It only deposits in arteries if you're doing something stupid like eating a lot of it while eating no fruit and vegetables which contain nutrients that remove it. I hardly think that in 2023 there could be someone as dumb as that.
Explain the biomechanics of that one to me.
Does saturated fat deposit in your arteries? lol this idea is so fricking outdated
Do fruit and vegetables have some component that "removes" saturated fat from your arteries somehow? Please spare no detail. I'm ready to see everything you have to write on this topic from your clear years of research and totally not a lump of shit you pulled straight out of your 4 shits a day butthole.
eating too much saturated fats causes your body to make big cholestorerol clumps, that get stuck in your arteries, but eating healthy causes them to get smaller so they dont pile up in your veins, here, explained it for you, got this in school
that's a load of horseshit about the big cholesterol clumps just so you know
"Correlation does not equal causation" is a piece of midwit bumber-sticker wisdom that does not apply to as many situations as you think. If your aphorisms and analogies lead you to thinking that there's no plausible causation between between a massive overhaul to your diet and changes in your metabolic health, then they are turning you into a moron and you should use other types of thinking, such as using actual reasons. Try something like "the wholesale replacement of one of the 3 macronutrients with novel industrial slop warrants no concern about its effects on our health because ..."
>"Correlation does not equal causation" is a piece of midwit bumber-sticker wisdom that does not apply to as many situations as you think
not him but -
Explain why it doesn't apply to the premise of this thread.
Learn to read
Child mortality is accounted for in this data but it also looks at long lifespans
9 months ago
Anonymous
That graph can be fully explained as lifespan increasing with reduction in calories in general and the processed junk that tends to accompany american meat products.
9 months ago
Anonymous
The graph says more meat = live longer
Are you stupid? There's no other data, you are speculating.
9 months ago
Anonymous
demonstrably wrong
your shitty inferior graph is irrelevant to all-cause mortality systemic reviews
9 months ago
Anonymous
The fact that both of these data points exist should make anyone question whether or not we actually know anything about human nutrition.
Very laughable to pretend that you do based on your little homosexual graph that can't account for the million variables of a human life
9 months ago
Anonymous
>doesn't understand what a systemic review is
proof of moronation
>120kg/yr equates to a 3 year old eating 320g beef/day >~800 cals of just meat >healthy 3 year olds weigh 12-16kg and need 1000-1300 calories
so basically obese children die sooner?
fruits and vegetables contain ANTInturients and excessive hydration can break down the saturated fats and send them straight into your arteries. Get your facts straight or shut the FRICK up.
Perhaps you can explain why you got defensive over an attack of veganism, then? (Your brainfog has probably made you forget. Re-read the comment chain, moron)
This is true albeit indirectly. The same people that own the big multinational food companies are the same that own pharma companies and have a massive influence on doctors and advisary boards. Modern food makes you ill and modern medicine treats the symptoms. Big pharma is a multimillion dollar i dustry, they want you permanently ill
they are good, cholesterol is good. most vegetable oils (except good quality olive oil) are bad for you. follow your ancestors, not israeliteed up big pharma and "science".
I'm an omnivore who only consumes nutritionally optimal and medicinal or functional foods. macro nutrients take a very far back seat to consuming a wide variety of specific micronutrients or medicinally functional foods, every single day.
99% of food is sub optimal and contains no unique micronutrients over vastly superior food items. for example, why would I ever purchase anything but bananas, pineapple, avocado, onions, garlic, kiwis or strawberries? these are the objective optimal fruit, literally everything else is sugar water in a vehicle of fiber. Why would I ever eat any meat other than sardines, beef, and eggs? these are the objective best meats to consume.
why would I buy agaricus/button mushrooms when I can buy shiitake and maitake, lions mane and oyster mushrooms, or dozens of locally foraged species which are a medicine cabinet in themselves on top of being extremely nutritious sources of protein and minerals. Why would I ever eat any nut other than macadamia, almond, pumpkin seeds? Why would I ever buy anything but butter and olive oil? those are the nutritionally optimal cooking oils.
The list DOESN'T go on, that's literally the optimal human diet and all you need to be putting in your shopping cart for the rest of your life. there is no reply or counter-point to type up in response to this. even financially, since this diet costs $40-$60 weekly.
This is a healthier diet than 99% of IST eats I'm sure lol
but you aren't going to get that much benefit from eating plants my homie
don't gas yourself up too hard about that part of it
beef small fish and eggs are very based though
You almost nailed my diet word for word, and it's something I've put a lot of thought and research into. However, I largely eat salmon and only occasionally eat grass fed beef. I am aware that salmon contains high amounts of heavy metals, but I also eat a good amount of brazil nuts, which contain selenium that can chelate mercury and cadmium. Additionally, I supplement r-alpha lipoic acid and methylsulfonylmethane for further protection from heavy metals on top of the other benefits they confer. I find that consuming plenty of salmon in addition to sardines is cheaper than buying triglyceride fish oil. I also consume a lot of cheese because it's just too delicious. Your post is also lacking in green vegetables, of which I mainly just consume broccoli, asparagus, bell peppers, and arugala/spring greens. However, it costs me about 120$ per week for this diet. I could probably make it cost 80$ if I switched from fresh salmon to canned salmon and dropped the cheese in favor of more eggs and nuts, but variety is always nice.
>these are the objective best
Depends on the arbitrary metrics you are using to judge this.
Personally I'm doing a restriction diet of minimizing PUFA and minimizing vitamin A, which causes me to settle on a minimalist diet of red meat, white bread, white rice and apple juice for about 90% of my diet.
And people used to live off bread and meat for years at a time before the advent of refrigerators and global shipping logistics.
There isn’t any good evidence that saturated fat is bad either. You can’t perform double blind randomized nutritional studies because they would be ethically wrong, you would have to imprison people and perform this experiment on them over a couple decades to capture long term effects. You would also want to imprison and experiment on a large number of people to make sure that the experiment is statistically significant. What kicked off the saturated fat is bad meme was that seven nations “study” that correlated saturated fat consumption with heart disease rate for seven countries, but only after they threw out 2/3rds of the countries because those countries showed lower rates of heart disease with increased saturated fat consumption.
What valid nutritional studies we do have are mechanistic studies. Studies that examine how different foods and shit effect your body on a hormonal level, how you process those different foods, etc. And those mechanistic studies all line up one way. Saturated fat is fine, sugar and pufas frick you up. And the whole idea that saturated fat is poison is moronic to begin with. You literally make saturated fat. That’s how your body stores excess food, whenever your body uses stored fat it’s using saturated fat, your body has evolved to process it and use it for energy. If you can’t see it you’re a moron.
Nice link
I see zero hard evidence, only coping about muh healthy unsaturated fats with very little to go on. In fact nothing to go on.
In order to prove the hypothesis that saturated fat can cause any long term ailment on its own you would need to conduct an experiment that simply isn't possible with human subjects. For that reason I won't listen to any gay pharma wienersucker numbers about relative risk. There is nothing to be afraid of! They don't know anything for certain and data is all over the place. I could link a meta-analysis that show a correlation between PUFA consumption and death and you'd say its not the same.
>valid nutritional studies we do have are mechanistic studies
why should mechanistic studies be better than health outcome studies?
especially those 2 kinds usually don't line up
for PUFAs at least - i don't know why you mention sugar which is universally considered bad with no controversy at all
>You can’t perform double blind randomized nutritional studies because they would be ethically wrong
The only one was done in the late 60's, they found a decrease in cardiovascular disease when you swap saturated fat with PUFA
>Clinical follow-up was carried out on a double-blind basis. > Fatal atherosclerotic events numbered 70 in the control group and 48 in the experimental group; P<0.05. >when these data were pooled with those for cerebral infarction and other secondary end points, the totals were 96 in the control group and 66 in the experimental group P=0.01
There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality of over 30% during the intervention period
>that same trial showed people on vegetable oils got more cancer.
Not significant, and the people who got more cancer in the intervention was the people that had lowest adherence to the diet, so PUFA was not responsible for cancer >and the mortality reduction was not 30% youve made that up
No I didn't, pic related all the hard end outcomes, all cause morality was reduced by over 30% when you do the math
Any hard end point 96 in the control vs 66 in the intervention
Fatal cardiovascular death 70 in the control vs 48 in the intervention
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(70)90868-8/fulltext
total mortality didnt change significantly. cancer did
9 months ago
Anonymous
>cancer did
Why did you delete your previous post? P=0.06 means is not significant lol
9 months ago
Anonymous
[...] >(P=0.06).
Not significant, Like I said before the cancer rates were higher in the people who the the lowest adherence to the invervention, the authors themselves even said it, I can quote them if you want >mortality wasnt statistically different but the cancer rates were >total mortality
You are quoting total mortality and that total mortality includes deaths that happened outside the intervention and deaths that had nothing to do with the major endpoints, for example total mortality includes deaths due to accidents too and that's useless I can quote from the authors this too if you want, I only care about hard end point data that happened during the intervention
I already posted the hard end point data here that happened during the intervention and there was a over 30% reduction in mortality [...]
0.06 so its not a real thing god you are fricking stupid. either way there was no change in total mortality and carcinoma deaths were demonstrably higher no question
9 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't say it was not real, I just said that is not significant like you claimed you mongoloid
>either way there was no change in total mortality
Total mortality includes deaths that happened outside the intervention, I only care about hard outcome data of the intervention and I already explained why, I posted such data already here
https://i.imgur.com/iwPXGED.png
>that same trial showed people on vegetable oils got more cancer.
Not significant, and the people who got more cancer in the intervention was the people that had lowest adherence to the diet, so PUFA was not responsible for cancer >and the mortality reduction was not 30% youve made that up
No I didn't, pic related all the hard end outcomes, all cause morality was reduced by over 30% when you do the math
Any hard end point 96 in the control vs 66 in the intervention
Fatal cardiovascular death 70 in the control vs 48 in the intervention
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(70)90868-8/fulltext
and there was over 30% reduction of mortality >carcinoma deaths were demonstrably higher no question
Not significant and and highest carcinoma rate was seen in the people that had the lowest adherence to the invervention diet so PUFA had nothing to do with the increase in carcinoma
I will the quote the authors of the study themselves about the cancer in the study: >"Many of the cancer deaths in the experimental group were among those who did not adhere closely to the diet. This reduces the possibility that the feeding of polyunsaturated oils was responsible for the excess carcinoma mortality observed in the experimental group. >A high incidence among high adherers would be expected if some constituent of the experimental diet were contributing to cancer fatality."
9 months ago
Anonymous
>people that had the lowest adherence to the invervention diet
whats the evidence for that? not eating in the dining hall? not convincing. now they make up some fake data to explain away the inconvenient result and you lap it up like an idiot
9 months ago
Anonymous
>whats the evidence for that? not eating in the dining hall? not convincing
They measured adherence with the level of PUFA flowing in the blood >now they make up some fake data to explain away the inconvenient result and you lap it up like an idiot
You are the fake one, mongoloid.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>They measured adherence with the level of PUFA flowing in the blood
i doubt it. and how do you know this tracks with intake? more supposition to explain away results you dont like
9 months ago
Anonymous
>i doubt it. and how do you know this tracks with intake?
We have no reason to believe otherwise, more pufa is seen the blood happens when you consume more pufa >more supposition to explain away results you dont like
But I like the results, cancer was not significant and it was only a thing among those who had low adherence, there's also the fact there was more moderate smokers in the intervention PUFA group which is honestly the real reason why you see this non significant increase in cancer death
9 months ago
Anonymous
>more pufa is seen the blood happens when you consume more pufa
youre assuming this >the fact there was more moderate smokers in the intervention PUFA group which is honestly the real reason why you see this non significant increase in cancer death
assuming again. why carcinoma and not lung cancer? does smoking cause every cancer ever? i doubt it
9 months ago
Anonymous
>youre assuming this
It's just logic more pufa = more pufa in the blood, do you have a reason to believe more PUFA in the blood happens because of consuming less PUFA? Post evidence or a logical reason >assuming again. why carcinoma and not lung cancer? does smoking cause every cancer ever? i doubt it
There was less skin cancer in the PUFA group, do I know exactly why that was the case? No. Either way the result was not significant and it the biggest amount of carcinoma was seen with low adherers of PUFA so
9 months ago
Anonymous
>It's just logic
its not. the more saturated fat you eat the less in your blood. maybe its the same with the PUFA they measured. youre welcome to disprove it. you have thus far presented no real evidence for your assumptions
9 months ago
Anonymous
>maybe its the same with the PUFA they measured
It's not, they are different chains of fats who work differently so it doesn't follow and there's no evidence saying otherwise, in the study they specifically measured the amount of Linoleic Acid in the blood, the people with less Linoleic Acid had the most cancer
>no large cancer increase, that's what a non significant result is
thats not that means. it was just barely not statistically significant. by frequentist statistics it probably is significant. youre welcome to try and prove me wrong. none of this means large or small those are subjective
It means not significant, only P=0.05 and below is significant, not P 0.06, all of clinical academia agrees with this to be the case so
9 months ago
Anonymous
>maybe its the same with the PUFA they measured
It's not, they are different chains of fats who work differently so it doesn't follow and there's no evidence saying otherwise, in the study they specifically measured the amount of Linoleic Acid in the blood, the people with less Linoleic Acid had the most cancer
[...]
It means not significant, only P=0.05 and below is significant, not P 0.06, all of clinical academia agrees with this to be the case so
To add to this the amount of PUFA in the blood of the control group was lower than the PUFA intervention group so yeah this pretty much confirms what I said
If we followed your logic then the saturated fat group consumed pufa than the PUFA group and that was not the case
To finish this up I will quote the authors:
>The most striking finding was the presence of linoleic acid (18:2) in the experimental diet at a level almost four times as high as that of the control diet, largely at th expense of the saturated fatty acids, particularly palmitic (16:0).
9 months ago
Anonymous
>group consumed pufa than
group consumed more pufa than**
9 months ago
Anonymous
more lipid peroxidation means less pufa in the blood
you can probably guess what the relation of said lipid peroxides (HNE for example) is with cancer
9 months ago
Anonymous
now whats the p value on the mortality?
9 months ago
Anonymous
>the authors who are biased in favor of their hypothesis explaining away why their experiment failed
the hard evidence is people died of cancer and no mortality change. anything else is just an excuse
For total mortality there was no change but I don't care about total mortality because it includes deaths that didn't happen during the intervention and deaths that had nothing to do with major end points, like accident deaths
For mortality during the intervention there was a 30% increase of mortality for those in the saturated fat group and a 30% decrease in those in the PUFA group, I already posted the hard outcome data
https://i.imgur.com/iwPXGED.png
>that same trial showed people on vegetable oils got more cancer.
Not significant, and the people who got more cancer in the intervention was the people that had lowest adherence to the diet, so PUFA was not responsible for cancer >and the mortality reduction was not 30% youve made that up
No I didn't, pic related all the hard end outcomes, all cause morality was reduced by over 30% when you do the math
Any hard end point 96 in the control vs 66 in the intervention
Fatal cardiovascular death 70 in the control vs 48 in the intervention
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(70)90868-8/fulltext
which you have no response other than bringing up total mortality which I already explained it's useless
9 months ago
Anonymous
it also means a few more people in the trial and it would be significant. just barely not statistically significant doesnt mean its not real just very slightly more likely it could be due to random chance (its not as other experiments human and animal indicate)
>Huge increase in cancer >Not important bro
Fascinating
9 months ago
Anonymous
Not significant and the PUFA was not responsible for it not even the authors believe that nor anyone should
9 months ago
Anonymous
>the authors who are biased in favor of their hypothesis explaining away why their experiment failed
the hard evidence is people died of cancer and no mortality change. anything else is just an excuse
9 months ago
Anonymous
You're clearly a fricking idiot if you don't think a large increase in cancer is a big deal.
And I'm sure you "just know" that the PUFA wasn't responsible. The voices in your head told you after all.
Anyone that believes a dumb c**t like you deserves it.
9 months ago
Anonymous
>You're clearly a fricking idiot if you don't think a large increase in cancer is a big deal.
There was no large cancer increase, that's what a non significant result is >And I'm sure you "just know" that the PUFA wasn't responsible. The voices in your head told you after all.
No I mean the authors of the study themselves said so too, I quoted them at the end of this post exactly about that
https://i.imgur.com/3WxD8v0.png
I didn't say it was not real, I just said that is not significant like you claimed you mongoloid
>either way there was no change in total mortality
Total mortality includes deaths that happened outside the intervention, I only care about hard outcome data of the intervention and I already explained why, I posted such data already here [...] and there was over 30% reduction of mortality >carcinoma deaths were demonstrably higher no question
Not significant and and highest carcinoma rate was seen in the people that had the lowest adherence to the invervention diet so PUFA had nothing to do with the increase in carcinoma
I will the quote the authors of the study themselves about the cancer in the study: >"Many of the cancer deaths in the experimental group were among those who did not adhere closely to the diet. This reduces the possibility that the feeding of polyunsaturated oils was responsible for the excess carcinoma mortality observed in the experimental group. >A high incidence among high adherers would be expected if some constituent of the experimental diet were contributing to cancer fatality."
9 months ago
Anonymous
>no large cancer increase, that's what a non significant result is
thats not that means. it was just barely not statistically significant. by frequentist statistics it probably is significant. youre welcome to try and prove me wrong. none of this means large or small those are subjective
>humans/protohumans eat saturated fats for hundreds of thousands of years >everyone is healthy even though they are always drunk and smoking >invent plant oils in 1911, originally intended to lubricate machinery >start eating plant oils because they are cheap and war rationing >government says plant oils are actually better for you >replace even more animal fat with plant oil >everyone is now fat and sick
Obviously saturated fat bad, the government said so
I'm sure it wasn't the invention of vacuum cleaners >humans/protohumans use brooms and hands for thousands of years >everyone is healthy even though they are always drunk and smoking >invent vacuum cleaners in 1911, originally intended to clean the above posters butthole >start vacuuming because they are cheap and war rationing >government says vacuums are actually better for you >replace even brooms with vacuums >everyone is now fat and sick >Obviously broom is bad, the government said so
Your brain(fog) on keto cultism
Then how is it saturated fat, you dumb shit? We’re eating less saturated fat now then we were before. If saturated fat is bad then why would we have more heart disease? You >people are so fricking stupid.
>The introduction of an irrelevant cleaning device is as important to our metabolic health as the wholesale replacement of one of the 3 macronutrients with novel industrial sludge
Use fewer analogies in your thinking, they're making you moronic
Then how is it saturated fat, you dumb shit? We’re eating less saturated fat now then we were before. If saturated fat is bad then why would we have more heart disease? You >people are so fricking stupid.
Anon was pointing out how your analogy of correlation does not equal causation you smooth brains
"Correlation does not equal causation" is a piece of midwit bumber-sticker wisdom that does not apply to as many situations as you think. If your aphorisms and analogies lead you to thinking that there's no plausible causation between between a massive overhaul to your diet and changes in your metabolic health, then they are turning you into a moron and you should use other types of thinking, such as using actual reasons. Try something like "the wholesale replacement of one of the 3 macronutrients with novel industrial slop warrants no concern about its effects on our health because ..."
Those darned plant oils! I can't believe they have been making everyone fat and sick since... >checks notes
3500 BC! It's all a conspiracy by the United States government that was founded in... >checks notes again
1776!
You are either being disingenuous or are a fricking moron talking about shit he doesn't know about. Olive oil is primarily monounsaturated fat, and the oil is derived from the olive flesh itself, which is the fruit and not the seed. The argument anti-sneed oilers make is that consumption of seed oils, which are primarily polyunsaturated omega 6's, throw off the ratio of omega 6's to omega 3's, thus changing your cholesterol profile for the worse, causing an increase in the type of cholesterol that lodges itself in the endothelial walls which results in systemic inflammation.
eat em all the time
healthy and good
taste good
your whole body is made of lean muscle and saturated fat
what the frick do you suppose you should eat to have a healthy body?
Reminder that you are not immune to propaganda and vegan infiltrators will post images like this without explaining things to prime you towards eventually trooning out and and going plant-based. Propaganda works 100% of the time and you WILL adopt false beliefs with constant spamming. Advertising is a billion-dollar industry because it works.
This image is describing how water without electrolytes will sap your body of hydration, however the average IST user has been mindfricked by troony vegan propaganda. I'm talking to you, the lurker. Not the posters. They are too far gone.
Maybe he should not create misleading clickbait video titles then? If these Youtubers create videos with provocative titles like "Don't Drink Water" and the argument of the video is actually not that you should not drink water, then they deserve for people to ridicule them and write them off as morons without watching their videos. As for me, I'm not going to watch his video. I'm just going to remember that Dr. Eric Berg is a ~~*moron*~~ who believes that drinking water is bad for you.
>Video advices consumption of electrolytes to hydration >People that don't bother checking anything assume he is saying don't drink water >This are the same people telling you wich diet is good or bad for you.
And this is why not a single one of you has a good body.
>How do you feel about saturated fats?
it's ok if you eat a balanced diet, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, dairy, eggs, meat, fish and seafood etc... the more variety of food you eat the better
if you have shit genetics and can't clear out cholesterol properly you're fricked
Otherwise probably fine, if you're eating enough to clog your arteries you're probably a fatty anyways
youve got it backwards assuming youre referring to familial hypercholesteromia. the liver cranks up production because it cant get enough cholesterol into your cells. the only problem is when you have excess clotting factors which sometimes come along with this
>(P=0.06).
Not significant, Like I said before the cancer rates were higher in the people who the the lowest adherence to the invervention, the authors themselves even said it, I can quote them if you want >mortality wasnt statistically different but the cancer rates were >total mortality
You are quoting total mortality and that total mortality includes deaths that happened outside the intervention and deaths that had nothing to do with the major endpoints, for example total mortality includes deaths due to accidents too and that's useless I can quote from the authors this too if you want, I only care about hard end point data that happened during the intervention
I already posted the hard end point data here that happened during the intervention and there was a over 30% reduction in mortality
https://i.imgur.com/iwPXGED.png
>that same trial showed people on vegetable oils got more cancer.
Not significant, and the people who got more cancer in the intervention was the people that had lowest adherence to the diet, so PUFA was not responsible for cancer >and the mortality reduction was not 30% youve made that up
No I didn't, pic related all the hard end outcomes, all cause morality was reduced by over 30% when you do the math
Any hard end point 96 in the control vs 66 in the intervention
Fatal cardiovascular death 70 in the control vs 48 in the intervention
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(70)90868-8/fulltext
God tier
It only deposits in arteries if you're doing something stupid like eating a lot of it while eating no fruit and vegetables which contain nutrients that remove it. I hardly think that in 2023 there could be someone as dumb as that.
You mean keto and carnitards?
Please be bait please be bait.
>Ppl are genuinly this braindead
Explain the biomechanics of that one to me.
Does saturated fat deposit in your arteries? lol this idea is so fricking outdated
Do fruit and vegetables have some component that "removes" saturated fat from your arteries somehow? Please spare no detail. I'm ready to see everything you have to write on this topic from your clear years of research and totally not a lump of shit you pulled straight out of your 4 shits a day butthole.
eating too much saturated fats causes your body to make big cholestorerol clumps, that get stuck in your arteries, but eating healthy causes them to get smaller so they dont pile up in your veins, here, explained it for you, got this in school
that's a load of horseshit about the big cholesterol clumps just so you know
>"Correlation does not equal causation" is a piece of midwit bumber-sticker wisdom that does not apply to as many situations as you think
not him but -
Explain why it doesn't apply to the premise of this thread.
>(You)
>child mortality rate to express the healthfulness of red meat in everyone
at this point you should expect dishonest arguments like this
Learn to read
Child mortality is accounted for in this data but it also looks at long lifespans
That graph can be fully explained as lifespan increasing with reduction in calories in general and the processed junk that tends to accompany american meat products.
The graph says more meat = live longer
Are you stupid? There's no other data, you are speculating.
demonstrably wrong
your shitty inferior graph is irrelevant to all-cause mortality systemic reviews
The fact that both of these data points exist should make anyone question whether or not we actually know anything about human nutrition.
Very laughable to pretend that you do based on your little homosexual graph that can't account for the million variables of a human life
>doesn't understand what a systemic review is
proof of moronation
its called LDL Black person
see
Plaque deposits in arteries have very little fat in them at all they are made up of scar tissue
ooh woo a bunch of Black folk sandBlack folk and chinks are dying because of shit healthcare, must be our high cholesterol diets!
>120kg/yr equates to a 3 year old eating 320g beef/day
>~800 cals of just meat
>healthy 3 year olds weigh 12-16kg and need 1000-1300 calories
so basically obese children die sooner?
>it's only bad for you if you eat it
First grade reading comprehension
fruits and vegetables contain ANTInturients and excessive hydration can break down the saturated fats and send them straight into your arteries. Get your facts straight or shut the FRICK up.
>MUH ANTINUTRIENTS
Yes, YOUR antinutrients because I have enough sense to stay tf away from them.
>excessive hydration can break down the saturated fats and send them straight into your arteries
I WANT my cholesterol to be higher than whatever doctors recommend
I drink a cup of cream and a dozen raw eggs a day and i dont got no heart issues cause im not a little vaxed b***h
It's great, I eat it with no downsides
Can anyone explain how animal fats get into your arteries? I'll wait.
Intravenous injection
they sticky
At body temperature, saturated fats are nice and melted while unsaturated fats more easily oxidize into stuff that is actually sticky at that temp
We are still waiting and have been for 63 years at this point.
Stomach connects directly into bloodstream. When you eat Nutella your blood turns brown
Seethe, cope, dilate, groomer
>there are cow cells in your arteries
vegans are mentally ill
Your brainfog on keto
As opposed to the aggressive b-12 deficiency-induced brain fog on veganism.
I didn't mention vegans. Do they live in your head rent free?
personally when I encounter morons I usually think of moronation
Perhaps you can explain why you got defensive over an attack of veganism, then? (Your brainfog has probably made you forget. Re-read the comment chain, moron)
Imagine a balanced diet that isn't either extreme, wouldn't that be crazy
Hungry.
>solid at room temperature
how about 98.6 degrees freedom?
I don't know, I can't make up my mind about it
>contributes to heart disease
Source?
Doctors sponsored by Big Food
This is true albeit indirectly. The same people that own the big multinational food companies are the same that own pharma companies and have a massive influence on doctors and advisary boards. Modern food makes you ill and modern medicine treats the symptoms. Big pharma is a multimillion dollar i dustry, they want you permanently ill
If it's solid at room temperature why is it solid inside your body? My body is not room temp on the inside...
they are good, cholesterol is good. most vegetable oils (except good quality olive oil) are bad for you. follow your ancestors, not israeliteed up big pharma and "science".
I'm an omnivore who only consumes nutritionally optimal and medicinal or functional foods. macro nutrients take a very far back seat to consuming a wide variety of specific micronutrients or medicinally functional foods, every single day.
99% of food is sub optimal and contains no unique micronutrients over vastly superior food items. for example, why would I ever purchase anything but bananas, pineapple, avocado, onions, garlic, kiwis or strawberries? these are the objective optimal fruit, literally everything else is sugar water in a vehicle of fiber. Why would I ever eat any meat other than sardines, beef, and eggs? these are the objective best meats to consume.
why would I buy agaricus/button mushrooms when I can buy shiitake and maitake, lions mane and oyster mushrooms, or dozens of locally foraged species which are a medicine cabinet in themselves on top of being extremely nutritious sources of protein and minerals. Why would I ever eat any nut other than macadamia, almond, pumpkin seeds? Why would I ever buy anything but butter and olive oil? those are the nutritionally optimal cooking oils.
The list DOESN'T go on, that's literally the optimal human diet and all you need to be putting in your shopping cart for the rest of your life. there is no reply or counter-point to type up in response to this. even financially, since this diet costs $40-$60 weekly.
This is a healthier diet than 99% of IST eats I'm sure lol
but you aren't going to get that much benefit from eating plants my homie
don't gas yourself up too hard about that part of it
beef small fish and eggs are very based though
You’re on the right track but still off.
You almost nailed my diet word for word, and it's something I've put a lot of thought and research into. However, I largely eat salmon and only occasionally eat grass fed beef. I am aware that salmon contains high amounts of heavy metals, but I also eat a good amount of brazil nuts, which contain selenium that can chelate mercury and cadmium. Additionally, I supplement r-alpha lipoic acid and methylsulfonylmethane for further protection from heavy metals on top of the other benefits they confer. I find that consuming plenty of salmon in addition to sardines is cheaper than buying triglyceride fish oil. I also consume a lot of cheese because it's just too delicious. Your post is also lacking in green vegetables, of which I mainly just consume broccoli, asparagus, bell peppers, and arugala/spring greens. However, it costs me about 120$ per week for this diet. I could probably make it cost 80$ if I switched from fresh salmon to canned salmon and dropped the cheese in favor of more eggs and nuts, but variety is always nice.
>List of fruits doesn’t contain apples or blueberries.
>these are the objective best
Depends on the arbitrary metrics you are using to judge this.
Personally I'm doing a restriction diet of minimizing PUFA and minimizing vitamin A, which causes me to settle on a minimalist diet of red meat, white bread, white rice and apple juice for about 90% of my diet.
And people used to live off bread and meat for years at a time before the advent of refrigerators and global shipping logistics.
People have been malnourished for most of history buddy, meat and starch isn't an ideal diet by any stretch
majority of IST still believes in the PUFAs bad meme, created almost 8y ago
whenever you ask a ketolard or PUFAs bad troll for evidence, you'll get nothing
or bro science style collage of a bunch of posts / tweets
There isn’t any good evidence that saturated fat is bad either. You can’t perform double blind randomized nutritional studies because they would be ethically wrong, you would have to imprison people and perform this experiment on them over a couple decades to capture long term effects. You would also want to imprison and experiment on a large number of people to make sure that the experiment is statistically significant. What kicked off the saturated fat is bad meme was that seven nations “study” that correlated saturated fat consumption with heart disease rate for seven countries, but only after they threw out 2/3rds of the countries because those countries showed lower rates of heart disease with increased saturated fat consumption.
What valid nutritional studies we do have are mechanistic studies. Studies that examine how different foods and shit effect your body on a hormonal level, how you process those different foods, etc. And those mechanistic studies all line up one way. Saturated fat is fine, sugar and pufas frick you up. And the whole idea that saturated fat is poison is moronic to begin with. You literally make saturated fat. That’s how your body stores excess food, whenever your body uses stored fat it’s using saturated fat, your body has evolved to process it and use it for energy. If you can’t see it you’re a moron.
>There isn’t any good evidence that saturated fat is bad either
Wrong
>any good evidence that saturated fat is bad either
but there is!?
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/types-of-fat/
saturated fats are definitely not super unhealthy but neither are they beneficial to you health
>Saturated fat is fine
no it's not
>sugar and
that one is non controversial
>pufas frick you up
ok where is the evidence??
exactly my point, you don't have any
Did you even read the fricking article?
Nice link
I see zero hard evidence, only coping about muh healthy unsaturated fats with very little to go on. In fact nothing to go on.
In order to prove the hypothesis that saturated fat can cause any long term ailment on its own you would need to conduct an experiment that simply isn't possible with human subjects. For that reason I won't listen to any gay pharma wienersucker numbers about relative risk. There is nothing to be afraid of! They don't know anything for certain and data is all over the place. I could link a meta-analysis that show a correlation between PUFA consumption and death and you'd say its not the same.
>valid nutritional studies we do have are mechanistic studies
why should mechanistic studies be better than health outcome studies?
especially those 2 kinds usually don't line up
for PUFAs at least - i don't know why you mention sugar which is universally considered bad with no controversy at all
>You can’t perform double blind randomized nutritional studies because they would be ethically wrong
The only one was done in the late 60's, they found a decrease in cardiovascular disease when you swap saturated fat with PUFA
>Clinical follow-up was carried out on a double-blind basis.
> Fatal atherosclerotic events numbered 70 in the control group and 48 in the experimental group; P<0.05.
>when these data were pooled with those for cerebral infarction and other secondary end points, the totals were 96 in the control group and 66 in the experimental group P=0.01
There was also a reduction in all-cause mortality of over 30% during the intervention period
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.CIR.40.1S2.II-1
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(70)90868-8/fulltext
that same trial showed people on vegetable oils got more cancer. and the mortality reduction was not 30% youve made that up
>that same trial showed people on vegetable oils got more cancer.
Not significant, and the people who got more cancer in the intervention was the people that had lowest adherence to the diet, so PUFA was not responsible for cancer
>and the mortality reduction was not 30% youve made that up
No I didn't, pic related all the hard end outcomes, all cause morality was reduced by over 30% when you do the math
Any hard end point 96 in the control vs 66 in the intervention
Fatal cardiovascular death 70 in the control vs 48 in the intervention
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(70)90868-8/fulltext
>morality
Mortality**
total mortality didnt change significantly. cancer did
>cancer did
Why did you delete your previous post? P=0.06 means is not significant lol
0.06 so its not a real thing god you are fricking stupid. either way there was no change in total mortality and carcinoma deaths were demonstrably higher no question
I didn't say it was not real, I just said that is not significant like you claimed you mongoloid
>either way there was no change in total mortality
Total mortality includes deaths that happened outside the intervention, I only care about hard outcome data of the intervention and I already explained why, I posted such data already here
and there was over 30% reduction of mortality
>carcinoma deaths were demonstrably higher no question
Not significant and and highest carcinoma rate was seen in the people that had the lowest adherence to the invervention diet so PUFA had nothing to do with the increase in carcinoma
I will the quote the authors of the study themselves about the cancer in the study:
>"Many of the cancer deaths in the experimental group were among those who did not adhere closely to the diet. This reduces the possibility that the feeding of polyunsaturated oils was responsible for the excess carcinoma mortality observed in the experimental group.
>A high incidence among high adherers would be expected if some constituent of the experimental diet were contributing to cancer fatality."
>people that had the lowest adherence to the invervention diet
whats the evidence for that? not eating in the dining hall? not convincing. now they make up some fake data to explain away the inconvenient result and you lap it up like an idiot
>whats the evidence for that? not eating in the dining hall? not convincing
They measured adherence with the level of PUFA flowing in the blood
>now they make up some fake data to explain away the inconvenient result and you lap it up like an idiot
You are the fake one, mongoloid.
>They measured adherence with the level of PUFA flowing in the blood
i doubt it. and how do you know this tracks with intake? more supposition to explain away results you dont like
>i doubt it. and how do you know this tracks with intake?
We have no reason to believe otherwise, more pufa is seen the blood happens when you consume more pufa
>more supposition to explain away results you dont like
But I like the results, cancer was not significant and it was only a thing among those who had low adherence, there's also the fact there was more moderate smokers in the intervention PUFA group which is honestly the real reason why you see this non significant increase in cancer death
>more pufa is seen the blood happens when you consume more pufa
youre assuming this
>the fact there was more moderate smokers in the intervention PUFA group which is honestly the real reason why you see this non significant increase in cancer death
assuming again. why carcinoma and not lung cancer? does smoking cause every cancer ever? i doubt it
>youre assuming this
It's just logic more pufa = more pufa in the blood, do you have a reason to believe more PUFA in the blood happens because of consuming less PUFA? Post evidence or a logical reason
>assuming again. why carcinoma and not lung cancer? does smoking cause every cancer ever? i doubt it
There was less skin cancer in the PUFA group, do I know exactly why that was the case? No. Either way the result was not significant and it the biggest amount of carcinoma was seen with low adherers of PUFA so
>It's just logic
its not. the more saturated fat you eat the less in your blood. maybe its the same with the PUFA they measured. youre welcome to disprove it. you have thus far presented no real evidence for your assumptions
>maybe its the same with the PUFA they measured
It's not, they are different chains of fats who work differently so it doesn't follow and there's no evidence saying otherwise, in the study they specifically measured the amount of Linoleic Acid in the blood, the people with less Linoleic Acid had the most cancer
It means not significant, only P=0.05 and below is significant, not P 0.06, all of clinical academia agrees with this to be the case so
To add to this the amount of PUFA in the blood of the control group was lower than the PUFA intervention group so yeah this pretty much confirms what I said
If we followed your logic then the saturated fat group consumed pufa than the PUFA group and that was not the case
To finish this up I will quote the authors:
>The most striking finding was the presence of linoleic acid (18:2) in the experimental diet at a level almost four times as high as that of the control diet, largely at th expense of the saturated fatty acids, particularly palmitic (16:0).
>group consumed pufa than
group consumed more pufa than**
more lipid peroxidation means less pufa in the blood
you can probably guess what the relation of said lipid peroxides (HNE for example) is with cancer
now whats the p value on the mortality?
For total mortality there was no change but I don't care about total mortality because it includes deaths that didn't happen during the intervention and deaths that had nothing to do with major end points, like accident deaths
For mortality during the intervention there was a 30% increase of mortality for those in the saturated fat group and a 30% decrease in those in the PUFA group, I already posted the hard outcome data
which you have no response other than bringing up total mortality which I already explained it's useless
it also means a few more people in the trial and it would be significant. just barely not statistically significant doesnt mean its not real just very slightly more likely it could be due to random chance (its not as other experiments human and animal indicate)
>Huge increase in cancer
>Not important bro
Fascinating
Not significant and the PUFA was not responsible for it not even the authors believe that nor anyone should
>the authors who are biased in favor of their hypothesis explaining away why their experiment failed
the hard evidence is people died of cancer and no mortality change. anything else is just an excuse
You're clearly a fricking idiot if you don't think a large increase in cancer is a big deal.
And I'm sure you "just know" that the PUFA wasn't responsible. The voices in your head told you after all.
Anyone that believes a dumb c**t like you deserves it.
>You're clearly a fricking idiot if you don't think a large increase in cancer is a big deal.
There was no large cancer increase, that's what a non significant result is
>And I'm sure you "just know" that the PUFA wasn't responsible. The voices in your head told you after all.
No I mean the authors of the study themselves said so too, I quoted them at the end of this post exactly about that
>no large cancer increase, that's what a non significant result is
thats not that means. it was just barely not statistically significant. by frequentist statistics it probably is significant. youre welcome to try and prove me wrong. none of this means large or small those are subjective
*what that means
>meme
Explain why its a meme with hard evidence and I'll consider your point of view.
>humans/protohumans eat saturated fats for hundreds of thousands of years
>everyone is healthy even though they are always drunk and smoking
>invent plant oils in 1911, originally intended to lubricate machinery
>start eating plant oils because they are cheap and war rationing
>government says plant oils are actually better for you
>replace even more animal fat with plant oil
>everyone is now fat and sick
Obviously saturated fat bad, the government said so
I'm sure it wasn't the invention of vacuum cleaners
>humans/protohumans use brooms and hands for thousands of years
>everyone is healthy even though they are always drunk and smoking
>invent vacuum cleaners in 1911, originally intended to clean the above posters butthole
>start vacuuming because they are cheap and war rationing
>government says vacuums are actually better for you
>replace even brooms with vacuums
>everyone is now fat and sick
>Obviously broom is bad, the government said so
Your brain(fog) on keto cultism
Then how is it saturated fat, you dumb shit? We’re eating less saturated fat now then we were before. If saturated fat is bad then why would we have more heart disease? You >people are so fricking stupid.
>The introduction of an irrelevant cleaning device is as important to our metabolic health as the wholesale replacement of one of the 3 macronutrients with novel industrial sludge
Use fewer analogies in your thinking, they're making you moronic
Anon was pointing out how your analogy of correlation does not equal causation you smooth brains
"Correlation does not equal causation" is a piece of midwit bumber-sticker wisdom that does not apply to as many situations as you think. If your aphorisms and analogies lead you to thinking that there's no plausible causation between between a massive overhaul to your diet and changes in your metabolic health, then they are turning you into a moron and you should use other types of thinking, such as using actual reasons. Try something like "the wholesale replacement of one of the 3 macronutrients with novel industrial slop warrants no concern about its effects on our health because ..."
Those darned plant oils! I can't believe they have been making everyone fat and sick since...
>checks notes
3500 BC! It's all a conspiracy by the United States government that was founded in...
>checks notes again
1776!
You are either being disingenuous or are a fricking moron talking about shit he doesn't know about. Olive oil is primarily monounsaturated fat, and the oil is derived from the olive flesh itself, which is the fruit and not the seed. The argument anti-sneed oilers make is that consumption of seed oils, which are primarily polyunsaturated omega 6's, throw off the ratio of omega 6's to omega 3's, thus changing your cholesterol profile for the worse, causing an increase in the type of cholesterol that lodges itself in the endothelial walls which results in systemic inflammation.
They’re not good for you.
i eat em all day every day almost exclusively.
kys moxyte
eat em all the time
healthy and good
taste good
your whole body is made of lean muscle and saturated fat
what the frick do you suppose you should eat to have a healthy body?
>get BTFO and have no evidence
>resort to paranoid name calling
post body. I want to see how weak you really are
Schizo behavior is thinking everyone is the same person. Ketoschizo.
They're good.
FDA shills against it because they want to harm people and make them dependent on insulin
>Not a single informative post in the entire thread
You're all useless
I eat mostly saturated fats, it intuitively makes sense to me to avoid seed oils.
sweet, another rightoid dietschizo thread
Every time I see someone post something on IST telling me not to do something, I do it.
I will continue to consume saturated foods
>Ok well I hope you enjoy dying early
Oh well I'm so thankful I have some anonymous frick I will never meet care so much about my health
Health train coming through
I eat butter and 5 eggs everyday >:D
Love them.
He drank too much water
yeah he should eat sticks of butter to hydrate
preferably salted butter and not a whole stick of course
>berg
Reminder that you are not immune to propaganda and vegan infiltrators will post images like this without explaining things to prime you towards eventually trooning out and and going plant-based. Propaganda works 100% of the time and you WILL adopt false beliefs with constant spamming. Advertising is a billion-dollar industry because it works.
This image is describing how water without electrolytes will sap your body of hydration, however the average IST user has been mindfricked by troony vegan propaganda. I'm talking to you, the lurker. Not the posters. They are too far gone.
Maybe he should not create misleading clickbait video titles then? If these Youtubers create videos with provocative titles like "Don't Drink Water" and the argument of the video is actually not that you should not drink water, then they deserve for people to ridicule them and write them off as morons without watching their videos. As for me, I'm not going to watch his video. I'm just going to remember that Dr. Eric Berg is a ~~*moron*~~ who believes that drinking water is bad for you.
Lmao do the ketos really think this.
plain water will flush away the electrolytes in your body
>Video advices consumption of electrolytes to hydration
>People that don't bother checking anything assume he is saying don't drink water
>This are the same people telling you wich diet is good or bad for you.
And this is why not a single one of you has a good body.
>How do you feel about saturated fats?
it's ok if you eat a balanced diet, fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, dairy, eggs, meat, fish and seafood etc... the more variety of food you eat the better
Paradox?
I think people should eat more for good health.
if you have shit genetics and can't clear out cholesterol properly you're fricked
Otherwise probably fine, if you're eating enough to clog your arteries you're probably a fatty anyways
youve got it backwards assuming youre referring to familial hypercholesteromia. the liver cranks up production because it cant get enough cholesterol into your cells. the only problem is when you have excess clotting factors which sometimes come along with this
You mean like hitting a fat chick with a super soaker?
>(P=0.06).
Not significant, Like I said before the cancer rates were higher in the people who the the lowest adherence to the invervention, the authors themselves even said it, I can quote them if you want
>mortality wasnt statistically different but the cancer rates were
>total mortality
You are quoting total mortality and that total mortality includes deaths that happened outside the intervention and deaths that had nothing to do with the major endpoints, for example total mortality includes deaths due to accidents too and that's useless I can quote from the authors this too if you want, I only care about hard end point data that happened during the intervention
I already posted the hard end point data here that happened during the intervention and there was a over 30% reduction in mortality
Just don’t eat lots of processed food or fatty meat and you’ll be fine. It is difficult to eat heart-damaging amounts of saturated fat naturally.
>be mystery meat mutt
>get heart attack
It's all genetics BTW.
And people say natural selection isn't a thing anymore
It's nice for ketotards to remove themselves from the gene pool