>had a heart disease
He didn't have a heart disease. He had a congenital heart defect. 25% of the population has a "congenital heart defect." He died because his heart was fucked up from his horribly unhealthy lifestyle and his using of drugs. He is a horrible role model for health. Morbidly obese people live longer than he did and have healthier hearts.
Anabolic steroids on full blast all the time with no off cycle, cocaine abuse, diuretics for days, and an inborn heart defect. Oh and extra dehydration from sauna and sordid ladyboy fucking. Yep, he totally died because of lifting and too much protein, amirite?
2 months ago
Anonymous
It sounds like you're disagreeing with me but that is exactly the "horribly unhealthy lifestyle" and "drug use" I was referring to in my post and exactly why he was a "horrible role model for health." >he totally died because of lifting and too much protein
No that's not correct at all.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I am agreeing with you, and I was being sarcastic against the retards itt.
congenital means he had it from birth.
Literally genetics.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>literally genetics
Not always. You can have congenital defects in the absence of genetic defects. Anyway, 25% of the population has "congenital heart defects." His horribly unhealthy lifestyle was obviously what killed him. Denying that is massive cope. He is a bad role model.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Bruh, anyone idolising supplement jumping labcoats is about as bad as someone boosting tren and HGH. It's a matter of perspective and self-control.
>had a heart disease
He didn't have a heart disease. He had a congenital heart defect. 25% of the population has a "congenital heart defect." He died because his heart was fucked up from his horribly unhealthy lifestyle and his using of drugs. He is a horrible role model for health. Morbidly obese people live longer than he did and have healthier hearts.
The only problem you can have while eating eggs is that if you eat too much uncooked egg whites it can fuck you up a little. Just make sure to cook your whites and let the yolk be runny and you'll have the perfect food.
Egg prices are going to keep going up and price out the poor people who voted for the policies and politicians that made the egg prices go up. Same with beef.
I'm not him but if you think this chart doesn't show a constant upwards trend in the past few years you are clinically retarded. >but it goes down a little bit at the end!
Actual mouth-breather.
Sure here you go. Red line is inflation adjusted. A recent spike coinciding with bird flu and the general Inflation we've seen for the last 18 months, but otherwise it's very stable, as you'd expect for a staple like eggs.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/egg-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/
2 months ago
Anonymous
>he believes the "bird flu" explanation
lol. I bet you also believed the Nord Stream pipeline blew up because of a gas leak. Anyway, your link shows a constant increase in the past few years, which is exactly what the graph I linked shows. I don't really know what your point is.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You claimed egg prices will keep going up and eventually price out poor people.
Eggs are a staple of too much goyslop for that to ever happen. The price is already normal again when adjusted for inflation. Eggs were at a historically low price for the last 10 years and have actually returned to a more typical price when adjusted for inflation.
Nord Stream was blown up by a US naval diver team that attached remotely detonated explosives during NATO drills in the Baltic sea.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not OP, I was just responding to you saying "egg prices have lowered" when they are still clearly increased and rising since the past few years. That's all I wanted to say. I think I agree with you otherwise, but I'm curious what you mean by: >Eggs are a staple of too much goyslop for that to ever happen
Do you mean like in packaged cakes and such? That's a really interesting point.
>Eggs were at a historically low price for the last 10 years and have actually returned to a more typical price when adjusted for inflation.
I would guess this price dip happened because of chicken warehouses and egg-collecting factories being made, though. I would think those weren't around a few decades ago. A shift from every egg being hand-picked to only "specialty" eggs being handpicked and the vast majority being collected in factories.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm not OP, I was just responding to you saying "egg prices have lowered
I'm not the anon that said that. I started replying when you tried to make your point with a price chart that wasn't inflation adjusted.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Do you mean like in packaged cakes and such? That's a really interesting point.
Yes, that and seed-oil "mayonaisse" etc. Eggs are far too crucial an ingredient in the goyslop industry to be price gouged for the purposes of social engineering.
Maybe in some decades, but the WEF types are firmly targeting beef first. We hold the line at beef and we will never have to worry about our eggs.
>I'm not the anon that said that
That makes sense, the conversation became much more reasonable with you compared to the other guy who I think is actually insane. >mayonnaise
Completely forgot about that, good catch. >hold the line at beef
Yes anon, I completely agree. I will never stop buying beef and (raw local) milk. Me and my wife eat beef in some form every day. I'm never going to give up on cows.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Do you mean like in packaged cakes and such? That's a really interesting point.
Yes, that and seed-oil "mayonaisse" etc. Eggs are far too crucial an ingredient in the goyslop industry to be price gouged for the purposes of social engineering.
Maybe in some decades, but the WEF types are firmly targeting beef first. We hold the line at beef and we will never have to worry about our eggs.
Poor people could be dying of hunger but still vote for the rich man that preaches austerity and bootstrap ethics.
I thought the bug food was funny memes but politicians in my country are openly saying that some food is for poor people and other for the rich and no one bats an eye. The battle is lost.
Cholesterol is bad for you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439941/
>The associations of dietary cholesterol or egg consumption with incident CVD and all-cause mortality were monotonic (all P values for nonlinear terms, .19-.83). Each additional 300 mg of dietary cholesterol consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.09-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 3.24% [95% CI, 1.39%-5.08%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.10-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 4.43% [95% CI, 2.51%-6.36%]). Each additional half an egg consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]; adjusted ARD, 1.11% [95% CI, 0.32%-1.89%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.11]; adjusted ARD, 1.93% [95% CI, 1.10%-2.76%]).
correlation not causation >tell people its healthy to limit dietary cholesterol >health conscious people limit dietary cholesterol >self fulfilling prophecy without any real experiment to test if its actually beneficial
[...] >doesn't account for secondary factors
This one sentence destroys the majority of all dietary studies, including yours. Thanks for playing, but you ain't ready to join the big boys
The study controlled for numerous lifestyle metrics. Cope.
its still not an experiment and is only a correlation. does not change what i said in
correlation not causation >tell people its healthy to limit dietary cholesterol >health conscious people limit dietary cholesterol >self fulfilling prophecy without any real experiment to test if its actually beneficial
>Are you illiterate?
If he was he'd likely be less retarded. If he couldn't read he would probably have avoided being brainwashed to the degree he is now.
>The study controlled for numerous lifestyle metrics.
Translation: they manipulated their data in line with the hazard ratios of previous studies on said lifestyle metrics which themselves can't control for confounding factors.
Come back when you find a hazard ratio beyond 1.5
So what is causing it then if is not cholesterol? Now the burden of proof is on you, protip: you won't find any clinical trial that supports whatever you are saying is healthy
>excess visceral adiposity, excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids, and sedentary lifestyle
there's no evidence for any of that being bad other than correlation too from observational studies, also omega 6 is healthy >Israeli paradox, French paradox
ecological data is irrelevant
>Conclusions: In pooled global analyses, higher in vivo circulating and tissue levels of LA and possibly AA were associated with lower risk of major cardiovascular events. These results support a favorable role for LA in CVD prevention.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30971107/
2 months ago
Anonymous
>my one study disproves all the other evidence! what now?
Suuuuure >Intake of SFA was not significantly associated with CHD mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19752542
>Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24723079
>The present systematic review provides no evidence (moderate quality evidence) for the beneficial effects of reduced/modified fat diets in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Recommending higher intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids in replacement of saturated fatty acids was not associated with risk reduction.
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/4/e004487.full
>available evidence from randomized controlled trials provides no indication of benefit on coronary heart disease or all cause mortality from replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid rich vegetable oils.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071971/
>The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27547428/
>Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28526025/
>In our analysis, the Mediterranean diet, modified dietary fat, reduced dietary fat, reduced saturated fat intake, omega-6 PUFA, or omega-3 ALA PUFA did not reduce the risk for mortality or cardiovascular outcomes.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-0341
2 months ago
Anonymous
[...] >Meta-analyses of observational studies found no association between SFA intake and heart disease, while meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were inconsistent but tended to show a lack of an association. The AHA stance regarding the strength of the evidence for the recommendation to limit SFAs for heart disease prevention may be overstated and in need of reevaluation.
https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/78/6/474/5678770
>Diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31142556/
>Taken together, the evidence from both cohort studies and randomized trials does not support the assertion that further restriction of dietary saturated fat will reduce clinical [cardiovascular] events.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874
>Findings from the studies reviewed in this paper indicate that the consumption of SFA is not significantly associated with CVD risk, events, or mortality. Based on the scientific evidence, there is no scientific ground to demonize SFA as a cause of CVD. SFA naturally occurring in nutrient-dense foods can be safely included in the diet.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36059207/
>my one study disproves all the other evidence! what now?
that's a meta analysis that has more studies than everything you posted lmao, also nothing of what you posted interacts with my claim that omega 6 is healthy which it is.
Aso every single study you posted is superseded by Lee Hooper 2020 >greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32827219/
And other studies such as this rct >Conclusions: Intakes of MUFAs and PUFAs were associated with a lower risk of CVD and death, whereas SFA and trans-fat intakes were associated with a higher risk of CVD. The replacement of SFAs with MUFAs and PUFAs or of trans fat with MUFAs was inversely associated with CVD
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26561617/
This study alone has more participants) than every single study and still found saturated fat to be unhealthy >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27016614/
>Diets high in saturated fat were associated with higher mortality from all-causes, CVD, and cancer, whereas diets high in polyunsaturated fat were associated with lower mortality from all-causes, CVD, and cancer.
This japanese study showed that red meat is unhealthy since people eating the most had more heart disease, ironically even the people that ate the most red meat also smoked less and drank less alcohol and they still had more heart disease than the ones than ate less meat
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32723506/
In conclusion saturated fat and meat is unhealthy
2 months ago
Anonymous
>that's a meta analysis that has more studies than everything you posted lmao >>Drs. Wu and Micha report research support from Unilever for this work. Dr. Mozaffarian reports research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gates Foundation; personal fees from GOED, DSM, Nutrition Impact, Pollock Communications, Bunge, Indigo Agriculture, Amarin, Acasti Pharma, and America’s Test Kitchen; scientific advisory board, Elysium Health (with stock options), Omada Health, and DayTwo; and chapter royalties from UpToDate; all outside the submitted work. Dr. Psaty serves on the DSMB of a clinical trial funded by the manufacturer (Zoll LifeCor) and on the Steering Committee of the Yale Open Data Access Project funded by Johnson & Johnson. No other conflicts were reported.
My sides kek
>also nothing of what you posted interacts with my claim that omega 6 is healthy which it is.
The claim is >higher in vivo circulating and tissue levels of LA and possibly AA were associated with lower risk of major cardiovascular events. These results support a favorable role for LA in CVD prevention.
But >The present systematic review provides no evidence (moderate quality evidence) for the beneficial effects of reduced/modified fat diets in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Recommending higher intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids in replacement of saturated fatty acids was not associated with risk reduction. >available evidence from randomized controlled trials provides no indication of benefit on coronary heart disease or all cause mortality from replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid rich vegetable oils. >The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions.
Cont.
2 months ago
Anonymous
[...] >Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. >In our analysis, the Mediterranean diet, modified dietary fat, reduced dietary fat, reduced saturated fat intake, omega-6 PUFA, or omega-3 ALA PUFA did not reduce the risk for mortality or cardiovascular outcomes. >Diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality.
Point being, getting rid of SFA in favor of PUFA does not reduce CVD.
>Aso every single study you posted is superseded by Lee Hooper 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36059207/ is newer than that (not even a year old) but sure bro
: Intakes of MUFAs and PUFAs were associated with a lower risk of CVD and death, whereas SFA and trans-fat intakes were associated with a higher risk of CVD. The replacement of SFAs with MUFAs and PUFAs or of trans fat with MUFAs was inversely associated with CVD >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26561617/
Superseded by https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article-abstract/29/18/2312/6691821?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/78/6/474/5678770
>This study alone has more participants) than every single study and still found saturated fat to be unhealthy
://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27016614/
Cba to get into the studies and data on cholesterol right now since I'm going to bed soon. Refernce earlier links
>This japanese study showed that red meat is unhealthy since people eating the most had more heart disease, ironically even the people that ate the most red meat also smoked less and drank less alcohol and they still had more heart disease than the ones than ate less meat >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32723506/
Again, refer to the earlier links >In conclusion saturated fat and meat is unhealthy
Nope
All those studies are superseced by Lee Hooper 2020, you are boring >But
My meta analysis of omega 6 supersede any study you posted about omega 6 since mine has more studies and more statistical power as well as being newer and more updated >Superseded by https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article-abstract/29/18/2312/6691821?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
Did you just posted a review and claim that that supersedes a study? lmao, better go to bed retard.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>that's a meta analysis that has more studies than everything you posted lmao >>Drs. Wu and Micha report research support from Unilever for this work. Dr. Mozaffarian reports research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gates Foundation; personal fees from GOED, DSM, Nutrition Impact, Pollock Communications, Bunge, Indigo Agriculture, Amarin, Acasti Pharma, and America’s Test Kitchen; scientific advisory board, Elysium Health (with stock options), Omada Health, and DayTwo; and chapter royalties from UpToDate; all outside the submitted work. Dr. Psaty serves on the DSMB of a clinical trial funded by the manufacturer (Zoll LifeCor) and on the Steering Committee of the Yale Open Data Access Project funded by Johnson & Johnson. No other conflicts were reported.
My sides kek
>also nothing of what you posted interacts with my claim that omega 6 is healthy which it is.
The claim is >higher in vivo circulating and tissue levels of LA and possibly AA were associated with lower risk of major cardiovascular events. These results support a favorable role for LA in CVD prevention.
But >The present systematic review provides no evidence (moderate quality evidence) for the beneficial effects of reduced/modified fat diets in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Recommending higher intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids in replacement of saturated fatty acids was not associated with risk reduction. >available evidence from randomized controlled trials provides no indication of benefit on coronary heart disease or all cause mortality from replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid rich vegetable oils. >The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions.
Cont.
>Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality. >In our analysis, the Mediterranean diet, modified dietary fat, reduced dietary fat, reduced saturated fat intake, omega-6 PUFA, or omega-3 ALA PUFA did not reduce the risk for mortality or cardiovascular outcomes. >Diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality.
Point being, getting rid of SFA in favor of PUFA does not reduce CVD.
>Aso every single study you posted is superseded by Lee Hooper 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36059207/ is newer than that (not even a year old) but sure bro
: Intakes of MUFAs and PUFAs were associated with a lower risk of CVD and death, whereas SFA and trans-fat intakes were associated with a higher risk of CVD. The replacement of SFAs with MUFAs and PUFAs or of trans fat with MUFAs was inversely associated with CVD >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26561617/
Superseded by https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article-abstract/29/18/2312/6691821?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/78/6/474/5678770
>This study alone has more participants) than every single study and still found saturated fat to be unhealthy
://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27016614/
Cba to get into the studies and data on cholesterol right now since I'm going to bed soon. Refernce earlier links
>This japanese study showed that red meat is unhealthy since people eating the most had more heart disease, ironically even the people that ate the most red meat also smoked less and drank less alcohol and they still had more heart disease than the ones than ate less meat >https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32723506/
Again, refer to the earlier links >In conclusion saturated fat and meat is unhealthy
Nope
2 months ago
Anonymous
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36059207/ is newer than that (not even a year old) but sure bro
That's not a study, that's a review, you are legit braindead I hope you went to bed
2 months ago
Anonymous
Small oversight, doesn't change this though >Lee Hooper: LH is a member of the World Health Organization Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG). WHO paid for her travel, accommodation and expenses to attend NUGAG meetings in Geneva, China and South Korea where the evidence of effects of dietary fats on health was discussed and guidance developed. LH's institution was given grant funding from WHO to carry out the 2019 update of this systematic review, to update a systematic review on the relationship between total fat intake and body weight and a series of systematic reviews on the health effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Yeah no thanks
2 months ago
Anonymous
>This japanese study showed that red meat is unhealthy >ctrl + F "red meat" >0 results found
lol
2 months ago
Anonymous
Is this one >Heavy intakes of total and red meat were associated with an increase in all-cause and heart disease mortality in men,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320898/
2 months ago
Anonymous
I've seen that one before. >A higher intake of total meat was associated with a lower risk of stroke mortality in women
lol. What do you think?
2 months ago
Anonymous
probably because women need more iron intake than men and in this case the iron from meat gave a benefit to the women, but it was just for stroke not heart disease in general
2 months ago
Anonymous
>probably
There is no reason to guess why this shit study produced conflicting nonsensical results. It's an absolute waste of time.
2 months ago
Anonymous
there's no conflict here, stroke and heart disease are different things, meat consumption raises heart disease mortality, the inverse association of stroke in women was only seen in women who had a modest consumption of meat not high meat consumption btw
2 months ago
Anonymous
You realize you can do these mental gymnastics with any epidemiology research paper, right? And then you can combine those research papers together with a bunch of mental gymnastics. And that's how you write research. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to get at here. The research paper can say anything like "red meat intake was correlated with shoe size, but not shirt size" and you would be here making up some stupid mechanistic explanation.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>my one study disproves all the other evidence! what now?
Suuuuure >Intake of SFA was not significantly associated with CHD mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19752542
>Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24723079
>The present systematic review provides no evidence (moderate quality evidence) for the beneficial effects of reduced/modified fat diets in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Recommending higher intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids in replacement of saturated fatty acids was not associated with risk reduction.
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/4/e004487.full
>available evidence from randomized controlled trials provides no indication of benefit on coronary heart disease or all cause mortality from replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid rich vegetable oils.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071971/
>The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27547428/
>Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28526025/
>In our analysis, the Mediterranean diet, modified dietary fat, reduced dietary fat, reduced saturated fat intake, omega-6 PUFA, or omega-3 ALA PUFA did not reduce the risk for mortality or cardiovascular outcomes.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-0341
>Meta-analyses of observational studies found no association between SFA intake and heart disease, while meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were inconsistent but tended to show a lack of an association. The AHA stance regarding the strength of the evidence for the recommendation to limit SFAs for heart disease prevention may be overstated and in need of reevaluation.
https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/78/6/474/5678770
>Diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31142556/
>Taken together, the evidence from both cohort studies and randomized trials does not support the assertion that further restriction of dietary saturated fat will reduce clinical [cardiovascular] events.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874
>Findings from the studies reviewed in this paper indicate that the consumption of SFA is not significantly associated with CVD risk, events, or mortality. Based on the scientific evidence, there is no scientific ground to demonize SFA as a cause of CVD. SFA naturally occurring in nutrient-dense foods can be safely included in the diet.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36059207/
>data is irrelevant
Nice. Spoken like a true scientist.
2 months ago
Anonymous
ecological evidence is irrelevant yes, they are not studies
2 months ago
Anonymous
>evidence is irrelevant
I think you think you sound smart by saying this. You don't. You sound like an utter retard every time you say this.
2 months ago
Anonymous
because ecological data from countries can have hundreds of confounders, is literally worthless whereas an actual study that has degrees of control is what good evidence is
2 months ago
Anonymous
>data is literally worthless
This thread only has 13 posts left before bump limit, I'm going to stop now because I think everyone gets the point.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You clearly have no idea what the evidence hierarchy is, not all evidence and data is worth the same, look that up before talking shit next time
>doesn't account for secondary factors
This one sentence destroys the majority of all dietary studies, including yours. Thanks for playing, but you ain't ready to join the big boys
Because I am not going to let an obese slob lecture me on health.
Also >muh study!!
I don't care about highly flawed research that can't be replicated. I eat eggs and I am exceptionally healthy, so you better post body or you can shut it and get out of the thread.
I don't think you quite understand. Your claims have zero weight until you post body, so you can either shut the fuck up or you can post body. Pick one. >m-muh study!
Again, I don't care about highly flawed studies that can't be replicated.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Your claims have zero weight until you post body, so you can either shut the fuck up or you can post body. Pick one.
You still haven't answered my question
Highly processed foods, excess sugar, and seed oils are the cause of that.
You tell him to eat 2 large eggs daily for breakfast.
>Highly processed foods, excess sugar, and seed oils are the cause of that.
I don't doubt you, you should post research. But eggs cause it too. >Eggs, milk, and meat are essential to the human diet.
no they aren't
2 months ago
Anonymous
humans don't NEED vegetables either, what's your point?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You still haven't answered my question
You have intentionally ignored my answer two times now
Your question: >How is your body relevant to clinical research?
My answers: >I don't care about highly flawed research that can't be replicated. >Again, I don't care about highly flawed studies that can't be replicated.
Once again, your claims mean nothing until you post body. So post body, or you can get the fuck out of this thread. Pick one.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Once again, your claims mean nothing until you post body. So post body, or you can get the fuck out of this thread. Pick one.
Tell me how your body is relevant to the clinical research. You still haven't answered this basic question. >Eggs don't cause heart disease.
Not supported by the weight of the evidence >Their cholesterol has no impact on the body
Wrong, specifically for a quarter of the population >It's also a precursor to testosterone,
Your body makes all the cholesterol it needs
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Tell me how your body is relevant to the clinical research. You still haven't answered this basic question.
Illiteracy confirmed. The "clinical research" in of itself is irrelevant because the design of your singular study is shit and it can't be replicated anyway. Of course your brain is malfunctioning due to choline deficiency, so this isn't surprising at all.
And once again, you still have not posted body. All your claims can be safely assumed to be false until you post body. Nobody cares about what you have to say until you post body. Do you understand that yet?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The "clinical research" in of itself is irrelevant because the design of your singular study is shit and it can't be replicated anyway
That's why we say The BODY of research, which is much much more than a single or even 100 studies.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>That's why we say The BODY of research, which is much much more than a single or even 100 studies.
Then you would have already posted the studies if eggs really were bad for you. Of course that isn't true, so you just cherry-picked one flawed study and acted as if you won.
Now tell me, where are you going to get your choline, if not from eggs? You need at least 550mg a day, if you're an adult male, and you likely need more for optimal performance if you're an active person, and if you lift, and if you use your brain a lot. >The primary criterion used to estimate the Adequate Intake (AI) for choline is the prevention of liver damage as assessed by measuring serum alanine aminotransferase levels. The AI for adults is 550 mg/day of choline for men and 425 mg/day for women.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114308/ >When deprived of dietary choline, 77% of men and 80% of postmenopausal women developed fatty liver or muscle damage, whereas only 44% of premenopausal women developed such signs of organ dysfunction. Moreover, 6 men developed these signs while consuming 550 mg choline · 70 kg−1 · d−1, the AI for choline. Folic acid supplementation did not alter the subjects’ response.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2435503/
Getting enough choline to hit the AI is difficult without eggs, and outright impossible without animal products, unless 70% of your diet is broccoli, cauliflower, beans, and shiitake mushrooms, which no vegan is doing as far as I know. And that's just the AI, you probably want 1g+ for optimal performance. >Recent analyses indicate that large portions of the population (ie, approximately 90% of Americans), including most pregnant and lactating women, are well below the AI for choline. Moreover, the food patterns recommended by the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans are currently insufficient to meet the AI for choline in most age-sex groups.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6259877/
2 months ago
Anonymous
Not to mention all the other stuff that happens as a result of choline deficiency >Considering these many diverse roles, choline deficiency can cause disorders in many bodily systems, including liver, muscle, and lymphocytes in humans and, additionally, the kidney, pancreas, and developing brain and nervous system in animals. >Choline deficiency causes clinical illness in humans. >One of the first clinical signs of dietary choline deficiency is the development of fatty liver (hepatosteatosis) resulting from the lack of phosphatidylcholine to package and export very-low-density lipoproteins. >Choline deficiency is the only nutrient deficiency shown to induce the development of spontaneous carcinoma. >Similarly, elevations in muscle enzymes (eg, serum creatine phosphokinase) can occur in humans during choline deficiency. >However, studies in patients receiving low-choline solutions intravenously determined that endogenous synthesis was insufficient to prevent liver and muscle dysfunction characteristic of choline deficiency. >There is also evidence that choline deficiency leads to decrements in some measures of learning and memory. >During neurogenesis, neuronal precursor cells proliferate, migrate, and differentiate to neurons. Supplemental choline during this critical period enhances proliferation and differentiation, whereas choline deficiency decreases proliferation and differentiation. Choline deficiency also increases the rate of neuronal cell death. >Choline deficiency has been associated with liver and muscle damage and increases in homocysteine (a risk factor for heart disease) after a methionine load. Recent reports suggest that choline metabolism may also play a role in diabetes, cancer, and cystic fibrosis.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6259877/
If you aren't eating eggs, you probably aren't getting 550mg of choline a day, unless you design it very meticulously, which most people don't do. Just eat the fucking eggs please
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Then you would have already posted the studies if eggs really were bad for you
I would, provided it would make any difference. I know it won't so I won't bother.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I know it won't so I won't bother.
So why did you post one in the first place?
Also nice job ignoring everything else I sent. Pretty convenient isn't it: I'm supposed to address your shitty study, but you can just side-step anything I send by not responding at all. Typical of you slimy fucks
2 months ago
Anonymous
>So why did you post one in the first place?
Did it?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yes
https://i.imgur.com/Ylw2FtK.jpg
Cholesterol is bad for you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439941/
>The associations of dietary cholesterol or egg consumption with incident CVD and all-cause mortality were monotonic (all P values for nonlinear terms, .19-.83). Each additional 300 mg of dietary cholesterol consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.09-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 3.24% [95% CI, 1.39%-5.08%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.10-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 4.43% [95% CI, 2.51%-6.36%]). Each additional half an egg consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]; adjusted ARD, 1.11% [95% CI, 0.32%-1.89%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.11]; adjusted ARD, 1.93% [95% CI, 1.10%-2.76%]).
>How is your body relevant to clinical research?
Because the words on your screen don't matter at all if they don't have real-life results, you retarded basement-dwelling shut-in.
Also this
2 months ago
Anonymous
Meant to reply to
>So why did you post one in the first place?
Did it?
not
>I know it won't so I won't bother.
So why did you post one in the first place?
Also nice job ignoring everything else I sent. Pretty convenient isn't it: I'm supposed to address your shitty study, but you can just side-step anything I send by not responding at all. Typical of you slimy fucks
kek
2 months ago
Anonymous
You understand there are studies that encompass reviewing hundreds of studies, right?
2 months ago
Anonymous
You realize those studies are hand-picked to align with the view of the researchers who write the review, right?
2 months ago
Anonymous
You suppose those studies are funded to align with the view of the funding organization, otherwise they are swept under the rug, right?
2 months ago
Anonymous
its a fact. its routinely done
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's okay to be skeptical. Some people are motivated by just helping out their bros and figuring shit out, though.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Post your lipid profile and blood pressure. The claims regarding negative health outcomes from eating animal products are mostly related to cardiovascular disease and cancer which you can't tell by looking at a picture of your (very nice) abdominal muscles. You could have advanced atherosclerosis and cancerous tumors growing in your asshole and we would not be able to see it from a picture. Your repeated requests for anon to post a picture of his body are therefore unreasonable as neither a picture of his body nor your own is relevant to the conversation.
Also this is a picture of my abs from last year with a low bodyfat percentage while on a completely vegan diet, which is again, irrelevant to the conversation.
2 months ago
Anonymous
standard lipid panel doesnt measure ldl
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The claims regarding negative health outcomes from eating animal products are mostly related to cardiovascular disease and cancer which you can't tell by looking at a picture of your (very nice) abdominal muscles.
Okay, so I guess you're dying too since you're deficient in choline, which also leads to those things as well as fatty liver, muscle dysfunction, neurological issues, and more
https://i.imgur.com/s86NE3j.jpg
Not to mention all the other stuff that happens as a result of choline deficiency >Considering these many diverse roles, choline deficiency can cause disorders in many bodily systems, including liver, muscle, and lymphocytes in humans and, additionally, the kidney, pancreas, and developing brain and nervous system in animals. >Choline deficiency causes clinical illness in humans. >One of the first clinical signs of dietary choline deficiency is the development of fatty liver (hepatosteatosis) resulting from the lack of phosphatidylcholine to package and export very-low-density lipoproteins. >Choline deficiency is the only nutrient deficiency shown to induce the development of spontaneous carcinoma. >Similarly, elevations in muscle enzymes (eg, serum creatine phosphokinase) can occur in humans during choline deficiency. >However, studies in patients receiving low-choline solutions intravenously determined that endogenous synthesis was insufficient to prevent liver and muscle dysfunction characteristic of choline deficiency. >There is also evidence that choline deficiency leads to decrements in some measures of learning and memory. >During neurogenesis, neuronal precursor cells proliferate, migrate, and differentiate to neurons. Supplemental choline during this critical period enhances proliferation and differentiation, whereas choline deficiency decreases proliferation and differentiation. Choline deficiency also increases the rate of neuronal cell death. >Choline deficiency has been associated with liver and muscle damage and increases in homocysteine (a risk factor for heart disease) after a methionine load. Recent reports suggest that choline metabolism may also play a role in diabetes, cancer, and cystic fibrosis.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6259877/
If you aren't eating eggs, you probably aren't getting 550mg of choline a day, unless you design it very meticulously, which most people don't do. Just eat the fucking eggs please
>Also this is a picture of my abs from last year with a low bodyfat percentage while on a completely vegan diet
I am literally bulking right now (currently 17% bf-ish) but my abs are better than yours. What does that say about your "superior" vegan diet?
I'm saying your body right now has zero relevance to the outside world. The results of studies do.
>words on a screen mean more than my literal flesh and blood
What the fuck did he mean by this? Dude, if you eat a "healthy" diet that omits meat, eggs, dairy, etc but you're morbidly obese and can't get out of bed before noon, who gives a shit? And if I eat an "unhealthy" diet that includes red meat, eggs, and dairy, but I get out of bed within 30 seconds of waking up and have lots of energy throughout the day while also putting on muscle and cutting fat easily, then who gives a shit?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I get out of bed within 30 seconds of waking up
What is your sleep hygiene like? I'm miring.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>What is your sleep hygiene like? I'm miring.
It's not perfect, but I have the wake-up portion down to a T. I have two alarms, one on one of those wrist-band thingies and the other on my phone, the phone alarm being 1 minute later at 6:01. I usually wake up before 6 but I typically try to go back to sleep if I do (though sometimes I just get up earlier instead), so when I eventually get woken up by the first alarm, I have 1 minute to go and turn off the phone alarm before it goes off (which is in another room), which typically makes me get out of bed instantly. Works better than anything else I've tried tbh
As for the going to sleep portion, I can get to sleep fairly quickly since I usually don't fuck up the main shit here (cold room, no phone/screens before bed, etc you know the rest), the main issue is just going to bed too late to begin with. Not a huge problem, I usually get 7-7.5 hours of sleep but I want to get up to 8-9 hours since my training typically goes better there. >What does that have to do with anything?
It means that no matter what the "data" says, if it doesn't produce results, who cares? If the scientific literature tells me that I need to do 40 sets per muscle group per week for optimal growth, but I find that I get better results with 12-15 sets per week, then who gives a fuck about the literature? Real-world results are what matter. >One example doesn't trump the body of research.
The "body of research" can hardly come to any solid conclusions besides very basic shit like "eat whole foods not processed junk," so who cares? And again, you have failed to cite this "body of research," so to us it doesn't exist until you provide a source. You still haven't responded to
https://i.imgur.com/Bgqpiqr.jpg
>That's why we say The BODY of research, which is much much more than a single or even 100 studies.
Then you would have already posted the studies if eggs really were bad for you. Of course that isn't true, so you just cherry-picked one flawed study and acted as if you won.
Now tell me, where are you going to get your choline, if not from eggs? You need at least 550mg a day, if you're an adult male, and you likely need more for optimal performance if you're an active person, and if you lift, and if you use your brain a lot. >The primary criterion used to estimate the Adequate Intake (AI) for choline is the prevention of liver damage as assessed by measuring serum alanine aminotransferase levels. The AI for adults is 550 mg/day of choline for men and 425 mg/day for women.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114308/ >When deprived of dietary choline, 77% of men and 80% of postmenopausal women developed fatty liver or muscle damage, whereas only 44% of premenopausal women developed such signs of organ dysfunction. Moreover, 6 men developed these signs while consuming 550 mg choline · 70 kg−1 · d−1, the AI for choline. Folic acid supplementation did not alter the subjects’ response.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2435503/
Getting enough choline to hit the AI is difficult without eggs, and outright impossible without animal products, unless 70% of your diet is broccoli, cauliflower, beans, and shiitake mushrooms, which no vegan is doing as far as I know. And that's just the AI, you probably want 1g+ for optimal performance. >Recent analyses indicate that large portions of the population (ie, approximately 90% of Americans), including most pregnant and lactating women, are well below the AI for choline. Moreover, the food patterns recommended by the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans are currently insufficient to meet the AI for choline in most age-sex groups.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6259877/
https://i.imgur.com/s86NE3j.jpg
Not to mention all the other stuff that happens as a result of choline deficiency >Considering these many diverse roles, choline deficiency can cause disorders in many bodily systems, including liver, muscle, and lymphocytes in humans and, additionally, the kidney, pancreas, and developing brain and nervous system in animals. >Choline deficiency causes clinical illness in humans. >One of the first clinical signs of dietary choline deficiency is the development of fatty liver (hepatosteatosis) resulting from the lack of phosphatidylcholine to package and export very-low-density lipoproteins. >Choline deficiency is the only nutrient deficiency shown to induce the development of spontaneous carcinoma. >Similarly, elevations in muscle enzymes (eg, serum creatine phosphokinase) can occur in humans during choline deficiency. >However, studies in patients receiving low-choline solutions intravenously determined that endogenous synthesis was insufficient to prevent liver and muscle dysfunction characteristic of choline deficiency. >There is also evidence that choline deficiency leads to decrements in some measures of learning and memory. >During neurogenesis, neuronal precursor cells proliferate, migrate, and differentiate to neurons. Supplemental choline during this critical period enhances proliferation and differentiation, whereas choline deficiency decreases proliferation and differentiation. Choline deficiency also increases the rate of neuronal cell death. >Choline deficiency has been associated with liver and muscle damage and increases in homocysteine (a risk factor for heart disease) after a methionine load. Recent reports suggest that choline metabolism may also play a role in diabetes, cancer, and cystic fibrosis.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6259877/
If you aren't eating eggs, you probably aren't getting 550mg of choline a day, unless you design it very meticulously, which most people don't do. Just eat the fucking eggs please
anyway so don't give me that shit >garbage diet.
Lol. Lmao
2 months ago
Anonymous
>ude, if you eat a "healthy" diet that omits meat, eggs, dairy, etc but you're morbidly obese and can't get out of bed before noon, who gives a shit?
What does that have to do with anything? > Obviously, real-world results take precedence over clinical research (results are superior to research, such is the hierarchy of sciene)
One example doesn't trump the body of research. Especially some young anon in his 20's or 30's who can easily get away with a garbage diet.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>One example doesn't trump the body of research.
"the body of research" is so many miles away from conclusive that anecdotes are still important
it basically amounts to a conspiracy theory
2 months ago
Anonymous
>anecdotes are still important
No they aren't
https://i.imgur.com/hb6DJGg.png
You understand there are studies that encompass reviewing hundreds of studies, right?
>You understand there are studies that encompass reviewing hundreds of studies, right?
Yes
2 months ago
Anonymous
literal flat earther
2 months ago
Anonymous
>literal flat earther
That's rich coming from a cholesterol denialist
2 months ago
Anonymous
>that's rich coming from a globetard
k bro
2 months ago
Anonymous
Anyway you slice this you are aren't the majority of scientific research. If that's where you want to be, more power to you. There are plenty of Youtube grifters and egg board funded studies to support exactly what you want to believe.
If it makes you feel any better I DO think a single egg or two can be part of a healthy diet. It's you guys who seem to go overboard and suggest 6 eggs( or more) a day, which for a bunch of kids in their 20's is not a problem. But for the general population? it's insane.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>If that's where you want to be, more power to you.
i would always of course prefer to be aware of the scientific research available, but just because you develop a hypothesis and it happens to be popular, I don't necessarily need to agree with it. it's not "science denialism" to disagree with a hypothesis
2 months ago
CecilDrakeInSeattle
Anti-nutrient mentally ill vegan.
A 16 raw egg shake is the fucking God juice.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Anti-nutrient mentally ill vegan.
i have eggs in my fridge right now my dude.
2 months ago
CecilDrakeInSeattle
All of your vegan "foods" are full of anti nutrients and poisons, indigestible, low index protein. You are sick.
2 months ago
CecilDrakeInSeattle
Most of this you're saying is outdated 80s info.
Most health guidelines do recommend eating eggs now.
And dietary cholesterol has no impact for the vast majority of people.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Most of this you're saying is outdated 80s info.
No it isn't.
2 months ago
CecilDrakeInSeattle
Just watch the video, you seem a bit simple minded.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Just watch the video, you seem a bit simple minded.
Berg has no idea what he's talking about and he's a chiropractor.
2 months ago
CecilDrakeInSeattle
Cool refute and appeal to authority, well here is your appeal to authority..
>People with raised cholesterol often wonder if it’s OK to eat eggs, as egg yolk is rich in cholesterol. Generally speaking, it should be fine for most people, as the cholesterol in eggs does not have a significant effect on blood cholesterol.
Or maybe the gov heart specialists are wrong and you're right...
2 months ago
Anonymous
based berg
also this is why you never trust ~~*science*~~
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Or maybe the gov heart specialists are wrong and you're right...
same specialists that told you to vaxx up?
2 months ago
CecilDrakeInSeattle
Eggs don't cause heart disease. Their cholesterol has no impact on the body, and for most people, eating eggs actually decreases bad cholesterol.
It's also a precursor to testosterone, which keeps people healthy, youthful, and improve heart health.
In fact, one mist simply think logically too about the egg. It has everything needed to start life. To birth a baby. It would make no sense evolutionary wise for things in eggs to cause ill health upon something.
Sure it is anecdotal, but people who I know who avoided them, had high blood pressure, diabetes etc. Have all improved their health, if not cured something due to increasing egg usage.
I myself eat about 50 eggs per week.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Post body
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Post body
As soon as you explain how that's relevant to the research.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I don't doubt you, you should post research
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2721712/ >Both the apoB/apoA-I ratio (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.11–4.10) and the TC/HDL-C ratio (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04–1.16) were related to CHD death. Only apoB (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.05–3.86) and the apoB/apoA-I ratio (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.04–4.19) remained significantly associated with CHD death after adjusting for CV risk factors. >Conclusion >In the US population, apolipoprotein measurements significantly predict CHD death, independently of conventional lipids and other CV risk factors (smoking, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, obesity, diabetes and C-reactive protein). Furthermore, the predictive ability of apoB alone to detect CHD death was better than any of the routine clinical lipid measurements. Inclusion of apolipoprotein measurements in future clinical guidelines should not be discarded
Apolipoprotein levels in the blood predict heart disease even in the absence of general dyslipidemia, IE you can have healthy total cholesterol levels, but if you have systemic inflammation for other reasons (chronically elevated blood sugar, immune system dysfunction, etc) you are still at a significantly higher risk of heart disease.
2 months ago
Anonymous
And again, HR 2.14, which ok, might show there is a little correlation if everything else in the study was done perfectly, but really is nothing to write home about, and HR of 1.1, which is literally random noise with no predictive value whatsoever. The other two are HR 2, which still, mean very fucking little.
Protip, language like "significant" means "a single percentage point more likely than completely random, maybe". It doesn't mean jack shit, its manipulative language used to obscure the fact that the numbers are underwhelming at best, and fucking worthless at worst.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Well, a HR of 2 is a doubling of risk. So it depends on what baseline of risk you're looking at. If you're above a certain age, if you're male, if youre sedentary, then a doubling of your risk for a heart attack etc can be a big deal.
If you're metabolically healthy, physically active, no family history, etc, then a doubling of your risk might be going from 1/100,000 to 1/50,000
>How is your body relevant to clinical research?
Because the words on your screen don't matter at all if they don't have real-life results, you retarded basement-dwelling shut-in.
>Because the words on your screen don't matter at all if they don't have real-life results
The results of clinical research have actual effects on the real world. Your body has literally zero.
>he's now making the claim that anon's body is not real
Damn what a mire.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'm saying your body right now has zero relevance to the outside world. The results of studies do.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What "outside world" are you referring to you dingleberry? No one is talking about your "outside world." We're talking about "real-life results," which can be seen with anon's "real-life body." Stop changing the goalposts please.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>We're talking about "real-life results," which can be seen with anon's "real-life body."
No we aren't
2 months ago
Anonymous
Is your goal tonight to win an argument? Because that's a strange goal to have on an anonymous imageboard. "Outside world" was not mentioned until your last post. We're talking about real-world application from clinical research. Obviously, real-world results take precedence over clinical research (results are superior to research, such is the hierarchy of science).
Anon's body is real, whether you like it or not. Therefore, it is an example of a real-world result. This has relevance to our conversation, because real-world results take precedence over clinical research.
>still didn't post the rest
lol what are you afraid of bro? did you skip leg day? imagine spamming those "fitness redpill" threads but you can't even show your limbs
My hamstrings are literally my best bodypart but ok bro >inb4 small calves
I only started training them seriously like 6 months ago, I'll get there eventually kek
2 months ago
Anonymous
kek what the fuck am i looking at. the point of posting a whole body picture is so we can see your actual proportions. individual parts out of context are meaningless and imply that you're desperate to hide something. just sayin
2 months ago
Anonymous
You asked me to prove that I don't skip leg day, so I did. What more do you want? Do I have to prove that I don't skip piriformis day or something? >imply that you're desperate to hide something
Like what exactly?
Also >imagine spamming those "fitness redpill" threads
Literally the only reason why I still post them is because I was asked to by other anons, if you look through the archives you can see that I actually stopped posting them for a while for that reason. People find them helpful so I post them, pretty simple tbh
Any hazard ratio below 2, especially below 1.5,is absolute bunk and statistical noise.
For reference, the hazard ratio for smoking and lung cancer, COPD etc ranges from 14-25. You're fucking crying about a hazard ratio of 1.08, its literally nothing, a difference of that magnitude is impossible to account for because of all the confounding factors.
Bro, you're talking to moxyte, he's literally retarded, he has no idea what a hazard ratio is, has no conception of statistical power, of anything relevant to science at all really. He can't, he's too brain damaged from B12 and DHA deficiency.
>Any hazard ratio below 2, especially below 1.5,is absolute bunk and statistical noise.
That's good to know, I never knew that despite knowing what a hazard ratio is. Thanks for sharing anon.
>this thread again
Its based on a study from like 2018 with fake eggs or something.
You idiots keep falling for clickbait. Imagine being this stupid. have a nice day.
Cholesterol is bad for you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439941/
>The associations of dietary cholesterol or egg consumption with incident CVD and all-cause mortality were monotonic (all P values for nonlinear terms, .19-.83). Each additional 300 mg of dietary cholesterol consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.09-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 3.24% [95% CI, 1.39%-5.08%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.10-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 4.43% [95% CI, 2.51%-6.36%]). Each additional half an egg consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]; adjusted ARD, 1.11% [95% CI, 0.32%-1.89%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.11]; adjusted ARD, 1.93% [95% CI, 1.10%-2.76%]).
Cholesterol is bad for you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439941/
>The associations of dietary cholesterol or egg consumption with incident CVD and all-cause mortality were monotonic (all P values for nonlinear terms, .19-.83). Each additional 300 mg of dietary cholesterol consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.09-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 3.24% [95% CI, 1.39%-5.08%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.10-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 4.43% [95% CI, 2.51%-6.36%]). Each additional half an egg consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]; adjusted ARD, 1.11% [95% CI, 0.32%-1.89%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.11]; adjusted ARD, 1.93% [95% CI, 1.10%-2.76%]).
You know what kills people more with heart attacks? Being fat.
I didn't see them explicitly control for BMI; I could be wrong and it's hidden in the methodology somewhere.
>do you want this problem or that problem from eating?
That's not how food or nutrition works at all. You don't get diseases from eating healthy foods full of nutrients. There are no healthy foods which become unhealthy if you eat a "little too much" of them. This literally does not exist.
Stop taking the statin because it is decreasing your testosterone massively. Stop eating anything with an ingredients list. Start eating foods that aren't hard to cook/don't need cooking and are massively nutritious (eggs, beef liver, fruit, milk, anything else without an ingredients list). It's not rocket science.
I'd put him on a zero-carb diet 20 years before he developed diabetes and died of its complications at age 59. If I only knew then what I know now, that is.
Yeah, and now that their diets have changes to include more meat and more calories overall, their life expectancy is falling.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/art-culture/japan-what-s-behind-okinawans-falling-life-expectancy-101655111119234.html
>By 1990, average life expectancy for Okinawan men was only the fifth highest of the 47 prefectures in Japan and by 2020 had fallen to 36th place on the list. Okinawan women were top of the prefectural list until 2005 but were down to seventh spot in 2020.
You can't have it both ways anon. You can't brag that they have a high life expectancy when looking at the cohort that lived in the early and mid 20th century on a high carb, low meat, calorie restricted diet, and conclude that this was a result of their modern diet, when their life expectancy in the modern era is actually very low for Japan overall.
Before the war they ate a shitload of pork, moron. After the war they started eating a shitload of processed carbs, which is the real Western diet.
The consumption of animal fats and protein has fallen in the West over the last several decades by a ton. You lying FUCK. We eat LESS saturated fat, not more. We eat FAR more processed carbs. Buffoon. Liar. Rat.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Before the war they ate a shitload of pork, moron.
Source: a chiropractor on YouTube
2 months ago
Anonymous
Uh it's pretty common knowledge, I don't know what chiropractor you're referring to.
Your link says nothing about Okinawa's pork consumption in the prewar period specifically. Try again
2 months ago
Anonymous
It's pretty clear about the consumption of pork in Japan in the early-to-mid 20th century. Are we referring to the same war?
2 months ago
Anonymous
You said BEFORE the war their pork consumption was high, implying the diet studies showing the ate very little meat and a lot of carbs, conducted in the post war period don't reflect their traditional diet.
You haven't established that Okinawans ate a high pork diet before WW2. The studies from the 1950s show them eating around 3g of meat daily, much less than the 11g daily consumption of the rest of the country. It isn't u til the 70s and 80s that Okinawan pork consumption becomes significant.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>the studies >no studies linked
How do you eat 3 grams of meat daily, dummy? Do you even know what 3 grams of meat looks like?
2 months ago
Anonymous
bump
2 months ago
Anonymous
By not eating every day you retard.
Eat 21g once a week, = 3g daily etc
2 months ago
Anonymous
Ohh they were eating 3/4 of an oz of meat weekly. That makes more sense.
fucking lmao, still didn't post any studies. what a dummy.
Oh don't bother, he's literally an insane, possessed ideologue that is immune to all criticism or argument.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Lmao I'm actually arguing against OP in other posts ITT I just hate the intellectual dishonesty that always surrounds the Okinawan subject. They ate much less meat before the American occupation, and it is the cohort that grew up in those decades that had a high life expectancy.
Go and look up their modern life expectancy after decades of eating a high pork diet, it isn't particularly high.
Pork is a shitty meat full of PUFAs from the high grain slop diet that the pigs are fed.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The consumption of animal fats and protein has fallen in the West over the last several decades by a ton
Source: an unsourced infographic from a low carb Facebook group
2 months ago
Anonymous
Uh it's pretty common knowledge that processed foods (full of seed oils) are dominating American households, and they didn't used to. If you're eating more seed oils, you are eating less animal fats. Protein consumption is also being put aside in favor of grains (again, due to processed foods).
2 months ago
Anonymous
Your own picture shows Americans are eating >Protein consumption is also being put aside in favor of grains (again, due to processed foods).
Your own picture literally shows it has increased, though.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>a 1.4% increase in "meat, egg, and nut" consumption with an 18.6% total increase in calorie intake with a 27% decrease in animal fat intake means protein consumption has increased
??? What are you smoking?
2 months ago
Anonymous
You said that meat/protein consumption had FALLEN over the past decades. Then you posted data showing it had actually slightly increased. What are YOU smoking?
2 months ago
Anonymous
The graph doesn't show protein consumption, so you are just being schizophrenic about that. Anyway, regarding the meat consumption, that is also bucketed in a category with "nuts and eggs." So that is also not just a "meat consumption" category. Ignoring that, an increase of 1% (not significant anyway) in the presence of a 19% increase in total calories mean meat consumption went down when you compare it to everything else in the diet. I don't know how to explain this better to you since apparently you don't understand proportions or percents.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Just wanted to say anon gz on the thorough btfoing of that gay
Imagine being this fucking stupid. Meds and Okinawans don't eat pork. I'm not even vegan and will be eating eggs and pork after Easter but you're a stupid fuck if you think they aren't bad for you.
>They're STILL pushing the "eggs are bad for you" angle
This has already been debunked a thousand fucking times. It's insane to see anti egg articles still being published.
It's like the retards who pushed fake butter and margarine, only to find out that fake goyslop was literally giving people heart attacks.
Go back to eating your basedbean and seed-oil goyslop you stupid cuck.
Eggs, milk, and meat are essential to the human diet.
In all of human history, no man or women has ever survived a consumption entirely made out of plants. To this day, there is not a single Vegan who has subsisted entirely on plants for an extended period of time.
Literally every single Vegan, without fail, has at some point returned to consuming meat or egg because their body could not survive without it otherwise.
However, humans have survived on nothing but eggs and meats.
>To this day, there is not a single Vegan who has subsisted entirely on plants for an extended period of time
I was vegetarian for the first 20 years of my life and vegan for the next 15. I'm the healthiest person I know, couldn't imagine eating animal products unless I was forced to. Ok bait though I guess.
Ketoschizo (who runs his own "pastured, grass fed" organic farm) has been spamming posts like these non-stop.
He wants to shill the idea that every piece of evidence against animal foods is a conspiracy theory, and that no, the cholesterol deposits clogging your arteries have no association with dietary cholesterol at all.
Whether his goal is to delude you or delude himself is anyone's guess, but ignoring literally mountains of clear evidence that these foods will harm your health is irresponsible and outright malicious at worst. He will have a lot to answer for before God knowing that he willingly lied to people which sent them to early graves.
Are you the insane person who said there are "thousands of studies proving a causal link between cholesterol consumption and disease" in the last thread? Because that's a pretty bold-faced lie and I'm wondering how insane you are to say such things over the internet.
You eat until you're sated. The excess turns to sugar. You don't need to eat that much. Keto isn't the same thing. They're just eating pounds of bacon every hour with hardly any protein
There was a study done on university students who had low cholesterol, one group got to eat eggs for a few weeks, the other one none.
The group of students who ate eggs had significantly elevated blood cholesterol levels.
The meme that cholesterol doesn't raise blood cholesterol is true when you have capped out on circulating cholesterol, you can't get any higher when adding even more. Simple logic right?
Now, some may argue that high blood cholesterol is not bad if you have no inflammation where the cholesterol can build up on. But all the studies and science point to the fact that high blood cholesterol raises stroke and heart attack risk. I don't want this to be true, but it sadly is. And since heart disease is prevalent in my family, I can't take any risks.
Think about it from a natural standpoint, even hunter gatherers had low blood cholesterol because animals back then had very little fat on their bodies and organs, the only source would have been brain and eggs. Brain is a tiny part of an animal, and eggs are rare and sparse. They didn't had domesticated chickens, they had to manually pick them from the trees. A rare treat.
Yes, because in the western world people live longer the richer they are, and the richer they are the more shitty food they eat and they cholesterol rises. But they have acces to top notch healthcare, like my grandpa who lived to 93, but died to a stroke in the end and had countless stents and surgeries.
>The worldwide association of H. erectus with elephants is well documented and so is the preference of humans for fat as a source of energy. We show that rather than a matter of preference, H. erectus in the Levant was dependent on both elephants and fat for his survival. The disappearance of elephants from the Levant some 400 kyr ago coincides with the appearance of a new and innovative local cultural complex – the Levantine Acheulo-Yabrudian and, as is evident from teeth recently found in the Acheulo-Yabrudian 400-200 kyr site of Qesem Cave, the replacement of H. erectus by a new hominin. We employ a bio-energetic model to present a hypothesis that the disappearance of the elephants, which created a need to hunt an increased number of smaller and faster animals while maintaining an adequate fat content in the diet, was the evolutionary drive behind the emergence of the lighter, more agile, and cognitively capable hominins. Qesem Cave thus provides a rare opportunity to study the mechanisms that underlie the emergence of our post-erectus ancestors, the fat hunters.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028689
>People with raised cholesterol often wonder if it’s OK to eat eggs, as egg yolk is rich in cholesterol. Generally speaking, it should be fine for most people, as the cholesterol in eggs does not have a significant effect on blood cholesterol.
Or maybe the gov heart specialists are wrong and you're right...
Doctors are trained in pharma and giving out medications. Not natural or holistic approaches. They're the last people you listen to.
Don't have to be a doctor ffs to search things, and prove him wrong. Not oh he's not a real doctor.
You're probably a teenager who doesn't understand the world revolves around money, not truth. Hence the whole sugar industry won out against fat in the 70s. This was wrong. But funded by the sugar industry.
good goy, trust a literal pill pusher who profits off you being perpetually sick over someone who lives a happy and healthy life and makes recommendations based on his own lifestyle
Pretty much this. The only times you gotta care a whole ton about dietary cholesterol is if you have high cholesterol because of some other health issue (like fatty liver disease).
>even hunter gatherers had low blood cholesterol because animals back then had very little fat on their bodies and organs
Yeah bro elephants and mammoths and moose and bison are pretty lean as we all know lmao.
Also lol'ing that you said the only fatty organ is the brain. How you don't know about suet or bone marrow but make these posts as if you are very knowledgable is pretty embarrassing.
>I believe I am so smart that I attribute Dunning-Kruger with overconfidence. Because I am so smart and certainly know what the Dunning-Kruger effect means.
>The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.
Please explain why I'm wrong when anon definitively says "the only source of fat would have been the brain."
I've been eating 4-8 eggs every single day for the past 5 years and I'm super healthy
I didn't even get sick from that Covid shit all my friends got destroyed by
>high cholesterol can lead to impotence
I have literally never heard of someone who eats multiple eggs a day being impotent and I've heard of many cases where people who totally restrict their cholesterol intake become impotent. What a weird accusation.
When I was a lad I ate four dozen eggs every morning to help me get large. But now that I'm grown I eat five dozen eggs, so I'm roughly the size of a baaaaaaaarge
I saw an episode of NOVA where they spoke to various scientists about how high cholesterol might not be related to heart health at all and was simply pushed by big pharma as a way to make a fortune selling statins. the most convincing argument was a doctor showing a timeline chart that in the U.K. since statins have been prescribed there has been no reduction in the number of heart attacks in the population per year. If they had a benefit wouldn't heart disease have been reduced in some manner?
Yet if i run even a simple google search there are endless articles about how not enough people are taking statins to protect themselves from high cholesterol as articles about the dangers of side effects and cardiologist against there over-prescription. Once again completely useless contradictions. I wish I knew what was true.
Well, on the whole eggs are great for you, really. There are some things about them that are less than ideal, to be sure. They might provoke allergic or intolerance reactions in some people due to their protein composition, raw they have some antinutrients in them, etc. Nothing major however. And they do contain a lot of fat soluble vitamins. They're essentially the whole chicken in a pill, after all. I eat 4-8 most days as a part of a balanced carnivore-adjacent diet consisting of red fatty meat, eggs, fish, some cheese and butter, and water and coffee.
>Redpill me on why eggs are bad for you.
Bad 70s diet science funded by corn, sugar, and wheat companies that equates dietary cholesterol with serum cholesterol. Eggs are loaded with nutrients and you could live on just eggs for a pretty long time.
Factory farmed eggs from hens kept in battery cages however are often less nutritious and have bad omega 3 to omega 6 ratios. The more stressed an animal is, the worse its nutritional value (or value of anything it produces), "Free range" does not always mean the hen that laid them had an idyllic life on some sunny pasture, but it's probably better than nothing. Getting your eggs from someone you know is the best option.
Just keep your saturated fat intake <10% of your calories. I eat 6 eggs a day, and my saturated fat is like 8% of my calories. Dietary cholesterol does bump ldl cholesterol a bit, but the effect caps out at like 10mg/dl (unless you're also eating a lot of saturated fat from other sources)
FOR THE 10.000TH FUCKING TIME. CHOLESTEROL FROM ANIMAL PRODUCTS IS NECCESARY AND DOES NOT CLOG ARTERIES OR LEAD TO HEART DISEASE OF ANY KIND.
SEED OILS AND VEGETABLE OILS DO AND THIS STUPID FUCKING PUSH AGAINST ANIMAL CHOLESTEROL HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT A HUGE MARKET BATTLE THATS BEEN GOING ON FOR ALMOST A CENTURY
too much protein, bad for your prostate, all sorts of chemical waste from modern intensive farming / lead and heavy metals in backyard eggs (we used leaded gas for 70 years and it stayed in the dirt)
Stimulates cell growth, which is great if you are a chocken fetus and terrible if you dont want cancer.
Multivariate regression analysis isn't as useful as people think
There are far too many confounding variables in cohort data
Pooling it together into a 'meta analysis' doesn't make it more reliable anymore than CDOs were safer investmnets in 2008 than the junk contained within.
>Pooling it together into a 'meta analysis' doesn't make it more reliable anymore than CDOs were safer investmnets in 2008 than the junk contained within.
That's an excellent metaphor, I thought of it earlier today after reading some of this thread, too.
How about you Eggpill me on why reds are bad for you.
How about you Redegg me on why pills are bad for you.
it's literally the cum of a chicken dude
it yummy doe : DD
They come out of the same hole that chickens peepee and poopoo from
Eggs from girl chickens. If anything it's squirt not cum.
>girl chickens
Seeds are plant cum.
and?
its an unfertilized egg so its actually more like a period you dumb fucks
american education
>he doesn't eat eggs
it just is, okay? ignore that nearly every animal that can eat eggs does
they are good for you
Now coffee? yeah it's good for you too
But eggs don't give you brain fog, caffeine crashed and dark eye circles
Eat eggs, they're great, simple as
>being muscular = healthy
k
Didn't zeez die at like 20 years old?
zyzz went from auschwitz mode to picrelated in 3 years
dude was blasting like a madman and had a heart disease he didn't know about
>had a heart disease
He didn't have a heart disease. He had a congenital heart defect. 25% of the population has a "congenital heart defect." He died because his heart was fucked up from his horribly unhealthy lifestyle and his using of drugs. He is a horrible role model for health. Morbidly obese people live longer than he did and have healthier hearts.
Anabolic steroids on full blast all the time with no off cycle, cocaine abuse, diuretics for days, and an inborn heart defect. Oh and extra dehydration from sauna and sordid ladyboy fucking. Yep, he totally died because of lifting and too much protein, amirite?
It sounds like you're disagreeing with me but that is exactly the "horribly unhealthy lifestyle" and "drug use" I was referring to in my post and exactly why he was a "horrible role model for health."
>he totally died because of lifting and too much protein
No that's not correct at all.
I am agreeing with you, and I was being sarcastic against the retards itt.
congenital means he had it from birth.
Literally genetics.
>literally genetics
Not always. You can have congenital defects in the absence of genetic defects. Anyway, 25% of the population has "congenital heart defects." His horribly unhealthy lifestyle was obviously what killed him. Denying that is massive cope. He is a bad role model.
Bruh, anyone idolising supplement jumping labcoats is about as bad as someone boosting tren and HGH. It's a matter of perspective and self-control.
I miss him bros
Being fat is being unhealthy.
Yes
when IST choose the worst fucking takes on food, this is the result
>eggs are bad, even being the most complete animal food ever
>verification not required
The only problem you can have while eating eggs is that if you eat too much uncooked egg whites it can fuck you up a little. Just make sure to cook your whites and let the yolk be runny and you'll have the perfect food.
Anyway redpill me on eggs.
That "How Not to Diet" book is actually pretty good. Still eat eggs in moderation.
Egg prices are going to keep going up and price out the poor people who voted for the policies and politicians that made the egg prices go up. Same with beef.
Egg prices have already lowered.
If something goes up a lot and then down a little it is still up, anon.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/APU0000708111
Thats not what you said
I'm not him but if you think this chart doesn't show a constant upwards trend in the past few years you are clinically retarded.
>but it goes down a little bit at the end!
Actual mouth-breather.
Again, thats not what you said
Did something break you? You didn't even read the first 3 words of my post, I don't know why you're copy+pasting replies.
Because that isn't what you originally said you change the premise to avoid being caught being wrong
>you change the premise to avoid being caught being wrong
Now adjust for general inflation.
Feel free to do that and come back to me.
Sure here you go. Red line is inflation adjusted. A recent spike coinciding with bird flu and the general Inflation we've seen for the last 18 months, but otherwise it's very stable, as you'd expect for a staple like eggs.
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/egg-prices-adjusted-for-inflation/
>he believes the "bird flu" explanation
lol. I bet you also believed the Nord Stream pipeline blew up because of a gas leak. Anyway, your link shows a constant increase in the past few years, which is exactly what the graph I linked shows. I don't really know what your point is.
You claimed egg prices will keep going up and eventually price out poor people.
Eggs are a staple of too much goyslop for that to ever happen. The price is already normal again when adjusted for inflation. Eggs were at a historically low price for the last 10 years and have actually returned to a more typical price when adjusted for inflation.
Nord Stream was blown up by a US naval diver team that attached remotely detonated explosives during NATO drills in the Baltic sea.
I'm not OP, I was just responding to you saying "egg prices have lowered" when they are still clearly increased and rising since the past few years. That's all I wanted to say. I think I agree with you otherwise, but I'm curious what you mean by:
>Eggs are a staple of too much goyslop for that to ever happen
Do you mean like in packaged cakes and such? That's a really interesting point.
>Eggs were at a historically low price for the last 10 years and have actually returned to a more typical price when adjusted for inflation.
I would guess this price dip happened because of chicken warehouses and egg-collecting factories being made, though. I would think those weren't around a few decades ago. A shift from every egg being hand-picked to only "specialty" eggs being handpicked and the vast majority being collected in factories.
>I'm not OP, I was just responding to you saying "egg prices have lowered
I'm not the anon that said that. I started replying when you tried to make your point with a price chart that wasn't inflation adjusted.
>I'm not the anon that said that
That makes sense, the conversation became much more reasonable with you compared to the other guy who I think is actually insane.
>mayonnaise
Completely forgot about that, good catch.
>hold the line at beef
Yes anon, I completely agree. I will never stop buying beef and (raw local) milk. Me and my wife eat beef in some form every day. I'm never going to give up on cows.
>Do you mean like in packaged cakes and such? That's a really interesting point.
Yes, that and seed-oil "mayonaisse" etc. Eggs are far too crucial an ingredient in the goyslop industry to be price gouged for the purposes of social engineering.
Maybe in some decades, but the WEF types are firmly targeting beef first. We hold the line at beef and we will never have to worry about our eggs.
Poor people could be dying of hunger but still vote for the rich man that preaches austerity and bootstrap ethics.
I thought the bug food was funny memes but politicians in my country are openly saying that some food is for poor people and other for the rich and no one bats an eye. The battle is lost.
I love eggs, too bad "eat ze bugs" is banning them with the fucking excuse of "bird flu" and mass slaughter of poultry.
they arent
Source?
Cholesterol is bad for you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6439941/
>The associations of dietary cholesterol or egg consumption with incident CVD and all-cause mortality were monotonic (all P values for nonlinear terms, .19-.83). Each additional 300 mg of dietary cholesterol consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.09-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 3.24% [95% CI, 1.39%-5.08%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.18 [95% CI, 1.10-1.26]; adjusted ARD, 4.43% [95% CI, 2.51%-6.36%]). Each additional half an egg consumed per day was significantly associated with higher risk of incident CVD (adjusted HR, 1.06 [95% CI, 1.03-1.10]; adjusted ARD, 1.11% [95% CI, 0.32%-1.89%]) and all-cause mortality (adjusted HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 1.04-1.11]; adjusted ARD, 1.93% [95% CI, 1.10%-2.76%]).
correlation not causation
>tell people its healthy to limit dietary cholesterol
>health conscious people limit dietary cholesterol
>self fulfilling prophecy without any real experiment to test if its actually beneficial
The study controlled for numerous lifestyle metrics. Cope.
its still not an experiment and is only a correlation. does not change what i said in
But it didn't? It literally says that it didn't, are you illiterate?
>Are you illiterate?
If he was he'd likely be less retarded. If he couldn't read he would probably have avoided being brainwashed to the degree he is now.
>The study controlled for numerous lifestyle metrics.
Translation: they manipulated their data in line with the hazard ratios of previous studies on said lifestyle metrics which themselves can't control for confounding factors.
Come back when you find a hazard ratio beyond 1.5
So what is causing it then if is not cholesterol? Now the burden of proof is on you, protip: you won't find any clinical trial that supports whatever you are saying is healthy
Nobody cares. have a nice day, Moxyte.
excess visceral adiposity, excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids, and sedentary lifestyle
also see Israeli paradox, French paradox
>excess visceral adiposity, excessive amounts of omega-6 fatty acids, and sedentary lifestyle
there's no evidence for any of that being bad other than correlation too from observational studies, also omega 6 is healthy
>Israeli paradox, French paradox
ecological data is irrelevant
>omega 6 is healthy
Lmao what are you smoking
My sides kek
>Lmao what are you smoking
Reality.
>Conclusions: In pooled global analyses, higher in vivo circulating and tissue levels of LA and possibly AA were associated with lower risk of major cardiovascular events. These results support a favorable role for LA in CVD prevention.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30971107/
>my one study disproves all the other evidence! what now?
Suuuuure
>Intake of SFA was not significantly associated with CHD mortality
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19752542
>Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24723079
>The present systematic review provides no evidence (moderate quality evidence) for the beneficial effects of reduced/modified fat diets in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Recommending higher intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids in replacement of saturated fatty acids was not associated with risk reduction.
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/4/e004487.full
>available evidence from randomized controlled trials provides no indication of benefit on coronary heart disease or all cause mortality from replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid rich vegetable oils.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071971/
>The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27547428/
>Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28526025/
>In our analysis, the Mediterranean diet, modified dietary fat, reduced dietary fat, reduced saturated fat intake, omega-6 PUFA, or omega-3 ALA PUFA did not reduce the risk for mortality or cardiovascular outcomes.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-0341
>my one study disproves all the other evidence! what now?
that's a meta analysis that has more studies than everything you posted lmao, also nothing of what you posted interacts with my claim that omega 6 is healthy which it is.
Aso every single study you posted is superseded by Lee Hooper 2020
>greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32827219/
And other studies such as this rct
>Conclusions: Intakes of MUFAs and PUFAs were associated with a lower risk of CVD and death, whereas SFA and trans-fat intakes were associated with a higher risk of CVD. The replacement of SFAs with MUFAs and PUFAs or of trans fat with MUFAs was inversely associated with CVD
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26561617/
This study alone has more participants) than every single study and still found saturated fat to be unhealthy
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27016614/
>Diets high in saturated fat were associated with higher mortality from all-causes, CVD, and cancer, whereas diets high in polyunsaturated fat were associated with lower mortality from all-causes, CVD, and cancer.
This japanese study showed that red meat is unhealthy since people eating the most had more heart disease, ironically even the people that ate the most red meat also smoked less and drank less alcohol and they still had more heart disease than the ones than ate less meat
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32723506/
In conclusion saturated fat and meat is unhealthy
>that's a meta analysis that has more studies than everything you posted lmao
>>Drs. Wu and Micha report research support from Unilever for this work. Dr. Mozaffarian reports research funding from the National Institutes of Health and the Gates Foundation; personal fees from GOED, DSM, Nutrition Impact, Pollock Communications, Bunge, Indigo Agriculture, Amarin, Acasti Pharma, and America’s Test Kitchen; scientific advisory board, Elysium Health (with stock options), Omada Health, and DayTwo; and chapter royalties from UpToDate; all outside the submitted work. Dr. Psaty serves on the DSMB of a clinical trial funded by the manufacturer (Zoll LifeCor) and on the Steering Committee of the Yale Open Data Access Project funded by Johnson & Johnson. No other conflicts were reported.
My sides kek
>also nothing of what you posted interacts with my claim that omega 6 is healthy which it is.
The claim is
>higher in vivo circulating and tissue levels of LA and possibly AA were associated with lower risk of major cardiovascular events. These results support a favorable role for LA in CVD prevention.
But
>The present systematic review provides no evidence (moderate quality evidence) for the beneficial effects of reduced/modified fat diets in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Recommending higher intakes of polyunsaturated fatty acids in replacement of saturated fatty acids was not associated with risk reduction.
>available evidence from randomized controlled trials provides no indication of benefit on coronary heart disease or all cause mortality from replacing saturated fat with linoleic acid rich vegetable oils.
>The current available evidence found no significant difference in all-cause mortality or CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions.
Cont.
All those studies are superseced by Lee Hooper 2020, you are boring
>But
My meta analysis of omega 6 supersede any study you posted about omega 6 since mine has more studies and more statistical power as well as being newer and more updated
>Superseded by https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article-abstract/29/18/2312/6691821?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false
Did you just posted a review and claim that that supersedes a study? lmao, better go to bed retard.
>Available evidence from adequately controlled randomised controlled trials suggest replacing SFA with mostly n-6 PUFA is unlikely to reduce CHD events, CHD mortality or total mortality.
>In our analysis, the Mediterranean diet, modified dietary fat, reduced dietary fat, reduced saturated fat intake, omega-6 PUFA, or omega-3 ALA PUFA did not reduce the risk for mortality or cardiovascular outcomes.
>Diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality.
Point being, getting rid of SFA in favor of PUFA does not reduce CVD.
>Aso every single study you posted is superseded by Lee Hooper 2020
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36059207/ is newer than that (not even a year old) but sure bro
: Intakes of MUFAs and PUFAs were associated with a lower risk of CVD and death, whereas SFA and trans-fat intakes were associated with a higher risk of CVD. The replacement of SFAs with MUFAs and PUFAs or of trans fat with MUFAs was inversely associated with CVD
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26561617/
Superseded by https://academic.oup.com/eurjpc/article-abstract/29/18/2312/6691821?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/78/6/474/5678770
>This study alone has more participants) than every single study and still found saturated fat to be unhealthy
://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27016614/
Cba to get into the studies and data on cholesterol right now since I'm going to bed soon. Refernce earlier links
>This japanese study showed that red meat is unhealthy since people eating the most had more heart disease, ironically even the people that ate the most red meat also smoked less and drank less alcohol and they still had more heart disease than the ones than ate less meat
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32723506/
Again, refer to the earlier links
>In conclusion saturated fat and meat is unhealthy
Nope
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36059207/ is newer than that (not even a year old) but sure bro
That's not a study, that's a review, you are legit braindead I hope you went to bed
Small oversight, doesn't change this though
>Lee Hooper: LH is a member of the World Health Organization Nutrition Guidance Expert Advisory Group (NUGAG). WHO paid for her travel, accommodation and expenses to attend NUGAG meetings in Geneva, China and South Korea where the evidence of effects of dietary fats on health was discussed and guidance developed. LH's institution was given grant funding from WHO to carry out the 2019 update of this systematic review, to update a systematic review on the relationship between total fat intake and body weight and a series of systematic reviews on the health effects of polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Yeah no thanks
>This japanese study showed that red meat is unhealthy
>ctrl + F "red meat"
>0 results found
lol
Is this one
>Heavy intakes of total and red meat were associated with an increase in all-cause and heart disease mortality in men,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33320898/
I've seen that one before.
>A higher intake of total meat was associated with a lower risk of stroke mortality in women
lol. What do you think?
probably because women need more iron intake than men and in this case the iron from meat gave a benefit to the women, but it was just for stroke not heart disease in general
>probably
There is no reason to guess why this shit study produced conflicting nonsensical results. It's an absolute waste of time.
there's no conflict here, stroke and heart disease are different things, meat consumption raises heart disease mortality, the inverse association of stroke in women was only seen in women who had a modest consumption of meat not high meat consumption btw
You realize you can do these mental gymnastics with any epidemiology research paper, right? And then you can combine those research papers together with a bunch of mental gymnastics. And that's how you write research. I'm not really sure what point you're trying to get at here. The research paper can say anything like "red meat intake was correlated with shoe size, but not shirt size" and you would be here making up some stupid mechanistic explanation.
>Meta-analyses of observational studies found no association between SFA intake and heart disease, while meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials were inconsistent but tended to show a lack of an association. The AHA stance regarding the strength of the evidence for the recommendation to limit SFAs for heart disease prevention may be overstated and in need of reevaluation.
https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/78/6/474/5678770
>Diets that replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat do not convincingly reduce cardiovascular events or mortality.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31142556/
>Taken together, the evidence from both cohort studies and randomized trials does not support the assertion that further restriction of dietary saturated fat will reduce clinical [cardiovascular] events.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874
>Findings from the studies reviewed in this paper indicate that the consumption of SFA is not significantly associated with CVD risk, events, or mortality. Based on the scientific evidence, there is no scientific ground to demonize SFA as a cause of CVD. SFA naturally occurring in nutrient-dense foods can be safely included in the diet.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36059207/
>data is irrelevant
Nice. Spoken like a true scientist.
ecological evidence is irrelevant yes, they are not studies
>evidence is irrelevant
I think you think you sound smart by saying this. You don't. You sound like an utter retard every time you say this.
because ecological data from countries can have hundreds of confounders, is literally worthless whereas an actual study that has degrees of control is what good evidence is
>data is literally worthless
This thread only has 13 posts left before bump limit, I'm going to stop now because I think everyone gets the point.
You clearly have no idea what the evidence hierarchy is, not all evidence and data is worth the same, look that up before talking shit next time
>doesn't account for secondary factors
This one sentence destroys the majority of all dietary studies, including yours. Thanks for playing, but you ain't ready to join the big boys
Cool story bro. Now post body
How is your body relevant to clinical research?
Because I am not going to let an obese slob lecture me on health.
Also
>muh study!!
I don't care about highly flawed research that can't be replicated. I eat eggs and I am exceptionally healthy, so you better post body or you can shut it and get out of the thread.
>Because I am not going to let an obese slob lecture me on health.
That didn't answer my question
I don't think you quite understand. Your claims have zero weight until you post body, so you can either shut the fuck up or you can post body. Pick one.
>m-muh study!
Again, I don't care about highly flawed studies that can't be replicated.
>Your claims have zero weight until you post body, so you can either shut the fuck up or you can post body. Pick one.
You still haven't answered my question
>Highly processed foods, excess sugar, and seed oils are the cause of that.
I don't doubt you, you should post research. But eggs cause it too.
>Eggs, milk, and meat are essential to the human diet.
no they aren't
humans don't NEED vegetables either, what's your point?
>You still haven't answered my question
You have intentionally ignored my answer two times now
Your question:
>How is your body relevant to clinical research?
My answers:
>I don't care about highly flawed research that can't be replicated.
>Again, I don't care about highly flawed studies that can't be replicated.
Once again, your claims mean nothing until you post body. So post body, or you can get the fuck out of this thread. Pick one.
>Once again, your claims mean nothing until you post body. So post body, or you can get the fuck out of this thread. Pick one.
Tell me how your body is relevant to the clinical research. You still haven't answered this basic question.
>Eggs don't cause heart disease.
Not supported by the weight of the evidence
>Their cholesterol has no impact on the body
Wrong, specifically for a quarter of the population
>It's also a precursor to testosterone,
Your body makes all the cholesterol it needs
>Tell me how your body is relevant to the clinical research. You still haven't answered this basic question.
Illiteracy confirmed. The "clinical research" in of itself is irrelevant because the design of your singular study is shit and it can't be replicated anyway. Of course your brain is malfunctioning due to choline deficiency, so this isn't surprising at all.
And once again, you still have not posted body. All your claims can be safely assumed to be false until you post body. Nobody cares about what you have to say until you post body. Do you understand that yet?
>The "clinical research" in of itself is irrelevant because the design of your singular study is shit and it can't be replicated anyway
That's why we say The BODY of research, which is much much more than a single or even 100 studies.
>That's why we say The BODY of research, which is much much more than a single or even 100 studies.
Then you would have already posted the studies if eggs really were bad for you. Of course that isn't true, so you just cherry-picked one flawed study and acted as if you won.
Now tell me, where are you going to get your choline, if not from eggs? You need at least 550mg a day, if you're an adult male, and you likely need more for optimal performance if you're an active person, and if you lift, and if you use your brain a lot.
>The primary criterion used to estimate the Adequate Intake (AI) for choline is the prevention of liver damage as assessed by measuring serum alanine aminotransferase levels. The AI for adults is 550 mg/day of choline for men and 425 mg/day for women.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK114308/
>When deprived of dietary choline, 77% of men and 80% of postmenopausal women developed fatty liver or muscle damage, whereas only 44% of premenopausal women developed such signs of organ dysfunction. Moreover, 6 men developed these signs while consuming 550 mg choline · 70 kg−1 · d−1, the AI for choline. Folic acid supplementation did not alter the subjects’ response.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2435503/
Getting enough choline to hit the AI is difficult without eggs, and outright impossible without animal products, unless 70% of your diet is broccoli, cauliflower, beans, and shiitake mushrooms, which no vegan is doing as far as I know. And that's just the AI, you probably want 1g+ for optimal performance.
>Recent analyses indicate that large portions of the population (ie, approximately 90% of Americans), including most pregnant and lactating women, are well below the AI for choline. Moreover, the food patterns recommended by the 2015–2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans are currently insufficient to meet the AI for choline in most age-sex groups.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6259877/
Not to mention all the other stuff that happens as a result of choline deficiency
>Considering these many diverse roles, choline deficiency can cause disorders in many bodily systems, including liver, muscle, and lymphocytes in humans and, additionally, the kidney, pancreas, and developing brain and nervous system in animals.
>Choline deficiency causes clinical illness in humans.
>One of the first clinical signs of dietary choline deficiency is the development of fatty liver (hepatosteatosis) resulting from the lack of phosphatidylcholine to package and export very-low-density lipoproteins.
>Choline deficiency is the only nutrient deficiency shown to induce the development of spontaneous carcinoma.
>Similarly, elevations in muscle enzymes (eg, serum creatine phosphokinase) can occur in humans during choline deficiency.
>However, studies in patients receiving low-choline solutions intravenously determined that endogenous synthesis was insufficient to prevent liver and muscle dysfunction characteristic of choline deficiency.
>There is also evidence that choline deficiency leads to decrements in some measures of learning and memory.
>During neurogenesis, neuronal precursor cells proliferate, migrate, and differentiate to neurons. Supplemental choline during this critical period enhances proliferation and differentiation, whereas choline deficiency decreases proliferation and differentiation. Choline deficiency also increases the rate of neuronal cell death.
>Choline deficiency has been associated with liver and muscle damage and increases in homocysteine (a risk factor for heart disease) after a methionine load. Recent reports suggest that choline metabolism may also play a role in diabetes, cancer, and cystic fibrosis.
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6259877/
If you aren't eating eggs, you probably aren't getting 550mg of choline a day, unless you design it very meticulously, which most people don't do. Just eat the fucking eggs please
>Then you would have already posted the studies if eggs really were bad for you
I would, provided it would make any difference. I know it won't so I won't bother.
>I know it won't so I won't bother.
So why did you post one in the first place?
Also nice job ignoring everything else I sent. Pretty convenient isn't it: I'm supposed to address your shitty study, but you can just side-step anything I send by not responding at all. Typical of you slimy fucks
>So why did you post one in the first place?
Did it?
Yes
Also this
Meant to reply to
not
kek
You understand there are studies that encompass reviewing hundreds of studies, right?
You realize those studies are hand-picked to align with the view of the researchers who write the review, right?
You suppose those studies are funded to align with the view of the funding organization, otherwise they are swept under the rug, right?
its a fact. its routinely done
It's okay to be skeptical. Some people are motivated by just helping out their bros and figuring shit out, though.
Post your lipid profile and blood pressure. The claims regarding negative health outcomes from eating animal products are mostly related to cardiovascular disease and cancer which you can't tell by looking at a picture of your (very nice) abdominal muscles. You could have advanced atherosclerosis and cancerous tumors growing in your asshole and we would not be able to see it from a picture. Your repeated requests for anon to post a picture of his body are therefore unreasonable as neither a picture of his body nor your own is relevant to the conversation.
Also this is a picture of my abs from last year with a low bodyfat percentage while on a completely vegan diet, which is again, irrelevant to the conversation.
standard lipid panel doesnt measure ldl
>The claims regarding negative health outcomes from eating animal products are mostly related to cardiovascular disease and cancer which you can't tell by looking at a picture of your (very nice) abdominal muscles.
Okay, so I guess you're dying too since you're deficient in choline, which also leads to those things as well as fatty liver, muscle dysfunction, neurological issues, and more
>Also this is a picture of my abs from last year with a low bodyfat percentage while on a completely vegan diet
I am literally bulking right now (currently 17% bf-ish) but my abs are better than yours. What does that say about your "superior" vegan diet?
>words on a screen mean more than my literal flesh and blood
What the fuck did he mean by this? Dude, if you eat a "healthy" diet that omits meat, eggs, dairy, etc but you're morbidly obese and can't get out of bed before noon, who gives a shit? And if I eat an "unhealthy" diet that includes red meat, eggs, and dairy, but I get out of bed within 30 seconds of waking up and have lots of energy throughout the day while also putting on muscle and cutting fat easily, then who gives a shit?
>I get out of bed within 30 seconds of waking up
What is your sleep hygiene like? I'm miring.
>What is your sleep hygiene like? I'm miring.
It's not perfect, but I have the wake-up portion down to a T. I have two alarms, one on one of those wrist-band thingies and the other on my phone, the phone alarm being 1 minute later at 6:01. I usually wake up before 6 but I typically try to go back to sleep if I do (though sometimes I just get up earlier instead), so when I eventually get woken up by the first alarm, I have 1 minute to go and turn off the phone alarm before it goes off (which is in another room), which typically makes me get out of bed instantly. Works better than anything else I've tried tbh
As for the going to sleep portion, I can get to sleep fairly quickly since I usually don't fuck up the main shit here (cold room, no phone/screens before bed, etc you know the rest), the main issue is just going to bed too late to begin with. Not a huge problem, I usually get 7-7.5 hours of sleep but I want to get up to 8-9 hours since my training typically goes better there.
>What does that have to do with anything?
It means that no matter what the "data" says, if it doesn't produce results, who cares? If the scientific literature tells me that I need to do 40 sets per muscle group per week for optimal growth, but I find that I get better results with 12-15 sets per week, then who gives a fuck about the literature? Real-world results are what matter.
>One example doesn't trump the body of research.
The "body of research" can hardly come to any solid conclusions besides very basic shit like "eat whole foods not processed junk," so who cares? And again, you have failed to cite this "body of research," so to us it doesn't exist until you provide a source. You still haven't responded to
anyway so don't give me that shit
>garbage diet.
Lol. Lmao
>ude, if you eat a "healthy" diet that omits meat, eggs, dairy, etc but you're morbidly obese and can't get out of bed before noon, who gives a shit?
What does that have to do with anything?
> Obviously, real-world results take precedence over clinical research (results are superior to research, such is the hierarchy of sciene)
One example doesn't trump the body of research. Especially some young anon in his 20's or 30's who can easily get away with a garbage diet.
>One example doesn't trump the body of research.
"the body of research" is so many miles away from conclusive that anecdotes are still important
it basically amounts to a conspiracy theory
>anecdotes are still important
No they aren't
>You understand there are studies that encompass reviewing hundreds of studies, right?
Yes
literal flat earther
>literal flat earther
That's rich coming from a cholesterol denialist
>that's rich coming from a globetard
k bro
Anyway you slice this you are aren't the majority of scientific research. If that's where you want to be, more power to you. There are plenty of Youtube grifters and egg board funded studies to support exactly what you want to believe.
If it makes you feel any better I DO think a single egg or two can be part of a healthy diet. It's you guys who seem to go overboard and suggest 6 eggs( or more) a day, which for a bunch of kids in their 20's is not a problem. But for the general population? it's insane.
>If that's where you want to be, more power to you.
i would always of course prefer to be aware of the scientific research available, but just because you develop a hypothesis and it happens to be popular, I don't necessarily need to agree with it. it's not "science denialism" to disagree with a hypothesis
Anti-nutrient mentally ill vegan.
A 16 raw egg shake is the fucking God juice.
>Anti-nutrient mentally ill vegan.
i have eggs in my fridge right now my dude.
All of your vegan "foods" are full of anti nutrients and poisons, indigestible, low index protein. You are sick.
Most of this you're saying is outdated 80s info.
Most health guidelines do recommend eating eggs now.
And dietary cholesterol has no impact for the vast majority of people.
>Most of this you're saying is outdated 80s info.
No it isn't.
Just watch the video, you seem a bit simple minded.
>Just watch the video, you seem a bit simple minded.
Berg has no idea what he's talking about and he's a chiropractor.
Cool refute and appeal to authority, well here is your appeal to authority..
based berg
also this is why you never trust ~~*science*~~
https://www.youtube.com › watch?v=5Ua-WVg1SsA
>Or maybe the gov heart specialists are wrong and you're right...
same specialists that told you to vaxx up?
Eggs don't cause heart disease. Their cholesterol has no impact on the body, and for most people, eating eggs actually decreases bad cholesterol.
It's also a precursor to testosterone, which keeps people healthy, youthful, and improve heart health.
In fact, one mist simply think logically too about the egg. It has everything needed to start life. To birth a baby. It would make no sense evolutionary wise for things in eggs to cause ill health upon something.
Sure it is anecdotal, but people who I know who avoided them, had high blood pressure, diabetes etc. Have all improved their health, if not cured something due to increasing egg usage.
I myself eat about 50 eggs per week.
Post body
>Post body
As soon as you explain how that's relevant to the research.
>I don't doubt you, you should post research
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2721712/
>Both the apoB/apoA-I ratio (HR 2.14, 95% CI 1.11–4.10) and the TC/HDL-C ratio (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04–1.16) were related to CHD death. Only apoB (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.05–3.86) and the apoB/apoA-I ratio (HR 2.09, 95% CI 1.04–4.19) remained significantly associated with CHD death after adjusting for CV risk factors.
>Conclusion
>In the US population, apolipoprotein measurements significantly predict CHD death, independently of conventional lipids and other CV risk factors (smoking, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, obesity, diabetes and C-reactive protein). Furthermore, the predictive ability of apoB alone to detect CHD death was better than any of the routine clinical lipid measurements. Inclusion of apolipoprotein measurements in future clinical guidelines should not be discarded
Apolipoprotein levels in the blood predict heart disease even in the absence of general dyslipidemia, IE you can have healthy total cholesterol levels, but if you have systemic inflammation for other reasons (chronically elevated blood sugar, immune system dysfunction, etc) you are still at a significantly higher risk of heart disease.
And again, HR 2.14, which ok, might show there is a little correlation if everything else in the study was done perfectly, but really is nothing to write home about, and HR of 1.1, which is literally random noise with no predictive value whatsoever. The other two are HR 2, which still, mean very fucking little.
Protip, language like "significant" means "a single percentage point more likely than completely random, maybe". It doesn't mean jack shit, its manipulative language used to obscure the fact that the numbers are underwhelming at best, and fucking worthless at worst.
Well, a HR of 2 is a doubling of risk. So it depends on what baseline of risk you're looking at. If you're above a certain age, if you're male, if youre sedentary, then a doubling of your risk for a heart attack etc can be a big deal.
If you're metabolically healthy, physically active, no family history, etc, then a doubling of your risk might be going from 1/100,000 to 1/50,000
>How is your body relevant to clinical research?
Because the words on your screen don't matter at all if they don't have real-life results, you retarded basement-dwelling shut-in.
>Because the words on your screen don't matter at all if they don't have real-life results
The results of clinical research have actual effects on the real world. Your body has literally zero.
>he's now making the claim that anon's body is not real
Damn what a mire.
I'm saying your body right now has zero relevance to the outside world. The results of studies do.
What "outside world" are you referring to you dingleberry? No one is talking about your "outside world." We're talking about "real-life results," which can be seen with anon's "real-life body." Stop changing the goalposts please.
>We're talking about "real-life results," which can be seen with anon's "real-life body."
No we aren't
Is your goal tonight to win an argument? Because that's a strange goal to have on an anonymous imageboard. "Outside world" was not mentioned until your last post. We're talking about real-world application from clinical research. Obviously, real-world results take precedence over clinical research (results are superior to research, such is the hierarchy of science).
Anon's body is real, whether you like it or not. Therefore, it is an example of a real-world result. This has relevance to our conversation, because real-world results take precedence over clinical research.
Hello Greger
No answer to my question?
mirin dat bloat tho, imagine the braps and anal fissures from shitting out all that fiber
Yeah he looks healthy, fit, and strong. I must buy his book at once.
I was gonna say. Waayyyyy to long to make an appearance
now post the rest of your body lol
So I should post my stronger muscle groups instead? Gee whiz anon that really helps your cause
>obvious photoshop is obvious, now post your REAL body
pic rel
>still didn't post the rest
lol what are you afraid of bro? did you skip leg day? imagine spamming those "fitness redpill" threads but you can't even show your limbs
My hamstrings are literally my best bodypart but ok bro
>inb4 small calves
I only started training them seriously like 6 months ago, I'll get there eventually kek
kek what the fuck am i looking at. the point of posting a whole body picture is so we can see your actual proportions. individual parts out of context are meaningless and imply that you're desperate to hide something. just sayin
You asked me to prove that I don't skip leg day, so I did. What more do you want? Do I have to prove that I don't skip piriformis day or something?
>imply that you're desperate to hide something
Like what exactly?
based exodiabro
Also
>imagine spamming those "fitness redpill" threads
Literally the only reason why I still post them is because I was asked to by other anons, if you look through the archives you can see that I actually stopped posting them for a while for that reason. People find them helpful so I post them, pretty simple tbh
obvious photoshop is obvious, now post your REAL body
garden gnome
eggs are dirt cheap and one of the most nutritious foods out there. I bet you want me to get my fat from corn
>Cholesterol is bad for you.
nope, it's good for you
Any hazard ratio below 2, especially below 1.5,is absolute bunk and statistical noise.
For reference, the hazard ratio for smoking and lung cancer, COPD etc ranges from 14-25. You're fucking crying about a hazard ratio of 1.08, its literally nothing, a difference of that magnitude is impossible to account for because of all the confounding factors.
Bro, you're talking to moxyte, he's literally retarded, he has no idea what a hazard ratio is, has no conception of statistical power, of anything relevant to science at all really. He can't, he's too brain damaged from B12 and DHA deficiency.
>Any hazard ratio below 2, especially below 1.5,is absolute bunk and statistical noise.
That's good to know, I never knew that despite knowing what a hazard ratio is. Thanks for sharing anon.
>this thread again
Its based on a study from like 2018 with fake eggs or something.
You idiots keep falling for clickbait. Imagine being this stupid. have a nice day.
Debunk the study in
Protip: You can't.
>debunk
I eat 6 eggs a day and feel fine.
Fuck you rabbi, don't demoralize my bros and let them consume the superior protein
Prove the study can be replicated.
You know what kills people more with heart attacks? Being fat.
I didn't see them explicitly control for BMI; I could be wrong and it's hidden in the methodology somewhere.
>debunk the study
It's published by this piece of work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JAMA?useskin=vector#Publication_of_article_by_Barack_Obama
Choline
But choline is an essential nutrient thoughever?
do you want a choline deficiency which is not really a real problem or risk having impotence or dying of a heart attack at 50?
Why would you get a heart attack or impotence from choline lmao
>do you want this problem or that problem from eating?
That's not how food or nutrition works at all. You don't get diseases from eating healthy foods full of nutrients. There are no healthy foods which become unhealthy if you eat a "little too much" of them. This literally does not exist.
Here's a question for Egg bros.
Your 70 year old father with advanced heart disease comes to you for advice. He wants to know if he should eat eggs. What do you tell him?
eat pastured eggs and gouda cheese. and stop that statin before you die of heart failure
Highly processed foods, excess sugar, and seed oils are the cause of that.
You tell him to eat 2 large eggs daily for breakfast.
I'd tell him to eat whatever he likes. It's time for him to celebrate his life, instead of constantly whimpering in fear.
I'd tell him to eat eggs with beacon, but skip the bread.
Stop taking the statin because it is decreasing your testosterone massively. Stop eating anything with an ingredients list. Start eating foods that aren't hard to cook/don't need cooking and are massively nutritious (eggs, beef liver, fruit, milk, anything else without an ingredients list). It's not rocket science.
I'd put him on a zero-carb diet 20 years before he developed diabetes and died of its complications at age 59. If I only knew then what I know now, that is.
I miss you Dad.
If only the meds and the okinawans had realized that carbs kill!
Both those cultures eat a shitload of pork, dummy. The okinawan "study" was done in the post-war period when everyone was dirt poor.
I hate you lying vegan fucks like you wouldn't believe. You rape the truth wherever you go.
Yeah, and now that their diets have changes to include more meat and more calories overall, their life expectancy is falling.
https://www.hindustantimes.com/lifestyle/art-culture/japan-what-s-behind-okinawans-falling-life-expectancy-101655111119234.html
>By 1990, average life expectancy for Okinawan men was only the fifth highest of the 47 prefectures in Japan and by 2020 had fallen to 36th place on the list. Okinawan women were top of the prefectural list until 2005 but were down to seventh spot in 2020.
You can't have it both ways anon. You can't brag that they have a high life expectancy when looking at the cohort that lived in the early and mid 20th century on a high carb, low meat, calorie restricted diet, and conclude that this was a result of their modern diet, when their life expectancy in the modern era is actually very low for Japan overall.
Before the war they ate a shitload of pork, moron. After the war they started eating a shitload of processed carbs, which is the real Western diet.
The consumption of animal fats and protein has fallen in the West over the last several decades by a ton. You lying FUCK. We eat LESS saturated fat, not more. We eat FAR more processed carbs. Buffoon. Liar. Rat.
>Before the war they ate a shitload of pork, moron.
Source: a chiropractor on YouTube
Uh it's pretty common knowledge, I don't know what chiropractor you're referring to.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/life/2011/10/28/food/pig-in-japan-the-nations-most-popular-meat/
Your link says nothing about Okinawa's pork consumption in the prewar period specifically. Try again
It's pretty clear about the consumption of pork in Japan in the early-to-mid 20th century. Are we referring to the same war?
You said BEFORE the war their pork consumption was high, implying the diet studies showing the ate very little meat and a lot of carbs, conducted in the post war period don't reflect their traditional diet.
You haven't established that Okinawans ate a high pork diet before WW2. The studies from the 1950s show them eating around 3g of meat daily, much less than the 11g daily consumption of the rest of the country. It isn't u til the 70s and 80s that Okinawan pork consumption becomes significant.
>the studies
>no studies linked
How do you eat 3 grams of meat daily, dummy? Do you even know what 3 grams of meat looks like?
bump
By not eating every day you retard.
Eat 21g once a week, = 3g daily etc
Ohh they were eating 3/4 of an oz of meat weekly. That makes more sense.
fucking lmao, still didn't post any studies. what a dummy.
https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=d60c36654c81af95c02fdf8e428971fab2f392c6
Oh don't bother, he's literally an insane, possessed ideologue that is immune to all criticism or argument.
Lmao I'm actually arguing against OP in other posts ITT I just hate the intellectual dishonesty that always surrounds the Okinawan subject. They ate much less meat before the American occupation, and it is the cohort that grew up in those decades that had a high life expectancy.
Go and look up their modern life expectancy after decades of eating a high pork diet, it isn't particularly high.
Pork is a shitty meat full of PUFAs from the high grain slop diet that the pigs are fed.
>The consumption of animal fats and protein has fallen in the West over the last several decades by a ton
Source: an unsourced infographic from a low carb Facebook group
Uh it's pretty common knowledge that processed foods (full of seed oils) are dominating American households, and they didn't used to. If you're eating more seed oils, you are eating less animal fats. Protein consumption is also being put aside in favor of grains (again, due to processed foods).
Your own picture shows Americans are eating
>Protein consumption is also being put aside in favor of grains (again, due to processed foods).
Your own picture literally shows it has increased, though.
>a 1.4% increase in "meat, egg, and nut" consumption with an 18.6% total increase in calorie intake with a 27% decrease in animal fat intake means protein consumption has increased
??? What are you smoking?
You said that meat/protein consumption had FALLEN over the past decades. Then you posted data showing it had actually slightly increased. What are YOU smoking?
The graph doesn't show protein consumption, so you are just being schizophrenic about that. Anyway, regarding the meat consumption, that is also bucketed in a category with "nuts and eggs." So that is also not just a "meat consumption" category. Ignoring that, an increase of 1% (not significant anyway) in the presence of a 19% increase in total calories mean meat consumption went down when you compare it to everything else in the diet. I don't know how to explain this better to you since apparently you don't understand proportions or percents.
Just wanted to say anon gz on the thorough btfoing of that gay
Imagine being this fucking stupid. Meds and Okinawans don't eat pork. I'm not even vegan and will be eating eggs and pork after Easter but you're a stupid fuck if you think they aren't bad for you.
>Meds and Okinawans don't eat pork
You're baiting now. Have a good day.
>They're STILL pushing the "eggs are bad for you" angle
This has already been debunked a thousand fucking times. It's insane to see anti egg articles still being published.
It's like the retards who pushed fake butter and margarine, only to find out that fake goyslop was literally giving people heart attacks.
>This has already been debunked a thousand fucking times
He hasn't been dunked once.
Go back to eating your basedbean and seed-oil goyslop you stupid cuck.
Eggs, milk, and meat are essential to the human diet.
In all of human history, no man or women has ever survived a consumption entirely made out of plants. To this day, there is not a single Vegan who has subsisted entirely on plants for an extended period of time.
Literally every single Vegan, without fail, has at some point returned to consuming meat or egg because their body could not survive without it otherwise.
However, humans have survived on nothing but eggs and meats.
>To this day, there is not a single Vegan who has subsisted entirely on plants for an extended period of time
I was vegetarian for the first 20 years of my life and vegan for the next 15. I'm the healthiest person I know, couldn't imagine eating animal products unless I was forced to. Ok bait though I guess.
Why would someone do this? Just go on the internet anonymously and tell lies like that?
>I'm the healthiest person I know
Yes because you're only friends with other vegans
i was a vegan for 10 years and now i eat everything and feel stronger
>I eat 6 eggs a day and feel f-ACK!
Ketoschizo (who runs his own "pastured, grass fed" organic farm) has been spamming posts like these non-stop.
He wants to shill the idea that every piece of evidence against animal foods is a conspiracy theory, and that no, the cholesterol deposits clogging your arteries have no association with dietary cholesterol at all.
Whether his goal is to delude you or delude himself is anyone's guess, but ignoring literally mountains of clear evidence that these foods will harm your health is irresponsible and outright malicious at worst. He will have a lot to answer for before God knowing that he willingly lied to people which sent them to early graves.
Are you the insane person who said there are "thousands of studies proving a causal link between cholesterol consumption and disease" in the last thread? Because that's a pretty bold-faced lie and I'm wondering how insane you are to say such things over the internet.
But, anon, (You) are the ketoschizo.
High protein/carnivore is not keto, vegtards.
if youre eating carnivore you wont be eating every 3 hours and you will become mildly ketotic between meals
>if youre eating carnivore you wont be eating every 3 hours and you will become mildly ketotic between meals
looking good king
>Old man looks....OLD
>old people have to look terrible for their age, especially those who have been on the 'ideal diet' for decades
>old people have to look terrible for their age
He looks like an old man. Better than most old people who are fat
>Better than most old people who are fat
well I guess that's something at least
You eat until you're sated. The excess turns to sugar. You don't need to eat that much. Keto isn't the same thing. They're just eating pounds of bacon every hour with hardly any protein
you will be in mild ketosis
I run long distance and I feel fine. If you eat beyond your bodyweight requirement you can run off it.
bacon only is carnivore retard
apple only is vegan retard
>fasting is now the keto diet
what is it with you disingenuous fucks and constantly moving goalposts and changing defnitions?
>Ketoschizo (who runs his own "pastured, grass fed" organic farm)
Fucking based?
There was a study done on university students who had low cholesterol, one group got to eat eggs for a few weeks, the other one none.
The group of students who ate eggs had significantly elevated blood cholesterol levels.
The meme that cholesterol doesn't raise blood cholesterol is true when you have capped out on circulating cholesterol, you can't get any higher when adding even more. Simple logic right?
Now, some may argue that high blood cholesterol is not bad if you have no inflammation where the cholesterol can build up on. But all the studies and science point to the fact that high blood cholesterol raises stroke and heart attack risk. I don't want this to be true, but it sadly is. And since heart disease is prevalent in my family, I can't take any risks.
Think about it from a natural standpoint, even hunter gatherers had low blood cholesterol because animals back then had very little fat on their bodies and organs, the only source would have been brain and eggs. Brain is a tiny part of an animal, and eggs are rare and sparse. They didn't had domesticated chickens, they had to manually pick them from the trees. A rare treat.
here is the study btw
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673684921688
use https://www.sci-hub.st/ to read it
higher cholesterol predicts longevity
Yes, because in the western world people live longer the richer they are, and the richer they are the more shitty food they eat and they cholesterol rises. But they have acces to top notch healthcare, like my grandpa who lived to 93, but died to a stroke in the end and had countless stents and surgeries.
>and the richer they are the more shitty food they eat and they cholesterol rises
>and they cholesterol rises
What color hands typed this post....
Having room temperature IQ must hurt, that you result to ad hominem. I'm european and probably whiter than you
Sure you are, awake at like 3:30am in the morning eh?
A teenage neet incel with a closed and simple mind. Many such cases.
your explanation doesnt make sense. the relationship holds within as well as between countires
there used to be a lot of fat animals humans would hunt. you are incredibly ignorant and probably gay as well
we didn't hunt cows and chickens anon
meat was much leaner then
>retard keeps being a retard
wow. imagine that
>The worldwide association of H. erectus with elephants is well documented and so is the preference of humans for fat as a source of energy. We show that rather than a matter of preference, H. erectus in the Levant was dependent on both elephants and fat for his survival. The disappearance of elephants from the Levant some 400 kyr ago coincides with the appearance of a new and innovative local cultural complex – the Levantine Acheulo-Yabrudian and, as is evident from teeth recently found in the Acheulo-Yabrudian 400-200 kyr site of Qesem Cave, the replacement of H. erectus by a new hominin. We employ a bio-energetic model to present a hypothesis that the disappearance of the elephants, which created a need to hunt an increased number of smaller and faster animals while maintaining an adequate fat content in the diet, was the evolutionary drive behind the emergence of the lighter, more agile, and cognitively capable hominins. Qesem Cave thus provides a rare opportunity to study the mechanisms that underlie the emergence of our post-erectus ancestors, the fat hunters.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0028689
https://www.heartuk.org.uk/low-cholesterol-foods/can-i-eat-eggs
>People with raised cholesterol often wonder if it’s OK to eat eggs, as egg yolk is rich in cholesterol. Generally speaking, it should be fine for most people, as the cholesterol in eggs does not have a significant effect on blood cholesterol.
Or maybe the gov heart specialists are wrong and you're right...
Yes they are wrong, unironically. Watch this, a real doctor unlike dr. eric ~~*berg*~~
%21
He's not gnomish, you rabid anti-semite.
I literally just posted the fucking official heart health from the UK that says you're wrong.
You are just searching anyone you can to fit your already biased made up mind.
He's still not a doctor only a chiropractor, a literal conman.
Doctors are trained in pharma and giving out medications. Not natural or holistic approaches. They're the last people you listen to.
Don't have to be a doctor ffs to search things, and prove him wrong. Not oh he's not a real doctor.
You're probably a teenager who doesn't understand the world revolves around money, not truth. Hence the whole sugar industry won out against fat in the 70s. This was wrong. But funded by the sugar industry.
Fuck "doctors"
good goy, trust a literal pill pusher who profits off you being perpetually sick over someone who lives a happy and healthy life and makes recommendations based on his own lifestyle
Pretty much this. The only times you gotta care a whole ton about dietary cholesterol is if you have high cholesterol because of some other health issue (like fatty liver disease).
>even hunter gatherers had low blood cholesterol because animals back then had very little fat on their bodies and organs
Yeah bro elephants and mammoths and moose and bison are pretty lean as we all know lmao.
Also lol'ing that you said the only fatty organ is the brain. How you don't know about suet or bone marrow but make these posts as if you are very knowledgable is pretty embarrassing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
>I believe I am so smart that I attribute Dunning-Kruger with overconfidence. Because I am so smart and certainly know what the Dunning-Kruger effect means.
Bruh.
>The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias[2] whereby people with low ability, expertise, or experience regarding a certain type of task or area of knowledge tend to overestimate their ability or knowledge.
Please explain why I'm wrong when anon definitively says "the only source of fat would have been the brain."
Fuck off back to plebbit with that shifty shit bruh.
>stating basic facts and quoting wikipedia is "shifty shit"
How intoxicated are you right now?
>egg bad
>Why?
>BECAUSE IT JUST IS OK
lmao
Gonna eat 8 eggs now because fuck vegans
>egg good
>Why?
>BECAUSE IT JUST IS OK
>N-no u
not even worth a (you)
See these fucking SHOTGUNS breh?
They were made with eggs.
I eat ten eggs after every workout. At least 8 on off days. I've been doing this for 2 years straight. I'm still standing.
Cope.
If you still think dietary cholesterol/fat is bad for you then you are legit literal big lipped iq and cannot be helped and therefor must an hero.
I've been eating 4-8 eggs every single day for the past 5 years and I'm super healthy
I didn't even get sick from that Covid shit all my friends got destroyed by
Eat 4 eggs a day
>Redpill me on why eggs are bad for you.
They aren't
because they contain alot of cholesterol and they clog your arteries, high cholesterol can lead to impotence, lower cardio capacity and heart attacks
>because they contain alot of cholesterol and they clog your arteries
Is this even true or that simple though? I thought dietary cholesterol had minimum impact on blood cholesterol. Isn't the new danger inflammation?
>high cholesterol can lead to impotence
I have literally never heard of someone who eats multiple eggs a day being impotent and I've heard of many cases where people who totally restrict their cholesterol intake become impotent. What a weird accusation.
When I was a lad I ate four dozen eggs every morning to help me get large. But now that I'm grown I eat five dozen eggs, so I'm roughly the size of a baaaaaaaarge
I saw an episode of NOVA where they spoke to various scientists about how high cholesterol might not be related to heart health at all and was simply pushed by big pharma as a way to make a fortune selling statins. the most convincing argument was a doctor showing a timeline chart that in the U.K. since statins have been prescribed there has been no reduction in the number of heart attacks in the population per year. If they had a benefit wouldn't heart disease have been reduced in some manner?
Yet if i run even a simple google search there are endless articles about how not enough people are taking statins to protect themselves from high cholesterol as articles about the dangers of side effects and cardiologist against there over-prescription. Once again completely useless contradictions. I wish I knew what was true.
They aren't
Well, on the whole eggs are great for you, really. There are some things about them that are less than ideal, to be sure. They might provoke allergic or intolerance reactions in some people due to their protein composition, raw they have some antinutrients in them, etc. Nothing major however. And they do contain a lot of fat soluble vitamins. They're essentially the whole chicken in a pill, after all. I eat 4-8 most days as a part of a balanced carnivore-adjacent diet consisting of red fatty meat, eggs, fish, some cheese and butter, and water and coffee.
>Redpill me on why eggs are bad for you.
Bad 70s diet science funded by corn, sugar, and wheat companies that equates dietary cholesterol with serum cholesterol. Eggs are loaded with nutrients and you could live on just eggs for a pretty long time.
Factory farmed eggs from hens kept in battery cages however are often less nutritious and have bad omega 3 to omega 6 ratios. The more stressed an animal is, the worse its nutritional value (or value of anything it produces), "Free range" does not always mean the hen that laid them had an idyllic life on some sunny pasture, but it's probably better than nothing. Getting your eggs from someone you know is the best option.
Free protons. I just go out and grab some out of the coop and I have a tasty treat to eat after my morning workout.
i eat 10-15 eggs a day
"Cholesterol also serves as a precursor for the biosynthesis of steroid hormones, bile acid[4] and vitamin D."
all food rich in cholesterol will help you produce testosterone
no it wont plug your arteries
garden gnomes don't want me to eat the eggs, therefore I eat the eggs. Simple as.
Just keep your saturated fat intake <10% of your calories. I eat 6 eggs a day, and my saturated fat is like 8% of my calories. Dietary cholesterol does bump ldl cholesterol a bit, but the effect caps out at like 10mg/dl (unless you're also eating a lot of saturated fat from other sources)
FOR THE 10.000TH FUCKING TIME. CHOLESTEROL FROM ANIMAL PRODUCTS IS NECCESARY AND DOES NOT CLOG ARTERIES OR LEAD TO HEART DISEASE OF ANY KIND.
SEED OILS AND VEGETABLE OILS DO AND THIS STUPID FUCKING PUSH AGAINST ANIMAL CHOLESTEROL HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT A HUGE MARKET BATTLE THATS BEEN GOING ON FOR ALMOST A CENTURY
too much protein, bad for your prostate, all sorts of chemical waste from modern intensive farming / lead and heavy metals in backyard eggs (we used leaded gas for 70 years and it stayed in the dirt)
Stimulates cell growth, which is great if you are a chocken fetus and terrible if you dont want cancer.
There are few joys in life that equal coming to IST and watching people shriek about food and posting dumb studies. This place is a wonderment.
I will eat all the eggs. They are good for me. I love yummy eggs.
Multivariate regression analysis isn't as useful as people think
There are far too many confounding variables in cohort data
Pooling it together into a 'meta analysis' doesn't make it more reliable anymore than CDOs were safer investmnets in 2008 than the junk contained within.
>Pooling it together into a 'meta analysis' doesn't make it more reliable anymore than CDOs were safer investmnets in 2008 than the junk contained within.
That's an excellent metaphor, I thought of it earlier today after reading some of this thread, too.
I want to say that Moxyte should definitely kill himself.
Is moxyte in the room with us now? Do you hear him talking to you?
have a nice day, Moxyte. Nobody likes you and nobody will miss you when you are gone.