Do you go around thread to thread making up myths to scare people? I'll bet you're a "creatine makes you bald" poster, too. You should stop posting forever.
scurvy is a lack of nutrients. even if it was exclusively caused by low vitamin C, if your diet contains low sugar as any carnivorous diet does, then your vit C requirement is extremely low, low enough to be covered by meat consumption. organs specifically. you do know sugar and vitamin C compete for absorption, right? strawman elsewhere
Not to mention that, even if someone did begin to experience symptoms of scurvy, you can literally just go to the grocery store, buy and eat an orange, and the problem goes away. morons like that poster act like nutrient deficiencies just sneak up on you all of a sudden.
*Ruminant based fats are good
Pigs and chickens are fed high PUFA seed crops and thus have high PUFA content in their body fat.
Even grain-fed cattle have a fraction of the PUFA that grain-fed monogastrics have.
Do you actually think omega 3 is bad for you? Really?
Post your disgusting bodies so I can laugh.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Do you actually think omega 3 is bad for you? Really?
lesser evil, not necessarily good
2 years ago
Anonymous
>omega 3 isn't good for you
Why do you even have an opinion on something you've clearly done zero research into?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why do you even have an opinion on something you've clearly done zero research into?
wrong
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml >inb4 schizo source
he cites all the studies in his article, you can read them if you want to know the truth
2 years ago
Anonymous
>inb4 schizo source >"Some of the important antiinflammatory effects of fish oil result from the oxidized oils, rather than the unchanged oils (Sethi, 2002; Chaudhary, et al., 2004). These oils are so unstable that they begin to spontaneously oxidize even before they reach the bloodstream."
>"In experiments that last just a few weeks or months, there may not be time for cancers to develop, and on that time scale, the immunosuppressive and antiinflammatory effects of oxidized fish oil might seem beneficial. For a few decades, x-ray treatments were used to relieve inflammatory conditions, and most of the doctors who promoted the treatment were able to retire before their patients began suffering the fatal effects of atrophy, fibrosis, and cancer. (But a few people are still advocating x-ray therapy for inflammatory diseases, e.g., Hildebrandt, et al., 2003.) The fish oil fad is now just as old as the x-ray fad was at its peak of popularity, and if its antiinflammatory actions involve the same mechanisms as the antiinflammatory immunosuppressive x-ray treatments, then we can expect to see another epidemic of fibrotic conditions and cancer in about 15 to 20 years."
Haha wew. It's not a schizo source, it's an "I don't understand what I'm citing" blogpost. Maybe you should read the citations and figure out why this moron is arguing that reducing chronic inflammation is a bad thing and that it's going to cause cancer because.. acute radiotherapy caused cancer? Come on, this is moronic. It's something a failing freshman would do; slap a bunch of vaguely relevant citations on and hope nobody bothers to look.
Chronic inflammation causes cancer, in addition to its well-known deleterious impact on cardiovascular health. Comparing radiotherapy to omega-3 intake is a bizarre juxtaposition that clearly shows this person - and by extension, you - does not have a fricking clue what they are talking about.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Omega 6*
fixed that for you
2 years ago
Anonymous
>hurr hurr gotcha! omega 3 is a PUFA therefore PUFAs aren't bad!
Who let the 14 year old who just discovered Wikipedia into this thread?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>LDL is cholesterol therefore cholesterol is bad
What you're saying is equally moronic.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Who said LDL is cholesterol? I never said that LDL is cholesterol. They are 2 fundamentally different things. Why would you make up some stupid shit and attack that instead of just discussing what I actually said? Are you suffering from delusions?
>double the vegetable intake to compensate with the lack of starches and you'd be ok
Complete nonsense not based on any fact. I'm not even sure what you're referring to could "not be ok" unless you mean fiber (lol). >domesticated ruminants have a lot more saturated fat than healthy wild animals
False.
>domesticated ruminants have a lot more saturated fat than healthy wild animals
He's right, but only because domesticated ruminants are fatter than wild ones. Chilling all day without worrying about predators let's you get fat, uh-maize-in
Also this moron probably doesn't understand >per capita
either
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh that's hilarious, I would have never thought of that haha.
>all available evidence
there's no actual evidence. it's all correlation israelitery on selected samples. and then there are two big outliers that prove them very wrong :
France eats a shit ton of saturated fat and has very low heart disease and one of the lowest obesity rates in Europe
Israel eats a shit ton of PUFAs through seed oils and has one of the highest heart disease rate in the world
[...]
Do you actually think omega 3 is bad for you? Really?
Post your disgusting bodies so I can laugh.
you can eat as much omega 3 as you want moron, PUFAs are also omega 6 and it's already known the average western diet absolutely wrecks your natural balance of these two
you can't get more omega 3 without stuffing yourself with omega 6 with industrial seed oils. so the best way is to remove seed oils from your diet, and get your (actually useful) omega 3 from fatty fish
>you can eat as much omega 3 as you want moron
So... PUFAs aren't bad. >Seeds bad
Flaxseed, including oil? Chia? >there's no actual evidence. it's all correlation israelitery on selected samples.
That is evidence. Fricking hell, just shut the frick up.
>PUFAs aren't bad
DHA and EPA aren't. Except the only way to eat them is human breastmilk, or fatty fish/shellfish.
There's none of those in seed oils. >flaxseed
Flaxseed oil goes rancid extremely fast. It's merely a condiment that needs to be refrigerated and consumed immediately for this reason. France's FDA had it banned for a century for that reason. Same shit for chia because it has a similar fatty acid profile. Those aren't goybean/sunflower/canola oils that are added in every single garbage industrial product sold nowadays. >that is evidence >bro just select a few statistics and conveniently discard outliers, show some pattern and that is evidence
jesus, the absolute state of modern "science". you don't start from the conclusion and cherrypick data that works out for you.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>you don't start from the conclusion and cherrypick data that works out for you.
But that's what you're doing by cherry-picking population studies and fixating on the French paradox (which is 40 years old, they're as fat as everyone else now) and ignoring larger population studies. >Flax goes rancid; same shit for chia.
I have an open pack of chia seeds in my cupboard from like 3 years ago, they're still good. Nobody is telling you to dose your food in oil; cooking your food in oil is inherently moronic. >DHA and EPA aren't (bad)
Omega-3 is a precursor to both.
>That is evidence. Fricking hell, just shut the frick up.
You have to be utterly moronic and have no background knowledge of any statistics to think that correlation is evidence of causation of anything, ever.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>correlation is evidence of causation
That's not what I said, I said it is evidence. Dismissing correlation as evidence is fallacious and also moronic. It is exactly what Big Tobacco did to dispute the links to cancer, it is exactly what the radical left does to dispute the links between black people and violent crime; if you are doing the same thing you are either intellectually dishonest as with Big Tobacco, or intellectually deficient as with the left.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So you will agree that the graph I posted is "evidence" of cheese consumption causing death by bedsheets...? Because, if you don't, that makes you a hypocrite.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>So you will agree that the graph I posted is "evidence" of cheese consumption causing death by bedsheets
Yes, it is weak evidence.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Why is it weak evidence? The correlation is much, much higher than the correlation of any study you can find relating "animal fat consumption" to any bad outcome. Based on this conversation, I'm going to assume you aren't even familiar with any such study. I'd like you to find one, read it, and post it here discussing the results if you are a genuinely curious person.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Why is it weak evidence?
Propose a mechanism, produce at least some of it in vitro, better yet in vivo, and/or do a controlled study and it may become part of a stronger body of evidence. This is how we have our current theory of atherosclerosis. The latter task is very difficult with nutritional studies - it just isn't ethical to control for dietary variables in a human cohort for any length of time.
You seem to be conflating me with the person who said "animal fats aren't good" - but I'm arguing that omega-3, found in fish, is good for you. I'm just calling you out for the bizarre opinion that correlation isn't evidence; I have no idea why anyone would believe this. >I'd like you to find one, read it, and post it here discussing the results if you are a genuinely curious person.
I'd like a set of Nike Chicagos, OG, from the 80s. This is for my Miles Morales Halloween outfit, you understand.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, the current mechanism is that LDL randomly diffuses into the wall under high-pressure conditions and that causes an immune response and plaque build-up. That's a shitty mechanism and it doesn't account for differences caused by HDL or metabolic dysfunction, both of which are MASSIVELY important in predicting cardiovascular disease.
So out of your criteria you have: >1 weak mechanism with no explanation of confounding factors >partial in vitro production of the mechanism >no controlled study
This is not convincing at all. If you are convinced by this, you would be convinced by anything any newspaper article says after quoting any person with "Dr." in their title. Correlation is not evidence of any mechanism, ever. Correlation is evidence that 2 things correlate. That's it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the current mechanism is that LDL randomly diffuses into the wall under high-pressure conditions
No, it really isn't. It's facilitated by transfer proteins and this has been replicated in vitro.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You should look up what "diffusion" means. Here's a link to start you off, please enjoy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_diffusion
Also, yes, pressure obviously matters, hence why we don't have coronary "artery" disease in veins. You would know this if you read any of the studies you are claiming exist. Please don't respond to my posts with irrelevant and incorrect factoids again.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You should look up what "diffusion" means.
I clearly know what 'diffusion' is; in any case, SR-BI is an example of active transport. >Also, yes, pressure obviously matters
We've had this conversation before and you were wholly unaware that transport proteins were involved in the process of atherosclerosis at all. I am not disputing that pressure is involved - I previously told you about 'venosclerosis' in CABG - you are claiming it is the sole mechanism and you are not satisfied by that explanation; you are simply misinformed.
>1 weak mechanism with no explanation of confounding factors >no explanation of confounding factors
2 years ago
Anonymous
>i clearly know
I don't clearly know you know anything because I'm not you and I don't know you. lol. That's something a little kid would say. >SR-BI
I don't know what your niche protein is but this is what I found: >SR-BI functions as a receptor for high-density lipoprotein in the liver
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCARB1
So I truly have no idea what you're talking about. I wish you would just post some kind of source instead of spouting off random facts. You sound like you memorize a bunch of niche facts and force them into a narrative you can't let go of or modify. Sounds perfect for an average medical student. You'll be a fine doctor, but I'll be a better one 🙂
btw no one cares about CABG. when you do primary care or whatever low-effort field you plan to go in, your patients will be obese out of shape fat fricks getting heart disease because they eat 4 servings of fish and chips every day. you will put them on statins and they'll do ok and then die at 75. you'll never learn about how inflammation and metabolic dysfunction cause heart disease because you'll never care because your patients will never listen to you and change their lives because you're not a smart, respectable person. that's why you'll just prescribe them textbook statins. you won't change any lives. you'll just make people able to live worse lives for longer periods of time. that's why you'll never be a good doctor. but you'll do fine.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You sound like you memorize a bunch of niche facts and force them into a narrative you can't let go of or modify. Sounds perfect for an average medical student. >You'll be a fine doctor, but I'll be a better one 🙂 >your patients will never listen to you and change their lives because you're not a smart, respectable person. >that's why you'll never be a good doctor. but you'll do fine.
Cringeworthy.
>I truly have no idea what you're talking about. >I wish you would just post some kind of source instead of spouting off random facts.
Sure, but it doesn't seem like you're going to be able to interpret or remember any of this, because we had this conversation less than 48 hours ago and you're still just as stupid. How are you even at medical school, or are you just larping?
From your source: >Retention of LDL beneath the arterial endothelium initiates an inflammatory response culminating in atherosclerosis. >How LDL crosses the endothelium to enter the arterial wall remains unknown.
Your post talks about inflammation being the driver behind atherosclerosis and the mechanism of LDL crossing the endothelium being unknown, but here you are pretending like inflammation isn't the driver of atherosclerosis and how you know the mechanism perfectly. God, you are so insufferable.
I looked back on the thread you keep desperately mentioning and I noticed I was the last one to respond and you completely ignored my post on epidemiology, metabolic dysfunction, & inflammation. Which is hilarious because that's exactly what we're talking about right now "and you're still just as stupid."
Anyway, you're a mediocre person with mediocre intelligence and you'll be a mediocre doctor. Don't beat yourself up, being average still makes you average doctor salary. Enjoy being a pill pusher for the rest of your life.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>here you are pretending like inflammation isn't the driver of atherosclerosis
I've never said this. >how you know the mechanism perfectly.
I've also never said this, although clearly, I do understand the mechanism better than you do.
>Anyway, you're a mediocre person with mediocre intelligence and you'll be a mediocre doctor. Don't beat yourself up, being average still makes you average doctor salary. Enjoy being a pill pusher for the rest of your life.
Take your meds. Doctor's orders.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>i know the mechanism better than you do
Congratulations on memorizing a bunch of niche proteins & vaguely recalling some pubmed studies you read once. No one will care in the future because none of that actually matters (unlike what actually causes heart disease). That's why you'll be prescribing pills to 19-stone Nigel & 21-stone Ahmed for the rest of your life and you will never be a good doctor.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You should look up what "random" means. Facilitated diffusion can hardly be said to be "random", the clue is in the name.
2 years ago
Anonymous
The "random" means in the context that some people get heart disease and others don't. If you need further help understanding my posts due to your poor grasp of the English language, please let me know. I'd be happy to clarify.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Correlation is evidence that 2 things correlate.
So it is evidence.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, much like the way you existing is evidence your mother is a prostitute.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It isn't evidence! >Oh wait, actually, it is evidence!
Well, which is it, Dr. Chud?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Is English your second language or are you just trolling at this point?
2 years ago
Anonymous
800 people a year dying from bedsheet tangling? Is that US only or worldwide?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No idea but if you look up "spurious correlations" you'll find more of them. It's great to BTFO the morons who claim epidemiology is evidence of any mechanism, like you see ITT.
2 years ago
Anonymous
can u be serious ? i get tangled in bedsheets often and im wondering if i should be taking preventative measures
2 years ago
Anonymous
lol if you're not a baby or a very disabled old person you shouldn't worry my man...
2 years ago
Anonymous
>sometimes random things correlate and is le LE FUNNY >this means otherwise you cant ever use high correlations between connected things with an underlying mechanism explained and statistical significant and various other proofs all working together in multiple studies
only on IST
you guys are seriously the most moronic place on the internet
2 years ago
Anonymous
wtf do you mean you can't "use" correlations? you sound like a complete moron because you have no idea what you're talking about.
2 years ago
Anonymous
based moron with no reading comprehension kek
2 years ago
Anonymous
You are making up arguments with vague language and then calling them moronic. You're like a crackhead who argues with himself on the street. Please stop posting forever.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I assume he's pointing out how moronic you are for continuing to reject the notion that evidence of correlation is a form of evidence while arguing (with yourself) that correlation ≠ causation (which nobody is disputing).
2 years ago
Anonymous
You have to assume because what he is saying is unclear because his post was low-effort. btw your points are also incoherent because you're speaking so vaguely.
2 years ago
Anonymous
His post is crystal clear. At this stage, it is clear you are either ESL and/or PMLD, and attempting to engage you in further conversation is pointless. Enjoy your evening.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>c-correlations are evidence! >evidence of what? underlying causes? no they aren't. they're just evidence of correlations >s-see! correlations are evidence!!
2 years ago
Anonymous
>epidemiology is evidence of any mechanism
Nobody said that ITT.
2 years ago
Anonymous
do the sheets wrap around their neck or something?
[...]
Not him but the point he's making by offering examples of correlation that directly contradict other examples of correlation is really obvious and how you can't see that is pretty cringe.
>all available evidence
Well when you speak like this it's really easy to prove you wrong. Animal fat contains a lot of cholesterol and high cholesterol levels correlate with longevity in the elderly.
There you go, I just objectively proved your ridiculous statement wrong. I will not be accepting any response from you other than "Wow, I guess I was wrong on that. But here are some contradicting sources. Can you please clarify how this is possible when I believe something different, based on this evidence?"
But based on your post history I'm going to presume you will not respond or you will act like an angry woman, instead of acting like a genuinely curious person. Please prove me wrong.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673697044309 >Total cholesterol and risk of mortality in the oldest old >Each 1 mmol/L increase in total cholesterol corresponded to a 15% decrease in mortality. >Mortality from cancer and infection was significantly lower among the participants in the highest total cholesterol category >In people older than 85 years, high total cholesterol concentrations are associated with longevity owing to lower mortality from cancer and infection. >The main cause of death was cardiovascular disease with a similar mortality risk in the three total cholesterol categories.
>After the age of fifty, low cholesterol is clearly associated with an increased risk of dying from a variety of causes. A study of old women indicated that a cholesterol level of 270 mg. per 100 ml. was associated with the best longevity (Forette, et al., 1989). "Mortality was lowest at serum cholesterol 7.0 mmol/l [=270.6 mg%], 5.2 times higher than the minimum at serum cholesterol 4.0 mmol/l, and only 1.8 times higher when cholesterol concentration was 8.8 mmol/l. This relation held true irrespective of age, even when blood pressure, body weight, history of myocardial infarction, creatinine clearance, and plasma proteins were taken into account." - Ray Peat
2 years ago
Anonymous
Any more ravings of a kook?
2 years ago
Anonymous
why don't you try to email the man himself anon? he will give you guaranteed replies
>After the age of fifty, low cholesterol is clearly associated with an increased risk of dying from a variety of causes. A study of old women indicated that a cholesterol level of 270 mg. per 100 ml. was associated with the best longevity (Forette, et al., 1989). "Mortality was lowest at serum cholesterol 7.0 mmol/l [=270.6 mg%], 5.2 times higher than the minimum at serum cholesterol 4.0 mmol/l, and only 1.8 times higher when cholesterol concentration was 8.8 mmol/l. This relation held true irrespective of age, even when blood pressure, body weight, history of myocardial infarction, creatinine clearance, and plasma proteins were taken into account." - Ray Peat
You don't need to invoke Ray Peat because he'll just throw the word 'schizo' at it. The Minnesota Coronary Experiment (eventually, once they stopped hiding data) showed that PUFA lowers cholesterol, and lowering cholesterol increases all-cause mortality
>There was a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL (0.78 mmol/L) reduction in serum cholesterol in covariate adjusted Cox regression models
If that is the same person who posts "ketoschizo" in every nutrition thread, every day on IST for the past few months or however long, he is an actual schizophrenic person who also posts non-sensical on reddit. I have no idea how he has so much free time.
>>oil is... LE BAD >ok moron
It's seed oil that is bad you dumb b***h.
Saturate-Fats VS No-Saturated Fats.
- In the past we thought Saturated fats were bad.
- Nowadays we understand that it's unsaturated fats that are bad. Why ? Short answer Oxidization. Long answer : it's complicated.
Here, educate yourself.
30 min of full explanation, all you need to know on the topic
Once you've seen thewhole thing and understand the problem at hand, you will get why people on IST always advocate to never use seedoils, and only use Olive oil (or coconut oil) in their cooking and especially on their plate.
Do be aware that alot of processed foods have hidden seed oils in them, as the video explains.
Hence the importance of Whole Foods, and Organic stuff /Farmer's market products that remain untampered with, so they there's no liquid israelite fricking up your otherwise healthy lifestyle.
You gon' learn today, boy.
>>and only use Olive oil (or coconut oil) in their cooking and especially on their plate. >Cooking oil is still... Problematic.
Yes, that's what I said.
I just saids that putting it DIRECTLY in your plate, versus indirectly, is what's most concerning.
It literally says in my post to not use seed oils for cooking.
But thanks anyways, I guess, for reiterating my point.
>It literally says in my post to not use seed oils for cooking.
THIS
You can cook with only oils that can withstand high heat.
Basically: butter, GLEE (which is a butter product) or coconut oil.
>Any free fat is bad. No nutrients, empty calories
I'm not even sure to understand what you're saying, when you say "Free Fat" but whatever you think it means, you're wrong.
You sound really stupid.
>never heard of fat soluble vitamins
this homie is moronic
>this homie is moronic
>No nutrients
Wrong
>Wrong
Glad other people here more knowledeable than me can tell you that you're wrong.
what kind of moron are you that you cant realize that there are enough fats in meats to satisfy the daily requirements? do you need to be told to ADD fats to your diet? topkek.
You could probably put grains in the use sparingly place sweets and oils were at. You certainly don't want to eat them at the level the left pyramid says, and you don't particularly need them for anything, but oatmeal or whole wheat bread from a sandwich every once in a while aren't going to kill you.
The point of the picture is not to make a chart of things that kill you based on how much you consume of them, moron. You should never be eating grains (for health purposes), ever. They provide no unique nutrition, cause bloat, frick up your intestinal cells, and are generally a horrible food group for humans.
Do not engage with this homosexual, he is a grainbrain (coombrain but from empty carbs) who can’t imagine having the self control to abstain from eating worthless food that only gives you immediate satisfaction like pasta
Wait until you grow up a little and are in charge of the food your wife, children, and pets eat. Then you'll start caring a bit more and stop posting memes on the internet about how cool you are.
Not him but the point he's making by offering examples of correlation that directly contradict other examples of correlation is really obvious and how you can't see that is pretty cringe.
It shouldn't be a pyramind. Nutrition comes from animals. You can eat what you want so long as it is understood where nutrition comes from. If you want to eat nuts go ahead, but they are nutritionally empty, all bio unavailable. They just taste nice. I eat nuts, oranges, grapes, apples, carrots etc but I'm not stupid enough to think they equate to salmon or a sirloin steak which post-war generations have been misled to believe.
tldr; do not eat goyslop, eat natural foods from whatever group so long as the foundation of the diet is animal foods, as was the case before WW2.
No, a nutrient BIO-AVAILABLE TO HUMANS must go up the food chain; organisms lower on the food chain eat plants and bugs and have the digestive capability to turn that food into compounds that can be digested by humans. We evolved eating animals higher on the food chain. It's why we cannot digest bug protein anywhere near as efficiently as red meat. Stop coping with modernist nonsense.
If efficiency was the sole marker of proof that your point is correct, the human body proves you wrong. The human body is inefficient at a number of things, it doesn't mean that humans are supposed to eat mostly meat. Thats a stupid argument
No added fats are good. They are empty calories. For 1 tablespoon of oil you could have an apple and a half or a few more ounces of chicken or like a pound of greens. Displacing your nutrition with free oil is bad
>. For 1 tablespoon of oil
Where did I say ANYTIHNG about liquids or tablespoons?
Grass-fed BUTTER is what people ate forever.
They are not empty calories.
Fat is what every cell in your body is using for energy. You can't really avoid them.
Also. Fat-free or low fat milk is garbage, it is a counterfeited product. It should be , again, whole milk or raw cow milk.
I was comparing calories. It was an accurate comparison as oils and added fats like grass fed butter are commonly measured in tablespoons. Added fats are unhealthy as they displace nutrient dense foods. Just because people historically did something does not make it beneficial.
Define "added fats" then.
Can you get a fat that is required by every cell of your body, from somewhere else?
Ok, other than avocados and nuts.
Grass-fed butter is what people ate to have much better children development. In the last 100 years we have massive teeth and narrow jaws problems, kids basically under develop. No billions of dollars of toothpaste and brushes will change that teeth and jaws aren't being fully developed in kids.
Our ancestors ate butter for this and drank raw cow milk and ate goat cheese.
>nutrient dense food.
Like what? Give me examples.
I answered literally both your questions but apparently you can't comprehend them or something. Have a good day
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ok let me try slower.
Give me a LIST of foods you consider fats that are non-added.
And food you consider nutrient-rich.
I am sure it's not white flour or candy, but I just want to hear a couple :))
Just saying you are full of shit. Humans have eaten grains longer than dairy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm not the original poster you were responding to and frankly I have no idea what you're even trying to say. Butter is pretty much exactly the same as animal fat, which humans have been eating for hundreds of thousands of years. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate 0 grains and 8000 years is not enough for a major evolutionary change in our digestive systems.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Butter is pretty much exactly the same as animal fat
Wrong
2 years ago
Anonymous
Ok please name a difference or two.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Ok please name a difference or two.
You are the one making the claim.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Laziest poster ITT gets awarded to you. Congratulations.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate 0 grains
We’ve been eating grains for about 100,000 years, maybe longer. Not farmed grains, but whole intact grains from wild plants.
2 years ago
Anonymous
yes but the point is that eating whole grains from time to time and getting 20% of your calories from seed oils and another 60% from processed grain is very different
see picrel. we were never meant to eat this kind of fat in anything else but very small quantities
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's a wonderful picture in a horrifying kind of way.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the cream off the top off churned breastmilk is the same as intramuscular fat
No
-fed BUTTER is what people ate forever. >People have been eating dairy for about 8,000 years.
Buddy, the whole history is made up past 300 years ago.
I personally believe we've had past more advanced civilizations and we are here hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years. There's lots of evidence to support this.
You can't really tell than they ate diary 8000 and not 80,000 or 800,000 , it's has no factual evidence, "some random person said".
>I personally believe we've had past more advanced civilizations
My girlfriend believes this to be the case, as well, but it's just a hunch for her. Can you link some evidence so I can show her?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Off top , but evidence: >pyramids on every continent. hundreds of them >pyramids and structures under water >look at a bunch of indian temples - massive and impossible to build structures >look at massive number of so called "roman columns" - thousands upon thousands of them. Some are so precise it was impossible to engineer without machinery >massive strange roads everywhere on every continent (you have to dig for this as this is being censored) >various megaliths and megalithic structures of completely unknown tech >lots of technologies that look very strange and very engineering intense - look at different arches in lots of cities, like Paris Arch de Triumph , look inside how it is a very tech structure , this is common to all arches still standing >look at massive structures all over that are called "roman ruins" . some of them are impossible to build if you only have an army that goes around and captures things. Some of them are massive or built for x3 times human size which is absolutely insanely waste of time and effort if "romans" being soldiers ever did it
2 years ago
Anonymous
Thanks anon, I appreciate it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Anon, you are welcome. >under water pyramids and structures are also censored >star fortresses - very strange technology >what they call "roman aqueducts" - some of this is strange technology >marks of nuclear war - literally half of the ancient city ruins look like the stone leaked (stone all leaked at the tops of buildings!)
Once you open your mind you'll see that there's huge amounts of impossible techs around us. Good luck
2 years ago
Anonymous
Search for Gobekli Tepe
It's the best SCIENTIFIC evidence for Pre-Historic great civiliations.
Or rather, Pre-Sedentary Civilisations.
Nomadic Civilisations might have been more advanced than we previously thought.
It is cutting edge, currently being debated, type of Science.
So who is your Go-To for this kinda shit? Joe Rogan of course, LMAO
That pyramid has to be satire. If that poster is really eating a majority diet of meat, there is 0 need to eat "protein supplements." I mean are his calories really meat + protein powder + vegetables? How does that even work?
Kek based
Enjoy scurvy
Do you go around thread to thread making up myths to scare people? I'll bet you're a "creatine makes you bald" poster, too. You should stop posting forever.
scurvy is a lack of nutrients. even if it was exclusively caused by low vitamin C, if your diet contains low sugar as any carnivorous diet does, then your vit C requirement is extremely low, low enough to be covered by meat consumption. organs specifically. you do know sugar and vitamin C compete for absorption, right? strawman elsewhere
Not to mention that, even if someone did begin to experience symptoms of scurvy, you can literally just go to the grocery store, buy and eat an orange, and the problem goes away. morons like that poster act like nutrient deficiencies just sneak up on you all of a sudden.
>oil is... LE BAD
ok moron
The only people who use the outdated Me Bad meme are people with no evidence to back up their opinion
>backing up your opinion with facts is... LE GOOD
Seed oils are bad. Animal based fats are good.
what about the other fats?
*Ruminant based fats are good
Pigs and chickens are fed high PUFA seed crops and thus have high PUFA content in their body fat.
Even grain-fed cattle have a fraction of the PUFA that grain-fed monogastrics have.
>PUFAs bad
not falling for your trick Chaim
Do you actually think omega 3 is bad for you? Really?
Post your disgusting bodies so I can laugh.
>Do you actually think omega 3 is bad for you? Really?
lesser evil, not necessarily good
>omega 3 isn't good for you
Why do you even have an opinion on something you've clearly done zero research into?
>Why do you even have an opinion on something you've clearly done zero research into?
wrong
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/fishoil.shtml
>inb4 schizo source
he cites all the studies in his article, you can read them if you want to know the truth
>inb4 schizo source
>"Some of the important antiinflammatory effects of fish oil result from the oxidized oils, rather than the unchanged oils (Sethi, 2002; Chaudhary, et al., 2004). These oils are so unstable that they begin to spontaneously oxidize even before they reach the bloodstream."
>"In experiments that last just a few weeks or months, there may not be time for cancers to develop, and on that time scale, the immunosuppressive and antiinflammatory effects of oxidized fish oil might seem beneficial. For a few decades, x-ray treatments were used to relieve inflammatory conditions, and most of the doctors who promoted the treatment were able to retire before their patients began suffering the fatal effects of atrophy, fibrosis, and cancer. (But a few people are still advocating x-ray therapy for inflammatory diseases, e.g., Hildebrandt, et al., 2003.) The fish oil fad is now just as old as the x-ray fad was at its peak of popularity, and if its antiinflammatory actions involve the same mechanisms as the antiinflammatory immunosuppressive x-ray treatments, then we can expect to see another epidemic of fibrotic conditions and cancer in about 15 to 20 years."
Haha wew. It's not a schizo source, it's an "I don't understand what I'm citing" blogpost. Maybe you should read the citations and figure out why this moron is arguing that reducing chronic inflammation is a bad thing and that it's going to cause cancer because.. acute radiotherapy caused cancer? Come on, this is moronic. It's something a failing freshman would do; slap a bunch of vaguely relevant citations on and hope nobody bothers to look.
Chronic inflammation causes cancer, in addition to its well-known deleterious impact on cardiovascular health. Comparing radiotherapy to omega-3 intake is a bizarre juxtaposition that clearly shows this person - and by extension, you - does not have a fricking clue what they are talking about.
Omega 6*
fixed that for you
>hurr hurr gotcha! omega 3 is a PUFA therefore PUFAs aren't bad!
Who let the 14 year old who just discovered Wikipedia into this thread?
>LDL is cholesterol therefore cholesterol is bad
What you're saying is equally moronic.
Who said LDL is cholesterol? I never said that LDL is cholesterol. They are 2 fundamentally different things. Why would you make up some stupid shit and attack that instead of just discussing what I actually said? Are you suffering from delusions?
enjoy your shit health i guess?
Oh no hahaha the skinnyfat kid with the heart of a 80 year old called me a chud how will I recover now?
double the vegetable intake to compensate with the lack of starches and you'd be ok
domesticated ruminants have a lot more saturated fat than healthy wild animals
>double the vegetable intake to compensate with the lack of starches and you'd be ok
Complete nonsense not based on any fact. I'm not even sure what you're referring to could "not be ok" unless you mean fiber (lol).
>domesticated ruminants have a lot more saturated fat than healthy wild animals
False.
>domesticated ruminants have a lot more saturated fat than healthy wild animals
He's right, but only because domesticated ruminants are fatter than wild ones. Chilling all day without worrying about predators let's you get fat, uh-maize-in
Also this moron probably doesn't understand
>per capita
either
Oh that's hilarious, I would have never thought of that haha.
You can't prove that animal fats are good because all available evidence says you are wrong
>all available evidence
there's no actual evidence. it's all correlation israelitery on selected samples. and then there are two big outliers that prove them very wrong :
France eats a shit ton of saturated fat and has very low heart disease and one of the lowest obesity rates in Europe
Israel eats a shit ton of PUFAs through seed oils and has one of the highest heart disease rate in the world
you can eat as much omega 3 as you want moron, PUFAs are also omega 6 and it's already known the average western diet absolutely wrecks your natural balance of these two
you can't get more omega 3 without stuffing yourself with omega 6 with industrial seed oils. so the best way is to remove seed oils from your diet, and get your (actually useful) omega 3 from fatty fish
>you can eat as much omega 3 as you want moron
So... PUFAs aren't bad.
>Seeds bad
Flaxseed, including oil? Chia?
>there's no actual evidence. it's all correlation israelitery on selected samples.
That is evidence. Fricking hell, just shut the frick up.
>PUFAs aren't bad
DHA and EPA aren't. Except the only way to eat them is human breastmilk, or fatty fish/shellfish.
There's none of those in seed oils.
>flaxseed
Flaxseed oil goes rancid extremely fast. It's merely a condiment that needs to be refrigerated and consumed immediately for this reason. France's FDA had it banned for a century for that reason. Same shit for chia because it has a similar fatty acid profile. Those aren't goybean/sunflower/canola oils that are added in every single garbage industrial product sold nowadays.
>that is evidence
>bro just select a few statistics and conveniently discard outliers, show some pattern and that is evidence
jesus, the absolute state of modern "science". you don't start from the conclusion and cherrypick data that works out for you.
>you don't start from the conclusion and cherrypick data that works out for you.
But that's what you're doing by cherry-picking population studies and fixating on the French paradox (which is 40 years old, they're as fat as everyone else now) and ignoring larger population studies.
>Flax goes rancid; same shit for chia.
I have an open pack of chia seeds in my cupboard from like 3 years ago, they're still good. Nobody is telling you to dose your food in oil; cooking your food in oil is inherently moronic.
>DHA and EPA aren't (bad)
Omega-3 is a precursor to both.
>That is evidence. Fricking hell, just shut the frick up.
You have to be utterly moronic and have no background knowledge of any statistics to think that correlation is evidence of causation of anything, ever.
>correlation is evidence of causation
That's not what I said, I said it is evidence. Dismissing correlation as evidence is fallacious and also moronic. It is exactly what Big Tobacco did to dispute the links to cancer, it is exactly what the radical left does to dispute the links between black people and violent crime; if you are doing the same thing you are either intellectually dishonest as with Big Tobacco, or intellectually deficient as with the left.
So you will agree that the graph I posted is "evidence" of cheese consumption causing death by bedsheets...? Because, if you don't, that makes you a hypocrite.
>So you will agree that the graph I posted is "evidence" of cheese consumption causing death by bedsheets
Yes, it is weak evidence.
Why is it weak evidence? The correlation is much, much higher than the correlation of any study you can find relating "animal fat consumption" to any bad outcome. Based on this conversation, I'm going to assume you aren't even familiar with any such study. I'd like you to find one, read it, and post it here discussing the results if you are a genuinely curious person.
>Why is it weak evidence?
Propose a mechanism, produce at least some of it in vitro, better yet in vivo, and/or do a controlled study and it may become part of a stronger body of evidence. This is how we have our current theory of atherosclerosis. The latter task is very difficult with nutritional studies - it just isn't ethical to control for dietary variables in a human cohort for any length of time.
You seem to be conflating me with the person who said "animal fats aren't good" - but I'm arguing that omega-3, found in fish, is good for you. I'm just calling you out for the bizarre opinion that correlation isn't evidence; I have no idea why anyone would believe this.
>I'd like you to find one, read it, and post it here discussing the results if you are a genuinely curious person.
I'd like a set of Nike Chicagos, OG, from the 80s. This is for my Miles Morales Halloween outfit, you understand.
Yes, the current mechanism is that LDL randomly diffuses into the wall under high-pressure conditions and that causes an immune response and plaque build-up. That's a shitty mechanism and it doesn't account for differences caused by HDL or metabolic dysfunction, both of which are MASSIVELY important in predicting cardiovascular disease.
So out of your criteria you have:
>1 weak mechanism with no explanation of confounding factors
>partial in vitro production of the mechanism
>no controlled study
This is not convincing at all. If you are convinced by this, you would be convinced by anything any newspaper article says after quoting any person with "Dr." in their title. Correlation is not evidence of any mechanism, ever. Correlation is evidence that 2 things correlate. That's it.
>the current mechanism is that LDL randomly diffuses into the wall under high-pressure conditions
No, it really isn't. It's facilitated by transfer proteins and this has been replicated in vitro.
You should look up what "diffusion" means. Here's a link to start you off, please enjoy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facilitated_diffusion
Also, yes, pressure obviously matters, hence why we don't have coronary "artery" disease in veins. You would know this if you read any of the studies you are claiming exist. Please don't respond to my posts with irrelevant and incorrect factoids again.
>You should look up what "diffusion" means.
I clearly know what 'diffusion' is; in any case, SR-BI is an example of active transport.
>Also, yes, pressure obviously matters
We've had this conversation before and you were wholly unaware that transport proteins were involved in the process of atherosclerosis at all. I am not disputing that pressure is involved - I previously told you about 'venosclerosis' in CABG - you are claiming it is the sole mechanism and you are not satisfied by that explanation; you are simply misinformed.
>1 weak mechanism with no explanation of confounding factors
>no explanation of confounding factors
>i clearly know
I don't clearly know you know anything because I'm not you and I don't know you. lol. That's something a little kid would say.
>SR-BI
I don't know what your niche protein is but this is what I found:
>SR-BI functions as a receptor for high-density lipoprotein in the liver
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCARB1
So I truly have no idea what you're talking about. I wish you would just post some kind of source instead of spouting off random facts. You sound like you memorize a bunch of niche facts and force them into a narrative you can't let go of or modify. Sounds perfect for an average medical student. You'll be a fine doctor, but I'll be a better one 🙂
btw no one cares about CABG. when you do primary care or whatever low-effort field you plan to go in, your patients will be obese out of shape fat fricks getting heart disease because they eat 4 servings of fish and chips every day. you will put them on statins and they'll do ok and then die at 75. you'll never learn about how inflammation and metabolic dysfunction cause heart disease because you'll never care because your patients will never listen to you and change their lives because you're not a smart, respectable person. that's why you'll just prescribe them textbook statins. you won't change any lives. you'll just make people able to live worse lives for longer periods of time. that's why you'll never be a good doctor. but you'll do fine.
>You sound like you memorize a bunch of niche facts and force them into a narrative you can't let go of or modify. Sounds perfect for an average medical student.
>You'll be a fine doctor, but I'll be a better one 🙂
>your patients will never listen to you and change their lives because you're not a smart, respectable person.
>that's why you'll never be a good doctor. but you'll do fine.
Cringeworthy.
>I truly have no idea what you're talking about.
>I wish you would just post some kind of source instead of spouting off random facts.
Sure, but it doesn't seem like you're going to be able to interpret or remember any of this, because we had this conversation less than 48 hours ago and you're still just as stupid. How are you even at medical school, or are you just larping?
>https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/circ.130.suppl_2.11607
>https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATVBAHA.120.314557
Hahaha this is why I love posting on IST.
From your source:
>Retention of LDL beneath the arterial endothelium initiates an inflammatory response culminating in atherosclerosis.
>How LDL crosses the endothelium to enter the arterial wall remains unknown.
Your post talks about inflammation being the driver behind atherosclerosis and the mechanism of LDL crossing the endothelium being unknown, but here you are pretending like inflammation isn't the driver of atherosclerosis and how you know the mechanism perfectly. God, you are so insufferable.
I looked back on the thread you keep desperately mentioning and I noticed I was the last one to respond and you completely ignored my post on epidemiology, metabolic dysfunction, & inflammation. Which is hilarious because that's exactly what we're talking about right now "and you're still just as stupid."
Anyway, you're a mediocre person with mediocre intelligence and you'll be a mediocre doctor. Don't beat yourself up, being average still makes you average doctor salary. Enjoy being a pill pusher for the rest of your life.
>here you are pretending like inflammation isn't the driver of atherosclerosis
I've never said this.
>how you know the mechanism perfectly.
I've also never said this, although clearly, I do understand the mechanism better than you do.
>Anyway, you're a mediocre person with mediocre intelligence and you'll be a mediocre doctor. Don't beat yourself up, being average still makes you average doctor salary. Enjoy being a pill pusher for the rest of your life.
Take your meds. Doctor's orders.
>i know the mechanism better than you do
Congratulations on memorizing a bunch of niche proteins & vaguely recalling some pubmed studies you read once. No one will care in the future because none of that actually matters (unlike what actually causes heart disease). That's why you'll be prescribing pills to 19-stone Nigel & 21-stone Ahmed for the rest of your life and you will never be a good doctor.
You should look up what "random" means. Facilitated diffusion can hardly be said to be "random", the clue is in the name.
The "random" means in the context that some people get heart disease and others don't. If you need further help understanding my posts due to your poor grasp of the English language, please let me know. I'd be happy to clarify.
>Correlation is evidence that 2 things correlate.
So it is evidence.
Yes, much like the way you existing is evidence your mother is a prostitute.
>It isn't evidence!
>Oh wait, actually, it is evidence!
Well, which is it, Dr. Chud?
Is English your second language or are you just trolling at this point?
800 people a year dying from bedsheet tangling? Is that US only or worldwide?
No idea but if you look up "spurious correlations" you'll find more of them. It's great to BTFO the morons who claim epidemiology is evidence of any mechanism, like you see ITT.
can u be serious ? i get tangled in bedsheets often and im wondering if i should be taking preventative measures
lol if you're not a baby or a very disabled old person you shouldn't worry my man...
>sometimes random things correlate and is le LE FUNNY
>this means otherwise you cant ever use high correlations between connected things with an underlying mechanism explained and statistical significant and various other proofs all working together in multiple studies
only on IST
you guys are seriously the most moronic place on the internet
wtf do you mean you can't "use" correlations? you sound like a complete moron because you have no idea what you're talking about.
based moron with no reading comprehension kek
You are making up arguments with vague language and then calling them moronic. You're like a crackhead who argues with himself on the street. Please stop posting forever.
I assume he's pointing out how moronic you are for continuing to reject the notion that evidence of correlation is a form of evidence while arguing (with yourself) that correlation ≠ causation (which nobody is disputing).
You have to assume because what he is saying is unclear because his post was low-effort. btw your points are also incoherent because you're speaking so vaguely.
His post is crystal clear. At this stage, it is clear you are either ESL and/or PMLD, and attempting to engage you in further conversation is pointless. Enjoy your evening.
>c-correlations are evidence!
>evidence of what? underlying causes? no they aren't. they're just evidence of correlations
>s-see! correlations are evidence!!
>epidemiology is evidence of any mechanism
Nobody said that ITT.
do the sheets wrap around their neck or something?
>its all correlation on selected samples
>proceeds to give only correlated examples on selected samples
Lolol
>all available evidence
Well when you speak like this it's really easy to prove you wrong. Animal fat contains a lot of cholesterol and high cholesterol levels correlate with longevity in the elderly.
There you go, I just objectively proved your ridiculous statement wrong. I will not be accepting any response from you other than "Wow, I guess I was wrong on that. But here are some contradicting sources. Can you please clarify how this is possible when I believe something different, based on this evidence?"
But based on your post history I'm going to presume you will not respond or you will act like an angry woman, instead of acting like a genuinely curious person. Please prove me wrong.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140673697044309
>Total cholesterol and risk of mortality in the oldest old
>Each 1 mmol/L increase in total cholesterol corresponded to a 15% decrease in mortality.
>Mortality from cancer and infection was significantly lower among the participants in the highest total cholesterol category
>In people older than 85 years, high total cholesterol concentrations are associated with longevity owing to lower mortality from cancer and infection.
>The main cause of death was cardiovascular disease with a similar mortality risk in the three total cholesterol categories.
>high cholesterol levels correlate with longevity in the elderly.
Wrong
True because studies that support my viewpoint are good and redpilled.
Those who say the opposite are false and done by israelites
Simple as
>After the age of fifty, low cholesterol is clearly associated with an increased risk of dying from a variety of causes. A study of old women indicated that a cholesterol level of 270 mg. per 100 ml. was associated with the best longevity (Forette, et al., 1989). "Mortality was lowest at serum cholesterol 7.0 mmol/l [=270.6 mg%], 5.2 times higher than the minimum at serum cholesterol 4.0 mmol/l, and only 1.8 times higher when cholesterol concentration was 8.8 mmol/l. This relation held true irrespective of age, even when blood pressure, body weight, history of myocardial infarction, creatinine clearance, and plasma proteins were taken into account." - Ray Peat
Any more ravings of a kook?
why don't you try to email the man himself anon? he will give you guaranteed replies
You don't need to invoke Ray Peat because he'll just throw the word 'schizo' at it. The Minnesota Coronary Experiment (eventually, once they stopped hiding data) showed that PUFA lowers cholesterol, and lowering cholesterol increases all-cause mortality
>There was a 22% higher risk of death for each 30 mg/dL (0.78 mmol/L) reduction in serum cholesterol in covariate adjusted Cox regression models
https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
Omitted variable bias. Lifestyle is notoriously difficult to pin down a ceteris paribus effect on.
>bananas and apples are keto
What did he mean by this?
If that is the same person who posts "ketoschizo" in every nutrition thread, every day on IST for the past few months or however long, he is an actual schizophrenic person who also posts non-sensical on reddit. I have no idea how he has so much free time.
>has a reddit nemesis
Can't make it up
>vegetables and fruits are keto
you are the only schizo on this board, and another proof that you are a butthurt vegan
Im convinced it just random anons posting it at this point. Guarenteed (you)s
>>oil is... LE BAD
>ok moron
It's seed oil that is bad you dumb b***h.
Saturate-Fats VS No-Saturated Fats.
- In the past we thought Saturated fats were bad.
- Nowadays we understand that it's unsaturated fats that are bad. Why ? Short answer Oxidization. Long answer : it's complicated.
Here, educate yourself.
30 min of full explanation, all you need to know on the topic
Once you've seen thewhole thing and understand the problem at hand, you will get why people on IST always advocate to never use seedoils, and only use Olive oil (or coconut oil) in their cooking and especially on their plate.
Do be aware that alot of processed foods have hidden seed oils in them, as the video explains.
Hence the importance of Whole Foods, and Organic stuff /Farmer's market products that remain untampered with, so they there's no liquid israelite fricking up your otherwise healthy lifestyle.
You gon' learn today, boy.
>and only use Olive oil (or coconut oil) in their cooking and especially on their plate.
Cooking oil is still... Problematic.
>>and only use Olive oil (or coconut oil) in their cooking and especially on their plate.
>Cooking oil is still... Problematic.
Yes, that's what I said.
I just saids that putting it DIRECTLY in your plate, versus indirectly, is what's most concerning.
It literally says in my post to not use seed oils for cooking.
But thanks anyways, I guess, for reiterating my point.
>It literally says in my post to not use seed oils for cooking.
THIS
You can cook with only oils that can withstand high heat.
Basically: butter, GLEE (which is a butter product) or coconut oil.
or tallow.
Any free fat is bad. No nutrients, empty calories
>hurrr you need it on salad to absorb--
No you dont
>never heard of fat soluble vitamins
this homie is moronic
>No nutrients
Wrong
the human brain literally cant be health without animal fats
>the human brain literally cant be health without animal fats
Wrong
>Wrong
Wrong
>literally
Lol okay buddy post body (you won't)
>Any free fat is bad. No nutrients, empty calories
I'm not even sure to understand what you're saying, when you say "Free Fat" but whatever you think it means, you're wrong.
You sound really stupid.
>this homie is moronic
>Wrong
Glad other people here more knowledeable than me can tell you that you're wrong.
what kind of moron are you that you cant realize that there are enough fats in meats to satisfy the daily requirements? do you need to be told to ADD fats to your diet? topkek.
actually, a well rounded and balanced diet promotes healthy gut bacteria.
you forgot to get rid of the added sugar triangles
You could probably put grains in the use sparingly place sweets and oils were at. You certainly don't want to eat them at the level the left pyramid says, and you don't particularly need them for anything, but oatmeal or whole wheat bread from a sandwich every once in a while aren't going to kill you.
The point of the picture is not to make a chart of things that kill you based on how much you consume of them, moron. You should never be eating grains (for health purposes), ever. They provide no unique nutrition, cause bloat, frick up your intestinal cells, and are generally a horrible food group for humans.
t. ketolard gutlet
Do you genuinely think people on keto are the only people who don't eat grains? What if I told you I eat fruit and honey every day?
Do not engage with this homosexual, he is a grainbrain (coombrain but from empty carbs) who can’t imagine having the self control to abstain from eating worthless food that only gives you immediate satisfaction like pasta
Imagine caring this much about food.
I just eat what I want and what makes me feel good, and that I know is fresh and from proper sources.
Wait until you grow up a little and are in charge of the food your wife, children, and pets eat. Then you'll start caring a bit more and stop posting memes on the internet about how cool you are.
As if me and most people on this fricking website will ever have a wife and kids kek
I've literally given up on trying to get girls and now I'm focused on more important things than these thots
This isn't terrible, but swap veggies portions for dairy, and add in EVOO for an acceptable oil. Dairy and meats should be the base.
Good points; coconut oil would be great to add, too.
Yes
Not him but the point he's making by offering examples of correlation that directly contradict other examples of correlation is really obvious and how you can't see that is pretty cringe.
I didnt give any examples so he's arguing against a his own construct, idk
frick you
life without bread is not worth living
t. Intestinal worm
>mfw when the slaves love their grain sludge so much they refuse to live without it
What about porridge or rice? You need a few carbs to give you energy and help with protein synthesis
>carbs
Fruit, honey, dairy. White rice is good, too. (Other) grains are worthless.
That’s basically my diet
Okay and?
add tallow and ghee and the top
You forgot energy drinks
It shouldn't be a pyramind. Nutrition comes from animals. You can eat what you want so long as it is understood where nutrition comes from. If you want to eat nuts go ahead, but they are nutritionally empty, all bio unavailable. They just taste nice. I eat nuts, oranges, grapes, apples, carrots etc but I'm not stupid enough to think they equate to salmon or a sirloin steak which post-war generations have been misled to believe.
tldr; do not eat goyslop, eat natural foods from whatever group so long as the foundation of the diet is animal foods, as was the case before WW2.
>Nutrition comes from animals.
All nutrients come from plants
No, a nutrient BIO-AVAILABLE TO HUMANS must go up the food chain; organisms lower on the food chain eat plants and bugs and have the digestive capability to turn that food into compounds that can be digested by humans. We evolved eating animals higher on the food chain. It's why we cannot digest bug protein anywhere near as efficiently as red meat. Stop coping with modernist nonsense.
>a nutrient BIO-AVAILABLE TO HUMANS must go up the food chain
Wrong
>Wrong
Wrong
If efficiency was the sole marker of proof that your point is correct, the human body proves you wrong. The human body is inefficient at a number of things, it doesn't mean that humans are supposed to eat mostly meat. Thats a stupid argument
Wtf does this even mean? All life comes from the sun and every "nutrient" is in a repeating cycle on Earth. What a weird statement.
What a ridiculous statement, all life comes from God
fixed
If you add good fats - like you can add grass-fed cow butter to the milk and cheese group - you are done.
In US, most of the yogurt is israelited with sugar and produced from low end milk.
I would even replace yogurt with butter.
No added fats are good. They are empty calories. For 1 tablespoon of oil you could have an apple and a half or a few more ounces of chicken or like a pound of greens. Displacing your nutrition with free oil is bad
>. For 1 tablespoon of oil
Where did I say ANYTIHNG about liquids or tablespoons?
Grass-fed BUTTER is what people ate forever.
They are not empty calories.
Fat is what every cell in your body is using for energy. You can't really avoid them.
Also. Fat-free or low fat milk is garbage, it is a counterfeited product. It should be , again, whole milk or raw cow milk.
I was comparing calories. It was an accurate comparison as oils and added fats like grass fed butter are commonly measured in tablespoons. Added fats are unhealthy as they displace nutrient dense foods. Just because people historically did something does not make it beneficial.
Define "added fats" then.
Can you get a fat that is required by every cell of your body, from somewhere else?
Ok, other than avocados and nuts.
Grass-fed butter is what people ate to have much better children development. In the last 100 years we have massive teeth and narrow jaws problems, kids basically under develop. No billions of dollars of toothpaste and brushes will change that teeth and jaws aren't being fully developed in kids.
Our ancestors ate butter for this and drank raw cow milk and ate goat cheese.
>nutrient dense food.
Like what? Give me examples.
I answered literally both your questions but apparently you can't comprehend them or something. Have a good day
Ok let me try slower.
Give me a LIST of foods you consider fats that are non-added.
And food you consider nutrient-rich.
I am sure it's not white flour or candy, but I just want to hear a couple :))
I literally did. Literally.
Wow.
>Grass-fed BUTTER is what people ate forever.
People have been eating dairy for about 8,000 years.
People have been eating seed oils for about 80 years.
Just saying you are full of shit. Humans have eaten grains longer than dairy.
I'm not the original poster you were responding to and frankly I have no idea what you're even trying to say. Butter is pretty much exactly the same as animal fat, which humans have been eating for hundreds of thousands of years. Our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate 0 grains and 8000 years is not enough for a major evolutionary change in our digestive systems.
>Butter is pretty much exactly the same as animal fat
Wrong
Ok please name a difference or two.
>Ok please name a difference or two.
You are the one making the claim.
Laziest poster ITT gets awarded to you. Congratulations.
>Our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate 0 grains
We’ve been eating grains for about 100,000 years, maybe longer. Not farmed grains, but whole intact grains from wild plants.
yes but the point is that eating whole grains from time to time and getting 20% of your calories from seed oils and another 60% from processed grain is very different
see picrel. we were never meant to eat this kind of fat in anything else but very small quantities
That's a wonderful picture in a horrifying kind of way.
>the cream off the top off churned breastmilk is the same as intramuscular fat
No
Ok please name a difference or two.
Wow so that must make it good for me
-fed BUTTER is what people ate forever.
>People have been eating dairy for about 8,000 years.
Buddy, the whole history is made up past 300 years ago.
I personally believe we've had past more advanced civilizations and we are here hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years. There's lots of evidence to support this.
You can't really tell than they ate diary 8000 and not 80,000 or 800,000 , it's has no factual evidence, "some random person said".
>I personally believe we've had past more advanced civilizations
My girlfriend believes this to be the case, as well, but it's just a hunch for her. Can you link some evidence so I can show her?
Off top , but evidence:
>pyramids on every continent. hundreds of them
>pyramids and structures under water
>look at a bunch of indian temples - massive and impossible to build structures
>look at massive number of so called "roman columns" - thousands upon thousands of them. Some are so precise it was impossible to engineer without machinery
>massive strange roads everywhere on every continent (you have to dig for this as this is being censored)
>various megaliths and megalithic structures of completely unknown tech
>lots of technologies that look very strange and very engineering intense - look at different arches in lots of cities, like Paris Arch de Triumph , look inside how it is a very tech structure , this is common to all arches still standing
>look at massive structures all over that are called "roman ruins" . some of them are impossible to build if you only have an army that goes around and captures things. Some of them are massive or built for x3 times human size which is absolutely insanely waste of time and effort if "romans" being soldiers ever did it
Thanks anon, I appreciate it.
Anon, you are welcome.
>under water pyramids and structures are also censored
>star fortresses - very strange technology
>what they call "roman aqueducts" - some of this is strange technology
>marks of nuclear war - literally half of the ancient city ruins look like the stone leaked (stone all leaked at the tops of buildings!)
Once you open your mind you'll see that there's huge amounts of impossible techs around us. Good luck
Search for Gobekli Tepe
It's the best SCIENTIFIC evidence for Pre-Historic great civiliations.
Or rather, Pre-Sedentary Civilisations.
Nomadic Civilisations might have been more advanced than we previously thought.
It is cutting edge, currently being debated, type of Science.
So who is your Go-To for this kinda shit? Joe Rogan of course, LMAO
here's the real one
>protien supplements
>multivitamin
That pyramid has to be satire. If that poster is really eating a majority diet of meat, there is 0 need to eat "protein supplements." I mean are his calories really meat + protein powder + vegetables? How does that even work?
>1 banana
>2 glasses of milk
>3 heads of cabbage
I think your pyramid is a bit off.
fat is in milk/cheese
Imagine the flatulence.
>t. 50g of protein a day
move eggs and nuts with dairy, then put dairy on top with 1 serving, add 2 servings of whole grains to the middle layer