I guess you can make the "choice" of being vegan and going malnourished. Nature still won because it made you malnourished for not following your natural diet.
Lions and Deer are both wild animals. Humans broke "the structure of nature," conquered the world and created civilization. Agriculture was a good thing. You are not a hunter-gatherer. You are not a fricking lion.
humans are carnivores, not strict or "hyper" like a cat who could die by eating a carrot
we have mild tolerance to stuff like fruits and nuts (as in, they wont rapidly kill us), but thats about it, mild tolerance
our bodies respond the best to meat, if you can afford meat, there is 0 reason to eat anything else
>we have mild tolerance to stuff like fruits and nuts (as in, they wont rapidly kill us), but thats about it, mild tolerance >our bodies respond the best to meat, if you can afford meat, there is 0 reason to eat anything else
We have more starch digesting enzymes than we do protein or fat. We have no protein taste receptors like carnivorous animals, but we do have ample amylase to predigest starchy foods in our mouthes while chewing before it even hits the stomach. Our digestive system in longer compared to other animals our size for proper assimilation and digestion of plants. Fossilized feces we have from pre-agricultural society shows that man actively foraged for and ate plants to the tune of 100+ grams of fiber a day. The carnivore trend is new, its a fad and you are buying into it and are not informed.
Nope. I'm having steak and potatoes for dinner, followed by cheesecake. Cry about it memetard.
4 months ago
Anonymous
If we are designed to eat starches, you should be able to live on only starches.
4 months ago
Anonymous
What kind of moronic argument is that? Did ketosis finally fry your brain? Obviously we can break down starches for energy but still require protein and fat which can also be gained by plants.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You cannot be healthy without animal foods.
You can be healthy with only animal foods.
There really is no debate.
4 months ago
Anonymous
And you can be healthier than both extremes by eating both
4 months ago
Anonymous
His ketosis-adapted brain cannot understand this simple fact.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>And you can be healthier
No you cant. This really isnt rocket science ffs.
What are vegetables and grains giving you? Appart from toxins >muh extremism
lol brainwashed moron, do you hit nails with shoes for the sake of variety?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Appart from toxins
MUH ANTI-NUTIRENTS BRO
There's never even been a signal of plants causing cancer while there are rather strong signals of certain meats causing cancer..
4 months ago
Anonymous
>antinutrients arent real because I dont want them to be
Ok.
The only thing about meat that can cause cancer are burnt crusts which are very carcinogenic.
And I've said this before, in EVERY study regarding the "dangers" of meat, the "meat eaters" are people doing SAD with lots of fast food
4 months ago
Anonymous
>antinutrients arent real
Or more like the net benefit you get from plants is positive. >the "meat eaters" are people doing SAD with lots of fast food
Or ketards who only eat steak with butter all day long and die of heart disease.
4 months ago
Anonymous
You know how those studies are done? Half the time they just share google polls to normalgays "uh how much meat did you eat last month?".
Net benefit? Plants hardly have any nutrients and they get destroyed when you cook them, leaving practically just fiber, which is nothing but undigestible matter (and the biggest meme in the history if nutrition).
Besides, lets pretend this is true. Even if something like carrots was as high in VitA as the "experts" claim (it isnt btw, VitA is an animal vitamin), the amounts that "experts" say it has pale in comparison to something like liver, which has 0 defense chemicals that are detrimental for humans.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Half the time they just share google polls to normalgays "uh how much meat did you eat last month?".
Observational trials suck, glad we agree on that. We do have clinical trials with placebo groups that do show the negative effect of increasing saturated fat intake or the beneficial effect of reducing LDL via medication though which is why meat high in saturated fat is still bad for you unless you take your statins. >Plants hardly have any nutrients and they get destroyed when you cook them
That's not true. Plants contain all macro-nutrients and most micronutrients aswell. They are great sources for nitric oxide too. >it isnt btw, VitA is an animal vitamin
The body can convert the precursors to vitamin A itself but supplementing with vitamin A is probably a good idea anyway. Even as a meat eater getting enough vitamin A isn't that easy if you don't like liver.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Plants are lacking in most micronutrients, and humans cant convert beta carotine into vitA, thats false.
Anon, just think about it like this: most vegetables arent even 3000 years old.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Plants are lacking in most micronutrients
Which ones? > and humans cant convert beta carotine into vitA, thats false.
They absolutely can. Learn how2biology. >most vegetables arent even 3000 years old.
Most animal species we eat today aren't very old either.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Stupid analogy. If meat eating is a useful tool, like a hammer, doing a Carnivore diet is like trying to use your hammer to replace the rest of your toolbox.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>You cannot be healthy without animal foods.
You absolutely can. >You can be healthy with only animal foods.
Sure if we ignore the whole thing about saturated fat which will kill a shitload of ketards in their 30s, 40s and 50s. Maybe it's for the best.
I used to make fun of vegans. I can't believe I have to defend them on the internet because of how insufferable ketards and carnitards have become.
4 months ago
Anonymous
so true moxyte
i also used to hate vegans, but ketoschizos are so insufferable that i think i will never eat meat again and dedicate the rest of my life into online vegan propaganda (got discord link?)
plus with my new vegan lifestyle (and my transition) i won't have to worry about going bald!
4 months ago
Anonymous
Ketosis increases both 5ar activity and aromatization resulting in a weird mix of balding and feminization.
4 months ago
Anonymous
This entire thread has been you getting btfo by multiple anons. Just take the L, dude and save some scrap of dignity.
4 months ago
Anonymous
2nd post here, though this is probably incomprehensible to you considering that this thread has 90 posts and 30 ips
>moxyte spamming vegan threads during christmas >moxyte spamming ketoschizo shit during new years eve >that's his life
4 months ago
Anonymous
nta but literally who
4 months ago
Anonymous
So this thread was created by a vegan? It has 30 ips but apparently it's just one guy dunking on OP? Wtf are you on about?
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm OP. I eat a balanced diet consisting of varied protein sources. My favorite meat is currently deenz and steak. I like lentils. I like leafy greens.
WE DO NOT HAVE A CAECUM. Our appendix has shriveled from millions of years of disuse and that is the organ which is NEEDED to properly digest plant cellulose. Nothing else that you said matters as much as this.
4 months ago
Anonymous
More like anthropologist cope, sure.
Humans can easily absorb plants and plant protein, otherwise veganism would not be physically possible.
4 months ago
Anonymous
It's not physically possible. Without supplementation the nutrients that are missing, you will die on a vegan diet.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Kek it's hilarious that the only way carnivag's can even have an argument is if they're arguing strictly against an equally moronic concept.
4 months ago
Anonymous
the point you are intent on ignoring is there is an asymmetry between an animal food only diet and a plant only diet. its not that complicated
4 months ago
Anonymous
How is that remotely relevant when no-one here is advocating veganism? It's like arguing that everyone should drink piss because it's preferable to eating shit. How about neither?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Supplementation with B12 (which is also supplemented to the animals humans eat) and that's not what I'm talking about. I meant as in breaking down the macronutrients in plant food.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Nta but you're using the broad term for obligate carnivore which basically just specifies that you need to eat some animal foods in your diet. The term not commonly refers to species that really cannot eat anything else in any significant quantity (like felines). That's why sometimes bears and wolves get excluded from that group. Humans are basically somewhere between bears and pigs when it comes to the carnivore/omnivore spectrum.
>was always omnivorous.
That's not correct. We were omnivorous before we separated from the common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are actually no-shit omnivores. We are obligate carnivores.
WE DO NOT HAVE A CAECUM. Our appendix has shriveled from millions of years of disuse and that is the organ which is NEEDED to properly digest plant cellulose. Nothing else that you said matters as much as this.
Based on current evidence, humans recently evolved digestion traits away from single pass fermentation towards long absorption only, but as this was a recent change, we still benefit from the consumption of some gut fermentable foods. More specifically, we benefit from slightly less fiber / crosslinked cellulose and more from starch / sugar than the common ancestor. Even more recently, we evolved to benefit from meat, when a hominid ancestor species learned to scavenge (and hunt). Logically, our diet should consist primarily of roots, fruits, seeds, and vegetables, with a significant but lesser portion consisting of lean game meat (including organs) and eggs. We benefit from the consumption of fermented foods, especially fermented dairy and vegetables, as their digestion as been partially completed and the colonization of the gut with fermenting microbes benefits the digestion of non-fermented vegetables and dairy. Meat becomes more digestible with cooking, especially stewing and marinating in acidic juices (think: fruit juice like pineapple, vegetables like onion).
We are omnivores, by definition. Our evolution has indicated a shift towards meat, but not so much as to fully specialize in meat consumption. We had a nearly herbivorous ancestor, but that was so long ago in evolutionary terms that the main components of our physiology dedicated to specialized plant consumption have all but disappeared.
>was always omnivorous.
That's not correct. We were omnivorous before we separated from the common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are actually no-shit omnivores. We are obligate carnivores.
The term your looking for is facultative carnivore, which technically isn't accurate. If we continued down our line of evolution towards the consumption patterns of bears and dogs, then yes we would be. But we didn't.
1. The word you're looking for is "obligate" not hyper
2. The introduction of meat into our diet is comparatively recent compared to fruits. Why would our bodies be so poorly adapted to something we've been consuming for longer?
Humans are omnivorous. Literally the entirety of human history and for millions of years prior to modern or archaic humans, our ancestors were omnivorous. Meat is great. Organ meat is great. Animal products like dairy are great. However, plants are also staples of our diets and we are especially well adapted to consuming fruits.
we have adapted away from plants in the past two million years. only very recently have be adapted towards plants again because we hunted almost all fat animals to extinction
I do agree that humans at one point, many millions of years ago, were borderline herbivores, but that changed very, very long ago. We became carnivores and remained that way for millions of years. Its only 10k years ago that we have started eating stuff like seeds and plants again.
4 months ago
Anonymous
So you're telling me humans in sub-Saharan Africa never ate berries or bananas?
many lines of evidence in this paper support that we are hyper carnivores >Following the zoological analogy with large social carnivores that acquire large prey, we hypothesized that humans were hypercarnivores, defined as consuming more than 70% of the diet from animal sources.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24247
>was always omnivorous.
That's not correct. We were omnivorous before we separated from the common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are actually no-shit omnivores. We are obligate carnivores.
ketogays are so fricking annoying; even more then vegans i'd say. do we really need to have 200 keto posts everyday. do keto if you fell good i don't fricking care just stop spamming.
Keto people are the alt-right version of vegans except even more unhinged and crazy. For example, while a vegan will supplement with vitamin b12 and up their protein to compensate for bioavailability, the ketoids will go out of their way to attack the scientific consensus regarding saturated fat, cholesterol levels and heart disease.
>Cholesterol is weakly correlated with heart disease at best.
It is strongly correlated with heart disease according to both clinical, placebo-controlled, randomized trials and Mendelian randomization.
That is true on keto. I see people eating a lot of bacon an cheese not knocking it but there is plenty of other kinds of fat to eat that are a better choice then just saturated fats
You can easily do vegan keto but it requires you to eat more than just butter and steak all day long.
I didn't ask for an opinion article. Obviously sugar is not great in large amounts but neither is saturated fat.
Here is a meta-analysis proving an 1-to-1 relationship between lowering LDL cholesterol levels and decreasing plaque volume
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87528-w
Unless you somehow want to convince yourself that plaque in your artery walls is somehow good for you, I would seriously recommend you take a statin and/or a PCSK9 inhibitor if you're on a high saturated fat keto diet.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>proving an 1-to-1 relationship between lowering LDL cholesterol levels and decreasing plaque volume
it does no such thing. there is no relationship between degree of benefit and degree of LDL lowering
4 months ago
Anonymous
You didn't even address the meta-analysis I posted, moron. Let me quote some of the article for you. >According to the subgroup analyses, TAV was significantly reduced in the LDL<80 mg/dL and HDL>45 mg/dL group (SMD: 0.163 mm3; 95% CI 0.092, 0.234; P=0.000), and PAV was significantly reduced in the LDL<90 mg/dL and HDL>45 mg/dL group (SMD: 0.186%; 95% CI 0.081, 0.291; P=0.001). Our meta-analysis suggests that not only should LDL be reduced to a target level of<80 mg/dL, but HDL should be increased to a target level of>45 mg/dL to regress coronary plaques. >To explore the target level of LDL for plaque regression, the included studies were divided into five groups according to the levels of LDL at follow-up:<70, 70–80, 80–90, 90–100,>100 mg/dL. The subgroup analysis of TAV data showed significant plaque regression in the LDL<70 mg/dL group (SMD: 0.195 mm3; 95% CI 0.086, 0.304; P<0.001) (I2=59.0%, P=0.001, Fig. 1A) and the 70–80 mg/dL group (SMD: 0.078 mm3; 95% CI 0.003, 0.153; P=0.042) (I2=0.0%, P=0.752, Fig. 1A) at follow-up. >In recent studies, LDL has been shown to accumulate abnormally in the vascular wall due to the dysfunction of endothelial cells. Moreover, LDL can be converted into ox-LDL, which can damage endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells, thereby causing abnormal activation of the endothelial cells, producing foam cells and eventually promoting plaque progression40.
That is true on keto. I see people eating a lot of bacon an cheese not knocking it but there is plenty of other kinds of fat to eat that are a better choice then just saturated fats
funny how supplements are unreliable and are not recommended by the basedence until veganism is mentioned, then suddenly supplements and fortified foods are 100% acceptable substitute to an incomplete and unbalanced diet
Lots of supplements are recommend by science even if you're an omnivore or keto prostitute. Go to your local pharmacy and tell them you're feeling depressed and they will sell you vitamin D capsules.
The better question is why cats don't follow the natural structure.
Obligate herbivores/carnivores are way less common in nature than omnivores. The deer in your example will eat small birds and rodents from time to time. Animals are way more opportunistic than elementary school would have you believe. Humans are just good enough at getting resources that they can afford to be picky when they feel like it.
You didn't, you pivoted to an unrelated question you posited yourself
4 months ago
Anonymous
Not at all.
My point clearly and directly refutes the OP.
4 months ago
Anonymous
It doesn't because you didn't grasp the point OP made and instead went off on a tangent about how animals will basically eat anything. It doesn't refit the basic premise that there are obvious classes of carnivores and herbivores.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>It doesn't refit the basic premise that there are obvious classes of carnivores and herbivores.
It refutes the OP because it addresses the flaw in the very premise. It's a manufactured absolutist dichotomy that poorly reflects reality.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Its a general rule and its accurate. As a general rule cars are for driving. Its an accurate statement. Does that mean people won't show them off at car shows? No. But its not what they are *for*
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Its a general rule and its accurate.
Not at all, see my first post.
4 months ago
Anonymous
It applies to your first post as well.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Not at all.
Animals are not cars.
You can ride a horse, but that's not what a horse is "for". You are manufacturing absolutist dichotomies where they don't exist, and you're parallel is literally a manufactured device. Stop comparing nature to cars.
Dumbass.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Opportunity doesn't negate anything. Humans aren't designed to eat other humans and it isnt in their nature to. Will they do it if they do it if they are stranded on an island? Sure. Does this mean they are designed to?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Humans aren't designed
Well you're right about at least one thing in your post.
My assertion is that nature doesn't give a frick what you're eating as long as makes you live another day. There are only prefer food sources based on evolutionary adaptation but even this is only a loose rule that can be broken if needed.
The humble carnivore lion: >chill >only kills to eat
The deranged vegan hippopotamus: >completely deranged >enjoys murdering people and animals alike for the frick of it >he keeps military grade magnets in the vicinity of his hard drives "just in case"
>Pick two species with extremely specialised diets and ignore countless omnivore species that can eat a variety of foods >wHy ArE hUmAnS nOt LiKe ThIs!???
We do, it's 70% cooked starches, and the rest being vegetables, nuts, seeds, fruit, and the occasional fish or animal.
Look up fossilized human dental plaque studies. We know pretty damn well that for hundreds of thousands of years we got a vast majority of our calories through wild grains, tubers, leaves, and fruits. Growing stronger as we mastered cooking, seed selection for larger produce, and agriculture.
yes
homeostasis takers care of your cholesterol levels in a variety of ways
dietary cholesterol is only dangerous to genetic rejects with a rare mutation, it is completely irrelevant to normal people no matter how much of it you consume
Dietary cholesterol is usually not an issue unless you happen to be a hyperabsorber. The issue lies with trans-fats and saturated fat which increase blood LDL cholesterol and over time, that leads to plaque forming which can burst and thereby kill you. Even if you control all other risk factors for heart disease/strokes such as high blood pressure, diabetes and inflammation, LDL levels beyond 70-90mg/dL will lead to plaque formation. Even the most recent LMHR study where the keto group had perfect physique, their plaque still ended up increasing over the study's duration.
It hasn't been debunked at all.
apoB particles (of all sizes) have a certain chance of entering your blood walls and eventually forming plaque over time if the concentration of apoB particles is too high or there are other risk factors such as high blood pressure, diabetes or inflammation. LDL cholesterol is an indirect measure of those apoB particles (each apoB can only carry a certain amount of LDL/IDL/... cholesterol). Lowering LDL/apoB via diet or statins to a certain point has proven to decrease plaque volume, lower incidence of heart attacks and even reduce all-cause mortality (an effect which compounds the longer LDL/apoB remains suppressed).
>apoB particles (of all sizes) have a certain chance of entering your blood walls
they have zero chance if your gap junctions are tight and functioning as they should. if theyre not its not because of cholesterol
The risk is always there regardless of how low your inflammation levels are. The body can clean up apoB particles stuck in cell walls up to a certain degree but over that plaque accumulates.
>an effect which compounds the longer LDL/apoB remains suppressed).
wishful thinking based on a shoddy theory. there are no data showing all cause mortality benefit upwards of 2 or 3 years
>there are no data showing all cause mortality benefit upwards of 2 or 3 years
The JUPITER trial actually did find a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality over that time period 😉
>JUPITER >The trial was stopped after a median follow-up of 1.9 years
like i said nothing beyond 2 or 3 years. stopping early skews results. this is not controversial
You know why it ended early? Because the effect and trend was already obvious enough. Heart attacks and strokes were fricking halved with a trend towards a number needed to treat of 1 in 24 over just 5 years. Anyone who isn't a total moron would've hopped on rosuvastatin after that clinical trial. But instead you have ketards who refuse to accept reality.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>In the case of the JUPITER trial, the prespecified rules were not detailed in the published description of the study protocol.22 Indeed, we still do not know which end point was used to define them, or which level of benefits—unexpected on the basis of the a priori calculated hypothesis—was required to justify early termination. Also, it was recently shown that truncated trials are associated with greater effect sizes than trials that are not stopped early, and this effect is independent of the presence of statistical stopping rules.
you are dishonest or a moron. take your pick
4 months ago
Anonymous
top cope lel
Even if you ignore the primary endpoint (obv a cardiovascular death), the other endpoints are clearly described and have also been reduced by 50%, as can be seen here
https://i.imgur.com/87GfCau.jpg
[...]
[...]
How can ketards look at pic related and think "hmm, maybe I should eat more butter today to own the libs"!?
Tbh even if I was a total keto fanatic this kind of study would make me consider rosuvastatin and using olive oil instead of butter.
4 months ago
Anonymous
what does a drug trial have to do with butter or olive oil
>JUPITER >The trial was stopped after a median follow-up of 1.9 years
like i said nothing beyond 2 or 3 years. stopping early skews results. this is not controversial
[...]
You know why it ended early? Because the effect and trend was already obvious enough. Heart attacks and strokes were fricking halved with a trend towards a number needed to treat of 1 in 24 over just 5 years. Anyone who isn't a total moron would've hopped on rosuvastatin after that clinical trial. But instead you have ketards who refuse to accept reality.
How can ketards look at pic related and think "hmm, maybe I should eat more butter today to own the libs"!?
4 months ago
Anonymous
>In defending the decision to end the trial early, the JUPITER investigators stated that the decision was not made by them but by members of an independent safety-monitoring board.24 However, the chairman of this board—an investigator of the Clinical Trial Service Unit of Oxford University, Oxford, England—has been, and still is, involved in many other industry-sponsored lipid-lowering trials, raising issues of conflict of interest.25,26
theres no way you are this naive. i hope you are paid well for this shilling
4 months ago
Anonymous
Because the result was already obvious enough to anyone with a brain that a longer study duration would've been a waste of money.
what does a drug trial have to do with butter or olive oil
Statins work primarily by reducing apoB/LDL which is raised mostly by consumption of saturated fat.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>longer study duration would've
we dont know but the reality is >the curves were actually converging when the trial was ended
now go back to lying. butter or olive oil has nothing to do with drugs you schizo
4 months ago
Anonymous
>the curves were actually converging when the trial was ended
But that is patently wrong, see
https://i.imgur.com/87GfCau.jpg
[...]
[...]
How can ketards look at pic related and think "hmm, maybe I should eat more butter today to own the libs"!?
Take a ruler and measure the distance between the placebo and rosuvastatin group for all-cause mortality. The distance between the two lines is larger in year 4 than in year 3, 2 or 1.
4 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/JzBe0Jg.jpg
demented from statins? >the all-cause mortality curves were truncated so that the previous converging portion was no longer displayed.
statin induded dementia x2
4 months ago
Anonymous
Statins actually reduce dementia while your cardiovascular system killing keto diet induces it.
>Conclusions: Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25575908/
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Statins actually reduce dementia
no they cause dementia. if they were protective they would be tested in trials specifically for that endpoint. the drug industry doesnt because they know the truth > This pilot study found an improvement in cognition with discontinuation of statins and worsening with rechallenge. Statins may adversely affect cognition in patients with dementia.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22921881/
4 months ago
Anonymous
Are you seriously trying to refute a meta-analysis with a fricking pilot study? How badly did being in ketosis frick up your brain? Here's a picture of the pyramid of evidence.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>here look at all these industry funded trials >ignore the only independent trial
shalome. jupiter is an outlier as well but you put it on a pedestal because it fits your agenda.
4 months ago
Anonymous
A meta-analysis is not a single trial you imbecile. It's a summary of all existing research, industry-funded or not which looks at the totality of evidence. And that meta analysis proved that statins do not negatively affect the brain. >ignore the only independent trial
Why don't you post an independent meta-analysis or at least a rct then? I can post cell culture studies too which show how ketones literally kill your heart cells which has pretty much the same evidence. >jupiter is an outlier as well but you put it on a pedestal because it fits your agenda.
JUPITER is not an outlier and it one of the largest RCTs. Other RCTs and meta-analysises with other statins have already proven the net benefit of statins for cardiovascular health while not being statistically powerful enough to detect changes in all-cause mortality. The JUPITER trial had that kind of statistical power though thanks to the large number of patients in the treatment and placebo group.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>industry funded trials
i didnt say it was one trial. statin dementia at it again. jupiter is an outlier you are coping >Three other trials1,3,5 involving rosuvastatin therapy in high-risk patients did not show any protection. The authors of the JUPITER study fail to comment on these negative trials but go on to report secondary end point and subgroup analyses that appear to support the efficacy (and safety) of rosuvastatin therapy.35-38
4 months ago
Anonymous
>i didnt say it was one trial.
Which trial? I'm asking for an actual source. Your ketosis-induced dementia is acting up again. >Three other trials1,3,5 involving rosuvastatin therapy in high-risk patients did not show any protection
Which ones? Post a fricking source instead of making shit up.
You are mentally ill
Says the ketotroony.
4 months ago
Anonymous
you are losing track champ. take a breath. stress is worse for your heart than the evil apob kek
A meta-analysis is not a single trial you imbecile. It's a summary of all existing research, industry-funded or not which looks at the totality of evidence. And that meta analysis proved that statins do not negatively affect the brain. >ignore the only independent trial
Why don't you post an independent meta-analysis or at least a rct then? I can post cell culture studies too which show how ketones literally kill your heart cells which has pretty much the same evidence. >jupiter is an outlier as well but you put it on a pedestal because it fits your agenda.
JUPITER is not an outlier and it one of the largest RCTs. Other RCTs and meta-analysises with other statins have already proven the net benefit of statins for cardiovascular health while not being statistically powerful enough to detect changes in all-cause mortality. The JUPITER trial had that kind of statistical power though thanks to the large number of patients in the treatment and placebo group.
>A meta-analysis is not a single trial you imbecile
>industry funded trials
i didnt say it was one trial. statin dementia at it again. jupiter is an outlier you are coping >Three other trials1,3,5 involving rosuvastatin therapy in high-risk patients did not show any protection. The authors of the JUPITER study fail to comment on these negative trials but go on to report secondary end point and subgroup analyses that appear to support the efficacy (and safety) of rosuvastatin therapy.35-38
>i didnt say it was one trial.
4 months ago
Anonymous
ApoB is the most important factor. Keep it low enough and you'll never develop ASCVD regardless of how many risk factors you have otherwise.
My instincts tell me vegetable oil is poison and that butter isn't, simple as. I will NEVER believe churned cream from whole milk could possibly be bad for you, no amount of basedience will convince me, sorry shills. If fat from milk was bad then it wouldn't exist in breastmilk, which was designed by God/nature to feed a developing baby with a simple digestive system, if it's good enough for every single mammalian baby then it's good for me too, seethe and dilate.
Keep eating your butter then, moron. This is one of those cases where your moronation will eventually catch up to you and you'll only have yourself to blame.
4 months ago
Anonymous
t. over-educated (brainwashed) moron
4 months ago
Anonymous
t. "I DON'T TRUST THE JOOWISH EXPERTS EXCEPT DOCTOR SALADSTEIN ON israeliteTUBE WHO SAYS KETO IS GREAT FOR WORMS"
4 months ago
Anonymous
What are you even talking about, I follow the diet the genetic memory of my ancestors compels me to, (you) are a projecting midwit who follows the diet of e-celebs and "experts", hence, an over-educated moron too far into theory instead of reality.
4 months ago
Anonymous
statins have some small benefit but its not related to ldl lowering. its due to their anticoagulant or anti-inflammatory effects nothing to do with ldl or cholesterol
4 months ago
Anonymous
>statins have some small benefit but its not related to ldl lowering.
It's not a "small" effect and it's directly related to the reduction of LDL (though statins also provide other benefits such as reducing inflammation). >nothing to do with ldl or cholesterol
If that was the case, PCSK9i, ezetimine and bempedoic acid wouldn't reduce events (which they do).
4 months ago
Anonymous
>directly related to the reduction of LDL
its not
https://i.imgur.com/4LDoZi5.jpg
>proving an 1-to-1 relationship between lowering LDL cholesterol levels and decreasing plaque volume
it does no such thing. there is no relationship between degree of benefit and degree of LDL lowering
4 months ago
Anonymous
moron I have posted a meta-analysis proving that low enough LDL equals plaque reduction
Ah sorry, I meant low saturated fat
[...]
I didn't ask for an opinion article. Obviously sugar is not great in large amounts but neither is saturated fat.
Here is a meta-analysis proving an 1-to-1 relationship between lowering LDL cholesterol levels and decreasing plaque volume
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87528-w
Unless you somehow want to convince yourself that plaque in your artery walls is somehow good for you, I would seriously recommend you take a statin and/or a PCSK9 inhibitor if you're on a high saturated fat keto diet.
Do we really need to go over the pyramid of evidence again? Your unsourced picture is at the very bottom.
4 months ago
Anonymous
its a meta analysis authored without drug industry dollars and comes to the exact opposite conclusion. strange coincidence
4 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/lDc3ZRk.jpg
>The association between degree of LDL-C lowering and the absolute risk reduction of CHD mortality (%/year) in 21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials. ARR is associated with degree of LDL-C lowering in the included trials (y = 0.16x − 0.018) but inversely associated in the ignored trials (y = 0.08x + 0.062).
Squares: included trials; triangles: ignored trials.
no relationship between ldl and benefit as ive said
Post the source then. Images and text without source is worthless.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>The association between degree of LDL-C lowering and the absolute risk reduction of CHD mortality (%/year) in 21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials. ARR is associated with degree of LDL-C lowering in the included trials (y = 0.16x − 0.018) but inversely associated in the ignored trials (y = 0.08x + 0.062).
Squares: included trials; triangles: ignored trials.
no relationship between ldl and benefit as ive said
4 months ago
Anonymous
Oh, I found it. As expected, it's an opinion piece filled with conspiracy thinking and rampant cherrypicking. They ignored pretty much all rcts and instead focused on observational trials which do not have the same level of evidence due to cofounding factors (like cancer which lowers cholesterol and blood sugar).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391
4 months ago
Anonymous
>cherrypicking. They ignored pretty much all rcts
they do exactly the opposite
https://i.imgur.com/lDc3ZRk.jpg
>The association between degree of LDL-C lowering and the absolute risk reduction of CHD mortality (%/year) in 21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials. ARR is associated with degree of LDL-C lowering in the included trials (y = 0.16x − 0.018) but inversely associated in the ignored trials (y = 0.08x + 0.062).
Squares: included trials; triangles: ignored trials.
no relationship between ldl and benefit as ive said
https://i.imgur.com/lDc3ZRk.jpg
>The association between degree of LDL-C lowering and the absolute risk reduction of CHD mortality (%/year) in 21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials. ARR is associated with degree of LDL-C lowering in the included trials (y = 0.16x − 0.018) but inversely associated in the ignored trials (y = 0.08x + 0.062).
Squares: included trials; triangles: ignored trials.
no relationship between ldl and benefit as ive said
>21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials
4 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
who is cherry picking? statin brains are really amazing
Read through the studies yourself. They ignore all rcts while focusing on observational data in the first chapters, then go on to downplay the efficiacy of statins by refering to absolute risk reduction while ignoring the fact that absolute risk is small to begin with.
By the way, the lead author of this article is the guy who claimed megadosing vitamin C cures cancer.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>They ignore all rcts
https://i.imgur.com/lDc3ZRk.jpg
>The association between degree of LDL-C lowering and the absolute risk reduction of CHD mortality (%/year) in 21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials. ARR is associated with degree of LDL-C lowering in the included trials (y = 0.16x − 0.018) but inversely associated in the ignored trials (y = 0.08x + 0.062).
Squares: included trials; triangles: ignored trials.
no relationship between ldl and benefit as ive said
>21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials
all those paragraphs critiquing other reviews that ignore rcts. lmao how demented are you?
4 months ago
Anonymous
Can you not even read anymore from ketosis-induced dementia, ketard? I said they downplayed the effect of the rcts.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>They ignore all rcts
hope youre okay champ. im checking out now hope the dementia isnt too bad
4 months ago
Anonymous
Do you feel tight around your chest, ketard? Or feeling sleepy from oxygen deprivation?
4 months ago
Anonymous
ignorant again. relative risk inflates benefit. not controversial >“If an 80 per cent mortality occurs in the placebo group and 40 per cent in the treatment group, this intervention has a 50 per cent relative mortality reduction and a 40 per cent absolute mortality reduction, which is both clinically and statistically important. If 2 per cent mortality occurs in the placebo and 1 per cent in the treatment group, again a 50 per cent relative mortality reduction has occurred but the absolute mortality reduction is 1 per cent, a clinically trivial reduction.”
4 months ago
Anonymous
>relative risk inflates benefit.
Relative risk reduction adds up over decades. 40% of people die from a heart attack or a stroke. You know how many die from diabetes? 3%.
4 months ago
Anonymous
keke try to read it again without seething
4 months ago
Anonymous
I'm feeling good over here because I know that regardless of how moronic you may be, your bad habits will catch up to you quite quickly and you'll be fricking regretting not having listened to that anon on the internet who told you your shitty ass diet was slowly killing you.
4 months ago
Anonymous
how long will it take boy genius. been at this a long time CAC score is zero all indicators normal even by moronic medical standards
4 months ago
Anonymous
How old are you anyway? If you're in your 20s or 30s a CAC of 0 should be expected, otherwise something is very wrong with you. A positive CAC score is advanced ASCVD already.
risk reduction doesnt always accumulate. its wishful thinking saying it does. it might but there are no trials that long
In case of baby aspirin, we know why the risks outweigh the benefits (bleeding). In case of statins, the benefits will always outweigh the risk even if you're part of the small group who gets diabetes a few years sooner than otherwise.
4 months ago
Anonymous
you didnt answer. how many years of high apob does it take. this should be an easy question if your theory is right (its not)
4 months ago
Anonymous
It depends on your other risk factors and genetics. If you're insanely lucky, you'll make it to your 60s with high apoB. If I was you (luckily I am not), I'd get a check for soft plaque which forms years before it calcifies.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>As the level of LDL-C in FH varies considerably, those who suffer from CVD should have higher LDL-C and die earlier than those with the lowest values. A number of studies have shown that LDL-C and the age of those with and without CVD and without lipid lowering treatment did not differ significantly. In most of these studies, many of the participants had been on statin treatment for several years, which may have biased the results. However, in five studies including seven cohorts of FH individuals without cholesterol-lowering treatment, the mean LDL-C was only higher among those with CVD in one of the cohorts (Table 1) [23,24,25,26,27].
even in FH LDL has nothing to do with CVD
4 months ago
Anonymous
>risk reduction adds up over decades
>an effect which compounds the longer LDL/apoB remains suppressed).
wishful thinking based on a shoddy theory. there are no data showing all cause mortality benefit upwards of 2 or 3 years
not necessarily. for example short term aspirin has benefit after a CVD event but long term doesnt
4 months ago
Anonymous
>for example short term aspirin has benefit after a CVD event but long term doesnt
That's why clinical guidelines only support a baby aspirin in certain cases but not in others.
4 months ago
Anonymous
risk reduction doesnt always accumulate. its wishful thinking saying it does. it might but there are no trials that long
4 months ago
Anonymous
>cherrypicking. They ignored pretty much all rcts
they do exactly the opposite
[...]
[...] >21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials
who is cherry picking? statin brains are really amazing
4 months ago
Anonymous
>PCSK9i
youve drank all the kool aid lmao. i should double my investment in pfizer right now knowing there are morons like you out there. heres a free one >deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Overall, the risk of cardiovascular mortality was 5% according to the primary data analysis (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.88-1.25) published in The New England Journal of Medicine, and the re-review found a risk of 20% (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.51; P = .13).
https://www.ajmc.com/view/experts-issue-caution-for-evolocumab-following-new-review-of-fourier-data
😉
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Amgen, the maker of evolocumab, pushed back strongly
im sure they did. they have a financial incentive to do so. doing anything else would be irresponsible to their shareholders (me)
4 months ago
Anonymous
So all studies which challenge your viewpoint are wrong because "muh industry" funding even if they're publicly funded? No wonder everyone calls ketards cultists.
4 months ago
Anonymous
industry sponsored trials shouldnt be taken as gospel. especially when they make the raw data unavailable to independent reviewers. all raw data is held in secret at Oxford
4 months ago
Anonymous
Cochrane couldnt even get access to the raw data. if you know shit about frick (you dont) you would know what that means
There's publicly funded trials too which show the very same beneficial effect.
4 months ago
Anonymous
has any independent trial has shown primary prevention benefit or all cause mortality benefit?
4 months ago
Anonymous
many meta analyses fail to show benefit. of course you only cite the ones that fit your view >A separate meta-analysis of 11 statin trials for high-risk primary prevention similarly failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit[17]. Another Cochrane meta-analysis of statin usage after acute coronary syndromes concluded there was no mortality benefit[18]. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) performed a meta-analysis of 27 statin trials and concluded that statins were clearly beneficial in reducing cardiovascular events[19]. However, when the same 27 trials were assessed for mortality outcomes, no benefit was seen[20].
4 months ago
Anonymous
Source?
[...]
who is cherry picking? statin brains are really amazing
You're getting dementia from all that plaque in the blood vessels in your brain.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Cochrane couldnt even get access to the raw data. if you know shit about frick (you dont) you would know what that means
4 months ago
Anonymous
>Moreover, a close examination of the all-cause mortality curves (Figure 1D in the first JUPITER article10) shows that the curves were actually converging when the trial was ended, suggesting that the borderline significant difference between groups may have disappeared in case of a slightly longer follow-up. Strangely, in a subsequent article27 that was apparently written to defuse the controversy, the all-cause mortality curves were truncated so that the previous converging portion was no longer displayed.
ended early but nothing to see here move on take your meds
4 months ago
Anonymous
>shows that the curves were actually converging when the trial was ended
All I can see is them divering in the closeup
https://i.imgur.com/87GfCau.jpg
[...]
[...]
How can ketards look at pic related and think "hmm, maybe I should eat more butter today to own the libs"!?
>suggesting that the borderline significant difference between groups may have disappeared in case of a slightly longer follow-up.
No, the trend is clearly pointing to an even larger reduction in all-cause mortality over time. Where do you even get your information from? keto-online.today?
4 months ago
Anonymous
demented from statins? >the all-cause mortality curves were truncated so that the previous converging portion was no longer displayed.
4 months ago
Anonymous
Look at the closeup. The placebo group had an uptick at year 5 while the rosuvastatin group flatlined. That's the 20% reported reduction in all-cause mortality. The lines certainly aren't converging.
4 months ago
Anonymous
>year 5
great now look at when the trial was ended. not a very good shill
4 months ago
Anonymous
So while on rosuvastatin, the treatment group's all-cause mortality diverged even stronger from the placebo group.
4 months ago
Anonymous
after the trial ended and unblinded the curves shoot off in different directions. nothing to see here move along
4 months ago
Anonymous
Yeah, the placebo group's all-cause mortality shot upwards.
>JUPITER >The trial was stopped after a median follow-up of 1.9 years
like i said nothing beyond 2 or 3 years. stopping early skews results. this is not controversial
>an effect which compounds the longer LDL/apoB remains suppressed).
wishful thinking based on a shoddy theory. there are no data showing all cause mortality benefit upwards of 2 or 3 years
if your trying to eat "natural" good luck
Strawberries, broccoli, carrots, etc. All domesticated to our liking
No different than the meat we domesticated.
My instincts tell me vegetable oil is poison and that butter isn't, simple as. I will NEVER believe churned cream from whole milk could possibly be bad for you, no amount of basedience will convince me, sorry shills. If fat from milk was bad then it wouldn't exist in breastmilk, which was designed by God/nature to feed a developing baby with a simple digestive system, if it's good enough for every single mammalian baby then it's good for me too, seethe and dilate.
People have infinite imaginations, and this can be used against them, and they can believe in basically anything
because we evolved to the point that we can make our own choices now
or 'free will' for the magic fairy morons
I guess you can make the "choice" of being vegan and going malnourished. Nature still won because it made you malnourished for not following your natural diet.
Yeah, I'm so glad I can choose to eat cardboard now. Evolution is so heckin based.
Lions and Deer are both wild animals. Humans broke "the structure of nature," conquered the world and created civilization. Agriculture was a good thing. You are not a hunter-gatherer. You are not a fricking lion.
>You are not a fricking lion.
have a nice day
Ywnbal
making cars doesnt mean your digestive system changed lmfao wtf is this shitty argument
I never stated our digestive system "changed." It was always omnivorous.
humans are carnivores, not strict or "hyper" like a cat who could die by eating a carrot
we have mild tolerance to stuff like fruits and nuts (as in, they wont rapidly kill us), but thats about it, mild tolerance
our bodies respond the best to meat, if you can afford meat, there is 0 reason to eat anything else
>we have mild tolerance to stuff like fruits and nuts (as in, they wont rapidly kill us), but thats about it, mild tolerance
>our bodies respond the best to meat, if you can afford meat, there is 0 reason to eat anything else
We have more starch digesting enzymes than we do protein or fat. We have no protein taste receptors like carnivorous animals, but we do have ample amylase to predigest starchy foods in our mouthes while chewing before it even hits the stomach. Our digestive system in longer compared to other animals our size for proper assimilation and digestion of plants. Fossilized feces we have from pre-agricultural society shows that man actively foraged for and ate plants to the tune of 100+ grams of fiber a day. The carnivore trend is new, its a fad and you are buying into it and are not informed.
Oh sh*t carnisisters.... we've been found out.
its so fricking over…
Carnicucks on suicide watch
Live only on starches. See you in 10 years.
Lol seething
Live only on starches. See you in 10 years.
Nope. I'm having steak and potatoes for dinner, followed by cheesecake. Cry about it memetard.
If we are designed to eat starches, you should be able to live on only starches.
What kind of moronic argument is that? Did ketosis finally fry your brain? Obviously we can break down starches for energy but still require protein and fat which can also be gained by plants.
You cannot be healthy without animal foods.
You can be healthy with only animal foods.
There really is no debate.
And you can be healthier than both extremes by eating both
His ketosis-adapted brain cannot understand this simple fact.
>And you can be healthier
No you cant. This really isnt rocket science ffs.
What are vegetables and grains giving you? Appart from toxins
>muh extremism
lol brainwashed moron, do you hit nails with shoes for the sake of variety?
>Appart from toxins
MUH ANTI-NUTIRENTS BRO
There's never even been a signal of plants causing cancer while there are rather strong signals of certain meats causing cancer..
>antinutrients arent real because I dont want them to be
Ok.
The only thing about meat that can cause cancer are burnt crusts which are very carcinogenic.
And I've said this before, in EVERY study regarding the "dangers" of meat, the "meat eaters" are people doing SAD with lots of fast food
>antinutrients arent real
Or more like the net benefit you get from plants is positive.
>the "meat eaters" are people doing SAD with lots of fast food
Or ketards who only eat steak with butter all day long and die of heart disease.
You know how those studies are done? Half the time they just share google polls to normalgays "uh how much meat did you eat last month?".
Net benefit? Plants hardly have any nutrients and they get destroyed when you cook them, leaving practically just fiber, which is nothing but undigestible matter (and the biggest meme in the history if nutrition).
Besides, lets pretend this is true. Even if something like carrots was as high in VitA as the "experts" claim (it isnt btw, VitA is an animal vitamin), the amounts that "experts" say it has pale in comparison to something like liver, which has 0 defense chemicals that are detrimental for humans.
>Half the time they just share google polls to normalgays "uh how much meat did you eat last month?".
Observational trials suck, glad we agree on that. We do have clinical trials with placebo groups that do show the negative effect of increasing saturated fat intake or the beneficial effect of reducing LDL via medication though which is why meat high in saturated fat is still bad for you unless you take your statins.
>Plants hardly have any nutrients and they get destroyed when you cook them
That's not true. Plants contain all macro-nutrients and most micronutrients aswell. They are great sources for nitric oxide too.
>it isnt btw, VitA is an animal vitamin
The body can convert the precursors to vitamin A itself but supplementing with vitamin A is probably a good idea anyway. Even as a meat eater getting enough vitamin A isn't that easy if you don't like liver.
Plants are lacking in most micronutrients, and humans cant convert beta carotine into vitA, thats false.
Anon, just think about it like this: most vegetables arent even 3000 years old.
>Plants are lacking in most micronutrients
Which ones?
> and humans cant convert beta carotine into vitA, thats false.
They absolutely can. Learn how2biology.
>most vegetables arent even 3000 years old.
Most animal species we eat today aren't very old either.
Stupid analogy. If meat eating is a useful tool, like a hammer, doing a Carnivore diet is like trying to use your hammer to replace the rest of your toolbox.
>You cannot be healthy without animal foods.
You absolutely can.
>You can be healthy with only animal foods.
Sure if we ignore the whole thing about saturated fat which will kill a shitload of ketards in their 30s, 40s and 50s. Maybe it's for the best.
I used to make fun of vegans. I can't believe I have to defend them on the internet because of how insufferable ketards and carnitards have become.
so true moxyte
i also used to hate vegans, but ketoschizos are so insufferable that i think i will never eat meat again and dedicate the rest of my life into online vegan propaganda (got discord link?)
plus with my new vegan lifestyle (and my transition) i won't have to worry about going bald!
Ketosis increases both 5ar activity and aromatization resulting in a weird mix of balding and feminization.
This entire thread has been you getting btfo by multiple anons. Just take the L, dude and save some scrap of dignity.
2nd post here, though this is probably incomprehensible to you considering that this thread has 90 posts and 30 ips
>moxyte spamming vegan threads during christmas
>moxyte spamming ketoschizo shit during new years eve
>that's his life
nta but literally who
So this thread was created by a vegan? It has 30 ips but apparently it's just one guy dunking on OP? Wtf are you on about?
I'm OP. I eat a balanced diet consisting of varied protein sources. My favorite meat is currently deenz and steak. I like lentils. I like leafy greens.
You are mentally ill
WE DO NOT HAVE A CAECUM. Our appendix has shriveled from millions of years of disuse and that is the organ which is NEEDED to properly digest plant cellulose. Nothing else that you said matters as much as this.
Humans can easily absorb plants and plant protein, otherwise veganism would not be physically possible.
It's not physically possible. Without supplementation the nutrients that are missing, you will die on a vegan diet.
Kek it's hilarious that the only way carnivag's can even have an argument is if they're arguing strictly against an equally moronic concept.
the point you are intent on ignoring is there is an asymmetry between an animal food only diet and a plant only diet. its not that complicated
How is that remotely relevant when no-one here is advocating veganism? It's like arguing that everyone should drink piss because it's preferable to eating shit. How about neither?
Supplementation with B12 (which is also supplemented to the animals humans eat) and that's not what I'm talking about. I meant as in breaking down the macronutrients in plant food.
Nta but you're using the broad term for obligate carnivore which basically just specifies that you need to eat some animal foods in your diet. The term not commonly refers to species that really cannot eat anything else in any significant quantity (like felines). That's why sometimes bears and wolves get excluded from that group. Humans are basically somewhere between bears and pigs when it comes to the carnivore/omnivore spectrum.
You forgot the part where I don’t give a frick
Based on current evidence, humans recently evolved digestion traits away from single pass fermentation towards long absorption only, but as this was a recent change, we still benefit from the consumption of some gut fermentable foods. More specifically, we benefit from slightly less fiber / crosslinked cellulose and more from starch / sugar than the common ancestor. Even more recently, we evolved to benefit from meat, when a hominid ancestor species learned to scavenge (and hunt). Logically, our diet should consist primarily of roots, fruits, seeds, and vegetables, with a significant but lesser portion consisting of lean game meat (including organs) and eggs. We benefit from the consumption of fermented foods, especially fermented dairy and vegetables, as their digestion as been partially completed and the colonization of the gut with fermenting microbes benefits the digestion of non-fermented vegetables and dairy. Meat becomes more digestible with cooking, especially stewing and marinating in acidic juices (think: fruit juice like pineapple, vegetables like onion).
We are omnivores, by definition. Our evolution has indicated a shift towards meat, but not so much as to fully specialize in meat consumption. We had a nearly herbivorous ancestor, but that was so long ago in evolutionary terms that the main components of our physiology dedicated to specialized plant consumption have all but disappeared.
The term your looking for is facultative carnivore, which technically isn't accurate. If we continued down our line of evolution towards the consumption patterns of bears and dogs, then yes we would be. But we didn't.
1. The word you're looking for is "obligate" not hyper
2. The introduction of meat into our diet is comparatively recent compared to fruits. Why would our bodies be so poorly adapted to something we've been consuming for longer?
Humans are omnivorous. Literally the entirety of human history and for millions of years prior to modern or archaic humans, our ancestors were omnivorous. Meat is great. Organ meat is great. Animal products like dairy are great. However, plants are also staples of our diets and we are especially well adapted to consuming fruits.
we have adapted away from plants in the past two million years. only very recently have be adapted towards plants again because we hunted almost all fat animals to extinction
I do agree that humans at one point, many millions of years ago, were borderline herbivores, but that changed very, very long ago. We became carnivores and remained that way for millions of years. Its only 10k years ago that we have started eating stuff like seeds and plants again.
So you're telling me humans in sub-Saharan Africa never ate berries or bananas?
all races have been all over the globe
many lines of evidence in this paper support that we are hyper carnivores
>Following the zoological analogy with large social carnivores that acquire large prey, we hypothesized that humans were hypercarnivores, defined as consuming more than 70% of the diet from animal sources.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.24247
Cats can eat carrots Black person
>was always omnivorous.
That's not correct. We were omnivorous before we separated from the common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. Chimpanzees are actually no-shit omnivores. We are obligate carnivores.
Keto cope
More like anthropologist cope, sure.
Mazdas exist therefore you should exclusively eat rotten grass contaminated by pesticides.
Because we're both new as a species but old enough to have some amount of our evolution shaped by our actions and migrations.
ketogays are so fricking annoying; even more then vegans i'd say. do we really need to have 200 keto posts everyday. do keto if you fell good i don't fricking care just stop spamming.
Literally zero people mentioned keto
Keto people are the alt-right version of vegans except even more unhinged and crazy. For example, while a vegan will supplement with vitamin b12 and up their protein to compensate for bioavailability, the ketoids will go out of their way to attack the scientific consensus regarding saturated fat, cholesterol levels and heart disease.
Cholesterol is weakly correlated with heart disease at best. Vegans have many more deficiencies besides vitamin b12.
>Cholesterol is weakly correlated with heart disease at best.
It is strongly correlated with heart disease according to both clinical, placebo-controlled, randomized trials and Mendelian randomization.
You can easily do vegan keto but it requires you to eat more than just butter and steak all day long.
>easily do vegan keto
How would you even go about this? You'd basically be spamming protein powder, avocados and coconut oil.
I wouldn't ever do veganism or keto but presumably:
>Nuts
>Seeds
>Avocado
>Olives
>Evoo
>Coconut oil
>Low carb salad
>Low carb vegetables
>Seitan
>Tofu
>Mycoprotein
>Sugar free or unsweetened chocolate
Ah sorry, I meant low saturated fat
I didn't ask for an opinion article. Obviously sugar is not great in large amounts but neither is saturated fat.
Here is a meta-analysis proving an 1-to-1 relationship between lowering LDL cholesterol levels and decreasing plaque volume
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-87528-w
Unless you somehow want to convince yourself that plaque in your artery walls is somehow good for you, I would seriously recommend you take a statin and/or a PCSK9 inhibitor if you're on a high saturated fat keto diet.
>proving an 1-to-1 relationship between lowering LDL cholesterol levels and decreasing plaque volume
it does no such thing. there is no relationship between degree of benefit and degree of LDL lowering
You didn't even address the meta-analysis I posted, moron. Let me quote some of the article for you.
>According to the subgroup analyses, TAV was significantly reduced in the LDL<80 mg/dL and HDL>45 mg/dL group (SMD: 0.163 mm3; 95% CI 0.092, 0.234; P=0.000), and PAV was significantly reduced in the LDL<90 mg/dL and HDL>45 mg/dL group (SMD: 0.186%; 95% CI 0.081, 0.291; P=0.001). Our meta-analysis suggests that not only should LDL be reduced to a target level of<80 mg/dL, but HDL should be increased to a target level of>45 mg/dL to regress coronary plaques.
>To explore the target level of LDL for plaque regression, the included studies were divided into five groups according to the levels of LDL at follow-up:<70, 70–80, 80–90, 90–100,>100 mg/dL. The subgroup analysis of TAV data showed significant plaque regression in the LDL<70 mg/dL group (SMD: 0.195 mm3; 95% CI 0.086, 0.304; P<0.001) (I2=59.0%, P=0.001, Fig. 1A) and the 70–80 mg/dL group (SMD: 0.078 mm3; 95% CI 0.003, 0.153; P=0.042) (I2=0.0%, P=0.752, Fig. 1A) at follow-up.
>In recent studies, LDL has been shown to accumulate abnormally in the vascular wall due to the dysfunction of endothelial cells. Moreover, LDL can be converted into ox-LDL, which can damage endothelial cells and smooth muscle cells, thereby causing abnormal activation of the endothelial cells, producing foam cells and eventually promoting plaque progression40.
fake news
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Trending&version=Full®ion=Marginalia&pgtype=article
That is true on keto. I see people eating a lot of bacon an cheese not knocking it but there is plenty of other kinds of fat to eat that are a better choice then just saturated fats
funny how supplements are unreliable and are not recommended by the basedence until veganism is mentioned, then suddenly supplements and fortified foods are 100% acceptable substitute to an incomplete and unbalanced diet
Lots of supplements are recommend by science even if you're an omnivore or keto prostitute. Go to your local pharmacy and tell them you're feeling depressed and they will sell you vitamin D capsules.
>vitamin D capsules.
Not sure if it's placebo but I feel great after supplementing 5000iu/ day
>funny how supplements are unreliable and are not recommended by the basedence
That's a fictional narrative you've made up in your head though.
LMFAO rent free
>Spamming carnivore threads constantly and getting btfo every time
>Screenshotting posts and creating collages of vegan bogeyman nemesis
Meds
You’re the only person thinking about keto in this thread
The better question is why cats don't follow the natural structure.
Obligate herbivores/carnivores are way less common in nature than omnivores. The deer in your example will eat small birds and rodents from time to time. Animals are way more opportunistic than elementary school would have you believe. Humans are just good enough at getting resources that they can afford to be picky when they feel like it.
You completely and totally missed the point
Nope. I'm pretty much right on the nose.
You didn't even respond the the premise of the original post. The correctness of the statement is irrelevant.
>You didn't even respond the the premise of the original post
No, I definitely did.
You didn't, you pivoted to an unrelated question you posited yourself
Not at all.
My point clearly and directly refutes the OP.
It doesn't because you didn't grasp the point OP made and instead went off on a tangent about how animals will basically eat anything. It doesn't refit the basic premise that there are obvious classes of carnivores and herbivores.
>It doesn't refit the basic premise that there are obvious classes of carnivores and herbivores.
It refutes the OP because it addresses the flaw in the very premise. It's a manufactured absolutist dichotomy that poorly reflects reality.
Its a general rule and its accurate. As a general rule cars are for driving. Its an accurate statement. Does that mean people won't show them off at car shows? No. But its not what they are *for*
>Its a general rule and its accurate.
Not at all, see my first post.
It applies to your first post as well.
Not at all.
Animals are not cars.
You can ride a horse, but that's not what a horse is "for". You are manufacturing absolutist dichotomies where they don't exist, and you're parallel is literally a manufactured device. Stop comparing nature to cars.
Dumbass.
Opportunity doesn't negate anything. Humans aren't designed to eat other humans and it isnt in their nature to. Will they do it if they do it if they are stranded on an island? Sure. Does this mean they are designed to?
>Humans aren't designed
Well you're right about at least one thing in your post.
OP is a wienersucker
So is your assertion that every single animal is an omnivore? If not, you totally missed the point of OP
My assertion is that nature doesn't give a frick what you're eating as long as makes you live another day. There are only prefer food sources based on evolutionary adaptation but even this is only a loose rule that can be broken if needed.
Answer the question
The humble carnivore lion:
>chill
>only kills to eat
The deranged vegan hippopotamus:
>completely deranged
>enjoys murdering people and animals alike for the frick of it
>he keeps military grade magnets in the vicinity of his hard drives "just in case"
Thanks for reminding me to get cattle magnets just in case
>Pick two species with extremely specialised diets and ignore countless omnivore species that can eat a variety of foods
>wHy ArE hUmAnS nOt LiKe ThIs!???
So should I switch to vegetable protein and olive oil?
Any protein source low in saturated fat is fine, really. Olive oil is GOAT tho.
plenty of animals eat everything, dumbass
Deer don't only eat plants though they sometimes eat animal products, they are facultative herbivores
We do, it's 70% cooked starches, and the rest being vegetables, nuts, seeds, fruit, and the occasional fish or animal.
Look up fossilized human dental plaque studies. We know pretty damn well that for hundreds of thousands of years we got a vast majority of our calories through wild grains, tubers, leaves, and fruits. Growing stronger as we mastered cooking, seed selection for larger produce, and agriculture.
Deers eat meat occasionally.
Many carnivores say that cholesterol being a huge risk factor has been debunked though? Is that true or not?
yes
homeostasis takers care of your cholesterol levels in a variety of ways
dietary cholesterol is only dangerous to genetic rejects with a rare mutation, it is completely irrelevant to normal people no matter how much of it you consume
Dietary cholesterol is usually not an issue unless you happen to be a hyperabsorber. The issue lies with trans-fats and saturated fat which increase blood LDL cholesterol and over time, that leads to plaque forming which can burst and thereby kill you. Even if you control all other risk factors for heart disease/strokes such as high blood pressure, diabetes and inflammation, LDL levels beyond 70-90mg/dL will lead to plaque formation. Even the most recent LMHR study where the keto group had perfect physique, their plaque still ended up increasing over the study's duration.
It hasn't been debunked at all.
apoB particles (of all sizes) have a certain chance of entering your blood walls and eventually forming plaque over time if the concentration of apoB particles is too high or there are other risk factors such as high blood pressure, diabetes or inflammation. LDL cholesterol is an indirect measure of those apoB particles (each apoB can only carry a certain amount of LDL/IDL/... cholesterol). Lowering LDL/apoB via diet or statins to a certain point has proven to decrease plaque volume, lower incidence of heart attacks and even reduce all-cause mortality (an effect which compounds the longer LDL/apoB remains suppressed).
>apoB particles (of all sizes) have a certain chance of entering your blood walls
they have zero chance if your gap junctions are tight and functioning as they should. if theyre not its not because of cholesterol
The risk is always there regardless of how low your inflammation levels are. The body can clean up apoB particles stuck in cell walls up to a certain degree but over that plaque accumulates.
>there are no data showing all cause mortality benefit upwards of 2 or 3 years
The JUPITER trial actually did find a 20% reduction in all-cause mortality over that time period 😉
jupiter was ended early and likely fraudulent
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20585068/
You know why it ended early? Because the effect and trend was already obvious enough. Heart attacks and strokes were fricking halved with a trend towards a number needed to treat of 1 in 24 over just 5 years. Anyone who isn't a total moron would've hopped on rosuvastatin after that clinical trial. But instead you have ketards who refuse to accept reality.
>In the case of the JUPITER trial, the prespecified rules were not detailed in the published description of the study protocol.22 Indeed, we still do not know which end point was used to define them, or which level of benefits—unexpected on the basis of the a priori calculated hypothesis—was required to justify early termination. Also, it was recently shown that truncated trials are associated with greater effect sizes than trials that are not stopped early, and this effect is independent of the presence of statistical stopping rules.
you are dishonest or a moron. take your pick
top cope lel
Even if you ignore the primary endpoint (obv a cardiovascular death), the other endpoints are clearly described and have also been reduced by 50%, as can be seen here
Tbh even if I was a total keto fanatic this kind of study would make me consider rosuvastatin and using olive oil instead of butter.
what does a drug trial have to do with butter or olive oil
How can ketards look at pic related and think "hmm, maybe I should eat more butter today to own the libs"!?
>In defending the decision to end the trial early, the JUPITER investigators stated that the decision was not made by them but by members of an independent safety-monitoring board.24 However, the chairman of this board—an investigator of the Clinical Trial Service Unit of Oxford University, Oxford, England—has been, and still is, involved in many other industry-sponsored lipid-lowering trials, raising issues of conflict of interest.25,26
theres no way you are this naive. i hope you are paid well for this shilling
Because the result was already obvious enough to anyone with a brain that a longer study duration would've been a waste of money.
Statins work primarily by reducing apoB/LDL which is raised mostly by consumption of saturated fat.
>longer study duration would've
we dont know but the reality is
>the curves were actually converging when the trial was ended
now go back to lying. butter or olive oil has nothing to do with drugs you schizo
>the curves were actually converging when the trial was ended
But that is patently wrong, see
Take a ruler and measure the distance between the placebo and rosuvastatin group for all-cause mortality. The distance between the two lines is larger in year 4 than in year 3, 2 or 1.
statin induded dementia x2
Statins actually reduce dementia while your cardiovascular system killing keto diet induces it.
>Conclusions: Statin therapy was not associated with cognitive impairment in RCTs. These results raise questions regarding the continued merit of the FDA warning about potential adverse effects of statins on cognition.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25575908/
>Statins actually reduce dementia
no they cause dementia. if they were protective they would be tested in trials specifically for that endpoint. the drug industry doesnt because they know the truth
> This pilot study found an improvement in cognition with discontinuation of statins and worsening with rechallenge. Statins may adversely affect cognition in patients with dementia.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22921881/
Are you seriously trying to refute a meta-analysis with a fricking pilot study? How badly did being in ketosis frick up your brain? Here's a picture of the pyramid of evidence.
>here look at all these industry funded trials
>ignore the only independent trial
shalome. jupiter is an outlier as well but you put it on a pedestal because it fits your agenda.
A meta-analysis is not a single trial you imbecile. It's a summary of all existing research, industry-funded or not which looks at the totality of evidence. And that meta analysis proved that statins do not negatively affect the brain.
>ignore the only independent trial
Why don't you post an independent meta-analysis or at least a rct then? I can post cell culture studies too which show how ketones literally kill your heart cells which has pretty much the same evidence.
>jupiter is an outlier as well but you put it on a pedestal because it fits your agenda.
JUPITER is not an outlier and it one of the largest RCTs. Other RCTs and meta-analysises with other statins have already proven the net benefit of statins for cardiovascular health while not being statistically powerful enough to detect changes in all-cause mortality. The JUPITER trial had that kind of statistical power though thanks to the large number of patients in the treatment and placebo group.
>industry funded trials
i didnt say it was one trial. statin dementia at it again. jupiter is an outlier you are coping
>Three other trials1,3,5 involving rosuvastatin therapy in high-risk patients did not show any protection. The authors of the JUPITER study fail to comment on these negative trials but go on to report secondary end point and subgroup analyses that appear to support the efficacy (and safety) of rosuvastatin therapy.35-38
>i didnt say it was one trial.
Which trial? I'm asking for an actual source. Your ketosis-induced dementia is acting up again.
>Three other trials1,3,5 involving rosuvastatin therapy in high-risk patients did not show any protection
Which ones? Post a fricking source instead of making shit up.
Says the ketotroony.
you are losing track champ. take a breath. stress is worse for your heart than the evil apob kek
>A meta-analysis is not a single trial you imbecile
>i didnt say it was one trial.
ApoB is the most important factor. Keep it low enough and you'll never develop ASCVD regardless of how many risk factors you have otherwise.
Keep eating your butter then, moron. This is one of those cases where your moronation will eventually catch up to you and you'll only have yourself to blame.
t. over-educated (brainwashed) moron
t. "I DON'T TRUST THE JOOWISH EXPERTS EXCEPT DOCTOR SALADSTEIN ON israeliteTUBE WHO SAYS KETO IS GREAT FOR WORMS"
What are you even talking about, I follow the diet the genetic memory of my ancestors compels me to, (you) are a projecting midwit who follows the diet of e-celebs and "experts", hence, an over-educated moron too far into theory instead of reality.
statins have some small benefit but its not related to ldl lowering. its due to their anticoagulant or anti-inflammatory effects nothing to do with ldl or cholesterol
>statins have some small benefit but its not related to ldl lowering.
It's not a "small" effect and it's directly related to the reduction of LDL (though statins also provide other benefits such as reducing inflammation).
>nothing to do with ldl or cholesterol
If that was the case, PCSK9i, ezetimine and bempedoic acid wouldn't reduce events (which they do).
>directly related to the reduction of LDL
its not
moron I have posted a meta-analysis proving that low enough LDL equals plaque reduction
Do we really need to go over the pyramid of evidence again? Your unsourced picture is at the very bottom.
its a meta analysis authored without drug industry dollars and comes to the exact opposite conclusion. strange coincidence
Post the source then. Images and text without source is worthless.
>The association between degree of LDL-C lowering and the absolute risk reduction of CHD mortality (%/year) in 21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials. ARR is associated with degree of LDL-C lowering in the included trials (y = 0.16x − 0.018) but inversely associated in the ignored trials (y = 0.08x + 0.062).
Squares: included trials; triangles: ignored trials.
no relationship between ldl and benefit as ive said
Oh, I found it. As expected, it's an opinion piece filled with conspiracy thinking and rampant cherrypicking. They ignored pretty much all rcts and instead focused on observational trials which do not have the same level of evidence due to cofounding factors (like cancer which lowers cholesterol and blood sugar).
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391
>cherrypicking. They ignored pretty much all rcts
they do exactly the opposite
>21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials
Read through the studies yourself. They ignore all rcts while focusing on observational data in the first chapters, then go on to downplay the efficiacy of statins by refering to absolute risk reduction while ignoring the fact that absolute risk is small to begin with.
By the way, the lead author of this article is the guy who claimed megadosing vitamin C cures cancer.
>They ignore all rcts
>21 statin trials, where CHD mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 8 ignored statin trials
all those paragraphs critiquing other reviews that ignore rcts. lmao how demented are you?
Can you not even read anymore from ketosis-induced dementia, ketard? I said they downplayed the effect of the rcts.
>They ignore all rcts
hope youre okay champ. im checking out now hope the dementia isnt too bad
Do you feel tight around your chest, ketard? Or feeling sleepy from oxygen deprivation?
ignorant again. relative risk inflates benefit. not controversial
>“If an 80 per cent mortality occurs in the placebo group and 40 per cent in the treatment group, this intervention has a 50 per cent relative mortality reduction and a 40 per cent absolute mortality reduction, which is both clinically and statistically important. If 2 per cent mortality occurs in the placebo and 1 per cent in the treatment group, again a 50 per cent relative mortality reduction has occurred but the absolute mortality reduction is 1 per cent, a clinically trivial reduction.”
>relative risk inflates benefit.
Relative risk reduction adds up over decades. 40% of people die from a heart attack or a stroke. You know how many die from diabetes? 3%.
keke try to read it again without seething
I'm feeling good over here because I know that regardless of how moronic you may be, your bad habits will catch up to you quite quickly and you'll be fricking regretting not having listened to that anon on the internet who told you your shitty ass diet was slowly killing you.
how long will it take boy genius. been at this a long time CAC score is zero all indicators normal even by moronic medical standards
How old are you anyway? If you're in your 20s or 30s a CAC of 0 should be expected, otherwise something is very wrong with you. A positive CAC score is advanced ASCVD already.
In case of baby aspirin, we know why the risks outweigh the benefits (bleeding). In case of statins, the benefits will always outweigh the risk even if you're part of the small group who gets diabetes a few years sooner than otherwise.
you didnt answer. how many years of high apob does it take. this should be an easy question if your theory is right (its not)
It depends on your other risk factors and genetics. If you're insanely lucky, you'll make it to your 60s with high apoB. If I was you (luckily I am not), I'd get a check for soft plaque which forms years before it calcifies.
>As the level of LDL-C in FH varies considerably, those who suffer from CVD should have higher LDL-C and die earlier than those with the lowest values. A number of studies have shown that LDL-C and the age of those with and without CVD and without lipid lowering treatment did not differ significantly. In most of these studies, many of the participants had been on statin treatment for several years, which may have biased the results. However, in five studies including seven cohorts of FH individuals without cholesterol-lowering treatment, the mean LDL-C was only higher among those with CVD in one of the cohorts (Table 1) [23,24,25,26,27].
even in FH LDL has nothing to do with CVD
>risk reduction adds up over decades
not necessarily. for example short term aspirin has benefit after a CVD event but long term doesnt
>for example short term aspirin has benefit after a CVD event but long term doesnt
That's why clinical guidelines only support a baby aspirin in certain cases but not in others.
risk reduction doesnt always accumulate. its wishful thinking saying it does. it might but there are no trials that long
who is cherry picking? statin brains are really amazing
>PCSK9i
youve drank all the kool aid lmao. i should double my investment in pfizer right now knowing there are morons like you out there. heres a free one
>deaths of cardiac origin were numerically higher in the evolocumab group than in the placebo group in the FOURIER trial, suggesting possible cardiac harm
>Overall, the risk of cardiovascular mortality was 5% according to the primary data analysis (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.88-1.25) published in The New England Journal of Medicine, and the re-review found a risk of 20% (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.95-1.51; P = .13).
https://www.ajmc.com/view/experts-issue-caution-for-evolocumab-following-new-review-of-fourier-data
😉
>Amgen, the maker of evolocumab, pushed back strongly
im sure they did. they have a financial incentive to do so. doing anything else would be irresponsible to their shareholders (me)
So all studies which challenge your viewpoint are wrong because "muh industry" funding even if they're publicly funded? No wonder everyone calls ketards cultists.
industry sponsored trials shouldnt be taken as gospel. especially when they make the raw data unavailable to independent reviewers. all raw data is held in secret at Oxford
There's publicly funded trials too which show the very same beneficial effect.
has any independent trial has shown primary prevention benefit or all cause mortality benefit?
many meta analyses fail to show benefit. of course you only cite the ones that fit your view
>A separate meta-analysis of 11 statin trials for high-risk primary prevention similarly failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit[17]. Another Cochrane meta-analysis of statin usage after acute coronary syndromes concluded there was no mortality benefit[18]. The Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) performed a meta-analysis of 27 statin trials and concluded that statins were clearly beneficial in reducing cardiovascular events[19]. However, when the same 27 trials were assessed for mortality outcomes, no benefit was seen[20].
Source?
You're getting dementia from all that plaque in the blood vessels in your brain.
Cochrane couldnt even get access to the raw data. if you know shit about frick (you dont) you would know what that means
>Moreover, a close examination of the all-cause mortality curves (Figure 1D in the first JUPITER article10) shows that the curves were actually converging when the trial was ended, suggesting that the borderline significant difference between groups may have disappeared in case of a slightly longer follow-up. Strangely, in a subsequent article27 that was apparently written to defuse the controversy, the all-cause mortality curves were truncated so that the previous converging portion was no longer displayed.
ended early but nothing to see here move on take your meds
>shows that the curves were actually converging when the trial was ended
All I can see is them divering in the closeup
>suggesting that the borderline significant difference between groups may have disappeared in case of a slightly longer follow-up.
No, the trend is clearly pointing to an even larger reduction in all-cause mortality over time. Where do you even get your information from? keto-online.today?
demented from statins?
>the all-cause mortality curves were truncated so that the previous converging portion was no longer displayed.
Look at the closeup. The placebo group had an uptick at year 5 while the rosuvastatin group flatlined. That's the 20% reported reduction in all-cause mortality. The lines certainly aren't converging.
>year 5
great now look at when the trial was ended. not a very good shill
So while on rosuvastatin, the treatment group's all-cause mortality diverged even stronger from the placebo group.
after the trial ended and unblinded the curves shoot off in different directions. nothing to see here move along
Yeah, the placebo group's all-cause mortality shot upwards.
Cope
>JUPITER
>The trial was stopped after a median follow-up of 1.9 years
like i said nothing beyond 2 or 3 years. stopping early skews results. this is not controversial
>an effect which compounds the longer LDL/apoB remains suppressed).
wishful thinking based on a shoddy theory. there are no data showing all cause mortality benefit upwards of 2 or 3 years
I guess I will stop doing carnivore.
if your trying to eat "natural" good luck
Strawberries, broccoli, carrots, etc. All domesticated to our liking
No different than the meat we domesticated.
My instincts tell me vegetable oil is poison and that butter isn't, simple as. I will NEVER believe churned cream from whole milk could possibly be bad for you, no amount of basedience will convince me, sorry shills. If fat from milk was bad then it wouldn't exist in breastmilk, which was designed by God/nature to feed a developing baby with a simple digestive system, if it's good enough for every single mammalian baby then it's good for me too, seethe and dilate.
Pic related
CARNICHADS KEEP WINNING