetes cause heart disease not cholesterol? why does saturated fat matter? see
Its called diabetic dislipidemia. Having diabetes fricks with your cholesterol. Saturated fat is not the only cause of fricked lipids, and fricked lipids arent even the biggest risk factor to heart disease (smoking is).
Its like you have a "one thing" answer to everything. Clearly lots of shit causes and protects from heart disease.
>Clearly lots of shit causes and protects from heart disease.
absolutely. but theres still no compelling evidence saturated fat has anything to do with it. nearly all the review papers of all the literature come to the same conclusion
>fricked lipids arent even the biggest risk factor to heart disease
maybe, maybe not
>diabetes and insulin resistance, in addition to hypertension, obesity, and smoking, appeared to be the strongest risk factors for premature onset of CHD
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33471027/
This is my view on it. As long as you are thin you should not worry about heart disease unless you have a serious genetic risk of it.
Top ncbi result for "saturated fat cholesterol"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8092457/
great now have you read any criticisms of this paper? of course not. nor will you ever read the paper either
heres a PHD who has published in the space explaining her interpretation of the paper
>1) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on total mortality.
2) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on CVD mortality.
3) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on CHD mortality.
4) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on fatal heart attacks.
5) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on non-fatal heart attacks.
6) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on CHD events.
7) There was no significant effect from reducing saturated fat on strokes.
The one significant finding, again, was for CVD events where it was claimed that the risk ratio (RR) for CVD events from meta-analysis was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.93). Analysis 1.38 (of a number of analyses), on Page 159, ran a sensitivity analysis for RCTs that did actually reduce saturated fat – excluding studies that aimed to reduce saturated fat but didn’t – and the one finding for CVD events ceased to be significant.
https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2020/06/cochrane-saturated-fat-reviews/
and more criticism
>Although the Houtsmuller trial takes only 4.7% of the weight in the Cochrane meta-analysis, removing the trial changes the overall result from a 17% reduction to a statistically non-significant 12% reduction.
>For one, the lead author (Dr. Houtsmuller) has been suspected of fraud. In fact, Cochrane noted this on multiple occasions.
>To quote from their 2018 paper (2):
>We found Houtsmuller 1979 to be at high risk of other bias as concerns about fraud of the first author were raised around his later research (on cancer diets).
>Not to mention the lack of blinding. Even the American Heart Association excluded the study because "those reading the ECGs were not blinded to treatment assignment" (4).
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/DietaryDiary/the-houtsmuller-trial-a-case-research-fraud
more inadequate trials included. read the whole article if you want the details but even the cochrane researchers previously excluded these trials for said reasons
>The most obvious reason is that both trials were "multifactorial" or involved multiple interventions. That is, the interventions involved much more than just saturated fat reductions.
>In 2018, Cochrane conducted two reviews on polyunsaturated fat where they completely excluded both STARS and Oslo. Why? Because the trials were "multifactorial" (11,12).
https://www.buymeacoffee.com/DietaryDiary/saturated-fat-cochrane-the-stars-oslo-trials
I gotta go dude.
cheers. itll be here later for you to ignore
I skimmed the paper and read the critique. It seems like it could be a fair critique-- the meta analysis doesn't have a strong finding that interventions aimed at reducing saturated fat reduce events.
I see three possible explanations:
1. Saturated far doesn't affect heart disease
2. The interventions aimed at getting people to reduce saturated fat don't work
3. Saturated fat does affect heart disease but the effect is small enough and the data is noisey enough that it doesn't get picked up.
2 and 3 seem like much better explanations than 1. If you accept 1 you either have to deny that saturated fat raises non hdl chol, which is a huge bullet to bite, or deny that non hdl chol affects heart disease, which is another huge bullet to bite. The rcts connecting sat fat to non hdl chol are definitive -- go look some up if you don't believe me.
There aren't any RCTs connecting non hdl chol to heart disease and there never will be for ethical reasons, but the association data and mechanistic data is pretty strong. There is also statin trial data that shows in a randomized setting that reduction of ldl secondary to statins is associated with better outcomes.
Its also true that the interventions from their Cochrane trials sounded pretty weak-- things like "advice to reduce saturated fat" I would guess has about zero impact on the average persons behavior-- they don't even know hat saturated fat is.
So even if you think the Cochrane trial reveals nothing I still think its pretty clear that saturated fat or something like it (perhaps only some kinds of sat fat?) Increase heart disease over mufa/pufa/whole grains.
But you do you man.
Two likely not valid see
>on Page 159, ran a sensitivity analysis for RCTs that did actually reduce saturated fat – excluding studies that aimed to reduce saturated fat but didn’t – and the one finding for CVD events ceased to be significant.
This is in the Cochrane paper itself assuming you have no problem with the inadequately included trials. As for 3 if its such a small effect that decades and billions of dollars can't produce convincing data (subjective but I'm not alone in this assessment) how much can it really matter? If effects are real they should get bigger the more studies and money you throw it at.
>If you accept 1 you either have to deny that saturated fat raises non hdl chol
Some types of saturated fats do in some individuals I'm just not convinced it is causally linked to heart disease. As for statins you can find review papers by independent experts that there is a small benefit but its not related to how much LDL is lowered see
Alternatively read the COI statement on
and ask yourself if you're really going to get an unbiased view of the literature from these people
And here's the link for the paper in
since the anon that posts it NEVER posts it with the source lest people read it and come to their own conclusions
Even more the low red meat low fat "heart healthy diet INCREASED heart disease. Another result you will never be told
>The only significant finding in the original 2006 WHIRCDMT publication was that postmenopausal women with CHD randomised to a low-fat ‘heart-healthy’ diet in 1993 were at 26% greater risk of developing additional CHD events compared with women with CHD eating the control diet. A 2017 WHIRCDMT publication includes data for an additional 5 years of follow-up. It finds that CHD risk in this subgroup of postmenopausal women had increased further to 47%–61%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8296783/
yes, ass cancer and also heart disease
It causes butt hurt in vegans if that is what you are referring to.
Only if you are a pussy.
it cures cancer
I WILL eat the BEEF until it's either made artificially too expensive or outlawed
until then you can shove those studies up your ugly ass
Yes it probably does. There are a few large studies pointing at it, and mechanistics explanations underlying the causes have been put forward, and they are credible. So it is unlikely to be just a correlation/causation confusion.
However, 1) size effect is modest, it's nothing like smoke although both are classified as "probable carcinogenic", 2) the carcinogenicity might be due to compounds formed at high temperature, so slow cooking at low temperature or eating it raw might help, 3) carcinogenicity might also be due to preservatives, so avoiding processed meat might help, 4) eating fibers together with it might help, 5) adding spices (cannot remember which) might avoid the formation of a some of the carcinogenic compounds at high temperature.
Basically yes it likely does, but not that much, and if you eat it unprocessed, raw or slow cooked with spices at low temperature, eating fruits and vegetables on a side, you might reduce the impact.
>Probably
>likely
>probable carcinogenic
>might be
>might help
>might avoid
>might reduce
Clearly the science have been settled once and for all by these two "credible" studies.
Science is like that man, too many fricking variables and always the chance of outliers makes it so you can't say anything conclusive
That's why you do controlled experiments. All done to date have failed to confirm any carcinogenic effects
cancer is a meme. You are worried about meat while you are exposed to poison in the air and water every moment of the day.
I honestly believe if you eat good food like raw milk, steaks and meat from a grass fed deer, cow, bison etc, natural honey, yoghurts, kefir, a shit loads of berries and other fruits and avoid carbs as well as goyslop you would be healthier than 99% of the world
>shit loads of berries and other fruits and avoid carbs
Hmm
You'll definetly outdo the average American, but you will increase the rate at which you get heart disease.
What you're describing is basically the 1950s american diet-- you should expect to get 1950s American outcomes. They were:
1. Low obesity rates
2. High rates of heart disease
Most of the foods you described are high in saturated fat. This does increase the rate at which people develop heart disease. Luckily, the interventions today are much better than in the 1950s. If your lipid levels rise dramatically over time, which they may or may do depending on your individual factors, your doctor will prescribe you statins to bring them down. This will dramatically reduce your risk of heart disease, capturing the benefits of both worlds. Its a good time to be alive.
do you know the average age people died from heart disease back then?
No
Almost all heart disease is caused by people being obese or losing the genetic lottery. If im wrong please post a good study that shows saturated fat in thin people causes significantly more heart disease.
>If im wrong please post a good study that shows saturated fat in thin people causes significantly more heart disease.
Saturated fat consumption raises LDL, which is causally linked to CVD
Great now post the conflict of interest statement for that paper. Of course you won't gay but here's clear evidence they are lying to serve their corporate sponsors
>White symbols: trials included in the analysis by Ference et al.; black symbols: excluded or ignored trials; squares: primary-preventive trials; round symbols: secondary-preventive trials; stippled line: regression line for the included trials; full line: regression line for all trials.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391#
Only *OXIDIZED* LDL causes heart disease. That's a big difference. A difference 99% of studies fail to make.
What oxidizes LDL? That's right. Linoleic acid.
>Only *OXIDIZED* LDL causes heart disease
Wrong. This is a debunked ketolard talking point that has been long refuted.
Ok, provide the source.
>Ok, provide the source.
It's up to you to prove your point.
Here. Now you.
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/5/2/e000898.full.pdf
>Omega-6 vegetable oils as a driver of
coronary heart disease
Completely flies the face of literally all the research that screams that vegetable oils are more heart healthy than saturated fats
Ok but your argument is...? Or is it just an appeal to authority?
Your (flawed) assumption is that LDL cholesterol causes CHD.
Following that logic, avoiding saturated fat (which raises healthy, non-oxidized LDL) is indeed logical.
The problem is that your initial assumption is wrong. Not LDL, but oxidized LDL is to blame.
If you do not make the distinction and only measure total LDL levels then it's not that hard to understand why you would make that mistaken assumption since sneed oils and linoleic acid consumption is very high among the general population. A lot of them would also have high amounts oxidized LDL.
>oxidized LDL is to blame.
Discredited ketogifter talking point.
then how do vegetable oils cause heart disease even when they reduce cholesterol?
>then how do vegetable oils cause heart disease even when they reduce cholesterol?
I have no clue what you are talking about. Vegetable oils, when compared to foods with saturated fats in them perform better across the huge body of research.
the most well controlled RCTs showed they make no difference or they cause heart disease. and no the fraudulent Hooper et al paper doesnt prove otherwise as you always post gay
>the most well controlled RCTs showed they make no difference or they cause heart disease
RCT's for diseases that take DECADES to develop?
Again. Back up your claim.
Oh wait you can't. You're a mentally ill vegan who does nothing but post missinformation every day, all day on mongolian basket weaving forum.
What a pathetic little creature you are.
>Again. Back up your claim.
I'm not going to prove the negative.
>I'm not going to prove the negative
moron. You clearly don't know what this means. Don't use words that you don't understand in hope they make you sound smart.
Listen he found one single study that refuses 80yrs or human nutrition research and the chiropractor on YouTube told him it's right. So he's never going to listen to any reason or data you provide.
Frick.
Sane url
https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/5/2/e000898.full.pdf
Bingo. And multiple human RCTs showed "heart healthy" vegetables oils to cause heart disease even when as reduce cholesterol
You can't because it's not RCT able. What you can do is RCT saturated fat on cholesterol levels, which is pretty much what my red meat study above shows. Just google scholar "saturated fat cholesterol rct" to get your own results.
Then you rely on the cohort study data and mechanistic data for cholesterol on heart disease, which is also very strong.
The saturated fat-> heart disease finding is only one step below the sugar->diabetes finding and it's been known for 70 years. Over time the target had been narrowed down (ie its sat fat and not all fat) and on future it may be narrowed down further (perhaps only some kinds of sat fat).
But your overall point that being in shape and low bodyfat is more important than having perfect diet is correct. I eat red meat and full fat cheese and still have nonhdl c below 1.5mmol because I'm young and fit.
They did not have a heart disease problem. They had population growth and the data that was shared to make it seem like heart attack were more common by that ansel keys moron were not per capita. All these years later and there are still people like you quoting this bullshit
Saturated fats don't cause heart disease.
>I honestly believe if you eat good food like raw milk, steaks and meat from a grass fed deer, cow, bison etc, natural honey, yoghurts, kefir, a shit loads of berries and other fruits and avoid carbs as well as goyslop you would be healthier than 99% of the world
>shit loads of berries
>keto
You could've just posted saying you're moronic it would've been the same
>>shit loads of berries
>>keto
No true ketolard falacy.
>honey
>keto
Not a real woman fallacy
Yes, food causes cancer.
No, unless you char it obviously. There is a correlation between high consumption of red meat and some harmful behaviours like smoking/drinking that explains the worse health outcomes of people who eat a lot of meat, but there's no proof whatsoever that they're caused by meat and not the other stuff that we know for certain are bad.
Yes, only bugs and ultra processed cereal grains and seed oils are safe to eat.
You forgot microplastics
You get them without an effort anyways.
the brown crust that developes on the meat after you fry it or grill it is carcinogenic
if you boil it, steam it, smoke it or eat raw its fine
>Does red meat cause cancer
yes
but the increase in risk minuscule
not zero, but small
there are way easier ways to decrease your cancer risk
like
>don't move near major roads - PM2.5
>don't eat ultra processed foods
>don't drink alcohol / smoke / take drugs in general
>don't be in the (strong) sun for too long / use sunscreen
i could go on and on
all these listed things have a way higher and better documented risk of cancer and are way easier to avoid
>use sunscreen
no thanks
>risk of cancer
Not risk just associations. The only one strong enough to infer causality is cigarettes and lung cancer. The rest could just be noise from garbage studies
Stop talking out of your ass. Alcohol, processed foods, air quality and sunburns are all confirmed causes of cancer. These all cause DNA damage in certain organs and that means it is directly linked to getting a cancerous cell. You need a lot of specific DNA to get fricked before you get cancer so you might get burnt often and not get a melanoma, but you are at a waaay higher risk than a guy that never gets out of his cave.
Never proven. Just weak associations. Keep coping gay
>Nonsmokers who avoided sun exposure had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude as smoking. Compared to the highest sun exposure group, life expectancy of avoiders of sun exposure was reduced by 0.6-2.1 years.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26992108/
Here's your garbage association data. Stay in your cave and die gay
Black person being in the sun is obviously healthy. This study has nothing to do with skin cancer you dumb mother fricker. Why would your midwit ass post a study about all-cause mortality when talking about cancer risk factors?
The simple fact is that UV causes dna damage, dna damage is causally linked to cancer. Or do you disagree with that too lmao.
>Or do you disagree with that too lmao.
I do. But even if youre right (youre not) the point is the health benefits of some sun exposure outweigh that small risk youve imagined. How will you cope next gay?
Enlighten me then what cancer even is if its not just a combination of DNA mutations that causes a cell to start multiplying without the normal cell division controlling mechanisms.
mitochondrial damage might be the cause not the DNA mutations. the mutations could be down stream. this would also explain the oncogenic paradox (tumors with no mutations/driver gene mutations in normal cells that dont act like cancer)
But then it would be mitDNA damage since daughter cells have the cancerous properties. So still DNA damage. Have a study backing up this claim? Im genuinely curious.
sure have a read
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26217661/
>(1) Normal cells beget normal cells. (2) Tumor cells beget tumor cells. (3) Transfer of a tumor cell nucleus into a normal cytoplasm begets normal cells, despite the presence of the tumor-associated genomic abnormalities. (4) Transfer of a normal cell nucleus into a tumor cell cytoplasm begets dead cells or tumor cells, but not normal cells. The results suggest that nuclear genomic defects alone cannot account for the origin of tumors, and that normal mitochondria can suppress tumorigenesis
Very interesting famalam.
>However, the role of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) in the origin and progression of cancer is controversial. We were unable to find any pathogenic mtDNA mutations in a broad range of chemically induced and naturally arising mouse brain tumors (Kiebish and Seyfried, 2005).
This is so weird to me. The shit mitochondria duplicate into more shit mitochondria but they were unable to find specific faults in the mtDNA. Im not surprised though that the mitochondria is so pivotal in cancer since excess energy is mandatory for the extreme growth most cancercells have. Gonna be interesting to see how cancer research progresses over the next decennia.
Only if your ancestry is from south of Mediterranean.
>People who live in the Blue Zones, areas that have the longest living populations on earth eat diets very high in carbs and low in fat and animal products.
>Not only do they live longer, they live very healthy and active lives until the very end.
>IST continuously spouts the nonsense that everyone would be the paragon of health if consumed MORE red met and drank whole milk.
Blue zones are scams and misreported. Most eat large amounts of animal fats and they likely lie about their age anyway
>Blue zones are scams and misreported
Wrong
>Most eat large amounts of animal fats
Wrong
Seethe lying gay
>From a USDA Foreign Agricultural Report we learn: “Annual average consumption of luncheon meat per person in the prefecture [of Okinawa] is about 14 cans (340 g per can)/year. It is even more impressive when you learn that Okinawa, with only 1.1 percent of the total Japanese population, is responsible for over 90 percent of the total luncheon meat consumption in Japan. The local menu using luncheon meat ranges widely from stir-fried vegetables to rice balls. ‘SPAM omusubi’ (see photo) is particularly popular.” The Okinawans also eat more hamburger than people in Japan
https://nourishingtraditions.com/true-blue-zones-okinawa/
>The state-specific introduction of birth certificates is associated with a 69-82% fall in the number of supercentenarian records.
>the designated ‘blue zones’ of Sardinia, Okinawa, and Ikaria corresponded to regions with low incomes, low literacy, high crime rate and short life expectancy relative to their national average
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/704080v1
Ketolard blog
>USDA Foreign Agricultural Report
>keto blog
>medical pre print
>keto blog
Take your meds you're clearly deranged
Sally Fallon Morell is a well known keto shill. I don't believe a single word out of her fat mouth.
>USDA Foreign Agricultural Report
Go directly to the source and see if she's lying. You won't because she's not
no, deli meat has a link to cancer, which vegans desperate spout
>deli meat has a link to cancer
even that is still just a very weak association likely as a result of confounding. real experiments have shown no effect
I'd say you probably shouldn't eat meat for every meal but having at least one meat based meal a day should be ok. I tend to eat chicken more than red meats
Yes meat causes cancer science has decreed this and you will listen. Now eat the glyphosate soaked produce.
>glyphosate
>doesn't wash vegetables and fruits
>doesn't buy organic
ngmi
Glyphosate doesn't cause cancer in humans unless you spend a 30yr career spraying it on farm fields every day from dusk to dawn.
>washing removes everything that permeated into the produce
>organic food doesn't use pesticides
top kek
drink some then, just water it down or put it in a humidifier, that should be safe right, don't worry that it's also been linked to plenty of neurological disorders which have conveniently exploded in the citizenry in the last few decades :^)
>doesn't grow his own vegetables
ngmi
All grilled meats are carcinogens. So is drinking hot liquids like coffee and tea. Do what you will with that information.
no credible evidence for any of this. do what you will with this information
Everything causes cancer. Just exercise, eat a balanced diet, and enjoy your life.
>Everything causes cancer
no it doesnt but people have been hoodwinked by pathological science as evidenced by this thread
When are people going to stop searching for the holy grail of foods. Everything comes with benefits and drawbacks. The sun is necessary but also gives you skin cancer. Eat the steak.
>The sun is necessary but also gives you skin cancer
evidence is very weak at best
>We therefore conclude that the large increase in reported incidence is likely to be due to diagnostic drift which classifies benign lesions as stage 1 melanoma. This conclusion could be confirmed by direct histological comparison of contemporary and past histological samples. The distribution of the lesions reported did not correspond to the sites of lesions caused by solar exposure
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19519827/
I hope so.
Thinking about it, any links to cancer is most likely due to burning red meat.
Just cook it in the microwave.
pure speculation with no real evidence
The heme iron getting oxidized is why its linked to cancer. Not a problem if otherwise healthy and your not metabolically compromised.
Sale on steak this weekend, 13 lbs of gains acquired picrel
no it doesn't and anyone who says it does is a gay liberal homosexual