That guy looks absolutley atrocious, its obvious he has tons of visceral fat in his distended belly, is sarcopenic, the skin pallor, the teeth, everything about him screams a lack of health and vitality.
Go away moxyte nobody likes you and that includes your mom
>Pencil neck >Skinny arms >That bulging balloon of a belly
Holy fuck this is the most uncanny grotesque physiques I've ever seen. And to top it off bros hitting the Fauci stare
Its pretty easy just be sedentary and dont go outside.
His pencil neck and face fat distribution is genetic which means hed have a chad jawline if he was actually thin but he wastes it by looking like a walking chicken nugget
You aren't seriously claiming to be ignorant of the very clear point that anon is making, are you? How could a person not understand that the way a man looks is reflective of the quality of his advice?
>How could a person not understand that the way a man looks is reflective of the quality of his advice?
That has more to do with genetics more than anything. Are you retarded?
>how you look has more to do with genetics than the actions you take in life
Post body. Or tell me you won't because you have a beer belly that you inherited from your fat parents.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Or tell me you won't because you have a beer belly that you inherited from your fat parents.
I'm skinny, exactly like my parents and grandparents.
>there are pretty much no differences between these two pictures >there's no easy way to tell if this man had a lifestyle change between these two points in time >whatever change happened probably happened due to genetics
2 months ago
Anonymous
So if we took Woody Allen, made him train like Arnold(at age 18), eat like Arnold, take the same drugs Arnold took, do you think he's going to look anywhere close to as impressive as prime Arnold looked? The power of genetics is massive and constantly throws people off because "big, impressive people much do the right things". That's true, but only to a point.
2 months ago
Anonymous
lol what the fuck are you talking about you delusional moron? The vegan garden gnome has a massive beer belly and looks pale and generally unhealthy. If he took better care of himself and had a better diet, he wouldn't look so disgusting. This has nothing to do with bodybuilding, being "big," or Woody Allen.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>lol what the fuck are you talking about you delusional moron?
You could put Gregor on a animal based diet and he would still be bald and like a garden gnome, because he is a garden gnome.
2 months ago
Anonymous
And his beer belly would go away and his skin would stop looking disgusting.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>And his beer belly would go away
The same beer belly that most omnivore Americans have?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yes, the same beer belly that most "omnivore" Americans have that consume a stupid amount of seed oils and processed sugars. What's your point?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Ah, so you are a ketolard. Tell the class where the "seedoils" touched you
2 months ago
Anonymous
What? Most people on keto consume seed oils via eating nuts. Do you think keto means you don't eat processed sugars or something? Did you even look at my image?
2 months ago
Anonymous
at some point a ton of vegans associated the word "keto" with pictures of bacon and eggs, and to this day they still think it's synonymous with carnivore.
it's quite a sight to behold
2 months ago
Anonymous
Unironically yeah he'd probably be much closer than you might think.
No he’s not, show me the study and i’ll tell you how fucking trash it is.
99% sure it doesn’t control for any other significant factors, like fucking calories, and it just boils down to ‘vegan vs non vegans’ like any of these shit studies.
Yeah let’s compare a vegan, a community known for caring about their health, with the obese American average joe that happens to eat eggs.
>this guy ate 2000 calories of margerine-fried shit cuts of preservative-laced processed bacon for breakfast, and has 4 hot dogs and a cheeseburger for dinner and he's unhealthy! See? Meat is bad!
This guys proportions are uncanny. He’s got a balloon gut that meshes perfectly into his moobs. His shirt buttons are hanging on for dear life. Then he’s got a thin little neck. This guy looks like he’s got such an inflated self worth, but if we went to war he would be a useless mouth to feed. Pathetic
This is no different than the gender wage gap myth. Is literally the same thing. It’s saying A=C without accounting for B
A diet full of saturated fats can lead to early death and heart issues, IF YOU ARE SEDENTARY.
Look at uncontacted or primitive tribes. They eat like 80% meat and cancer and heart issues simply don’t occur among them at even 1/4th the rate it does for the rest of the world. Why? Because 1.) they’re physically active and on their feet all day and 2.) they’re not eating refined carbs they’re eating shit like roots and fruits and nuts.
>Look at uncontacted or primitive tribes. They eat like 80% meat and cancer and heart issues simply don’t occur among them at even 1/4th the rate it does for the rest of the world.
There's like 12 of them
If they're uncontactes tribes or primitive tribes what makes you think we have any idea what their general health is like lmao
There are ancient hunter gatherer remains from ice that have arterial calcification. Inuits absolutely suffer from heart disease at comparable or greater rates to western people's.
I think he's mostly talking about recently contact tribes that still live in their traditional way and don't participate in outside society. Are you implying meat is bad for you, or just too much meat?
>4-5 eggs and vegetables perhaps a bit rice for breakfast ( 11am) >midday meal is a burrito filled with beans and harzer cheese, a bit of cream cheese sometimes sausage Hispanices ketchup. a carrot >for evening it differs wildly sometimes pasta sometimes just meat and veggies or potatos >snack is kefir with nuts and a banana >iam a high quality japanese green tea addict though
i like it and never get tired of it. satiates me in a way like nothing else. i feel full but not too full. i feel energy. its also quickly and convenient done ( i eat strictly scrambled eggs with a bit of butter and ketchup)
i like it and never get tired of it. satiates me in a way like nothing else. i feel full but not too full. i feel energy. its also quickly and convenient done ( i eat strictly scrambled eggs with a bit of butter and ketchup)
They're also extremely easy to get variation with. Rice and eggs will take up the flavor of whatever you feel like making it taste like. Herbs, Hispanices, sauces (just don't use goyslop sauces) - sky's the limit. Just stock a Hispanice cabinet and have fun.
If the question is about longevity then they're right, being a herbivore is gonna give you a better chance at living past 90. Test is the reason men live shorter on average and a meat based diet is going to produce more test. Happy medium might be going vegetarian once you're like 60 or something. But again this is all assuming you give a shit about being a geriatric for more years than you would normally. I would rather eat meat and die at 80 than go veg and possibly live to 85
>being a herbivore is gonna give you a better chance at living past 90
False. "Herbivore" humans haven't even existed until this past century. >Test is the reason men live shorter on average
False. One of the most retarded things I've ever heard. Have you ever heard of "dangerous jobs" or "war?" How can someone be so ignorant of such basic things? >Happy medium might be going vegetarian once you're like 60 or something
Horrible idea. You'll become calcium-deficient and break your hip or wrist bones, and then you'll be anemic for the rest of your life due to the lack of iron. >I would rather eat meat and die at 80 than go veg and possibly live to 85
People who think like this are absolute retards, especially you. This is the same reasoning people give for not exercising, because they don't want to "use up their life juice." Then someone retarded like you comes around and says "well I'd rather work out and live to 80 than never work out and live to 85!" like that makes any fucking sense.
>"Herbivore" humans haven't even existed until this past century.
Seventh Day Adventists started vegan/near veganism in the 19th century and have better health than anyone else in the world
>Seventh Day Adventists started vegan/near veganism in the 19th century and have better health than anyone else in the world
According to studies done by Seventh Day Adventists. Honestly thwy are like the garden gnomes of the nutrition world, every time I google a lead author of a study telling me to eat lots of grains its one of those pseudo-garden gnomes
>near veganism
Thanks, I don't really care. I was talking about being an "herbivore," not being a "near-herbivore." Seventh-Day Adventists eat eggs and fish btw. Please don't bother posting if you're going to make up some more stupid shit.
He's natty, but eating a pure carnivore diet provides an incredible natural test boost and he does low-rep high intensity workouts. If he was roiding he'd be absolutely insanely massive.
He previously posted a bloodwork that's shown 230 ng/dl (extremely low, even for a non lifter).
Which can be due to either one of those two things : >He is not natty, and went off cycle for the blood test, which crashed his natural test, therefore you're wrong. >He is natty and his "pure carnivore diet" is doing the exact opposite of giving him a test boost, therefore you're wrong.
In short : you're wrong.
He previously posted a bloodwork that's shown 230 ng/dl (extremely low, even for a non lifter).
Which can be due to either one of those two things : >He is not natty, and went off cycle for the blood test, which crashed his natural test, therefore you're wrong. >He is natty and his "pure carnivore diet" is doing the exact opposite of giving him a test boost, therefore you're wrong.
In short : you're wrong.
>the guy on the right is on gear
that further illustrates the point of veganism being horrible for your well being since steroids cause accelerated ageing
One thing I hate about this site and the recent rise of anti-intellectualism in general is that people will take an obvious shill study from some fucking hack pushing an agenda and go "SCIENCE IS FAKE! DONT THINK IF YOU LIKE SCIENCE YOURE A BETA MALE!!" But then I'll see these same people do retarded shit they heard from some idiot on Youtube like go on a 2 day dry fast to "restore their telomeres" or do semen retention or some other BS. Or they'll take the OPPOSITE of science as a matter of fact, like instead of healthy vax skepticism (which you SHOULD have if you use your brain at all) they'll see literally any person die of a heart attack and go "it was the vax bros....."
Its fucking retarded, science is better than anything else we have. You never were supposed to trust every single study at face value, and if you did then you misunderstand what science is about. Studies can be manipulated, poorly done, not replicatable etc an isolated study means NOTHING its about trusting a series of studies with the same result run by different groups that dont have reason to share an agenda, thats what makes them reliable and those are the kind of finds you SHOULD be taking information from. "TRUST THE SCIENCE" retards on reddit who believe any study they see as fact are also wrong, but theyre just as wrong as OP.
>healthy vax skepticism
You mean refusing all vaccines because they're literally poisonous cocktails of heavy metals and toxic chemicals? If that's what you mean, then I agree.
Do you think all vaccines are bad? I mean let's take Rabies for example. You can vaxx yourself against it but if you get bitten without being vaxxed you die.
Yes, all vaccines.
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/What-About-Rabies:a
I remember when being an anti vaccine schizo was a lefty thing, dumbass tree hugger types. Somehow chuds have now been infected with this stupidity.
Thankfully, more people are waking up to the bullshit. You really think it's a good thing to inject mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde into babies and children 25 times throughout their fragile development?
>posts a 17 minute long video instead of his actual opinion of a very simple question involving a possible disease he could get and the inevitable death it would cause without the only treatment available (rabies vaccine)
Way to discredit yourself.
Rabies as a contagious virus was "proven" by Louis Pasteur literally taking the brain matter of one animal and then injecting it into the brain of another live animal, then when severe neurological issues developed he declared that it must be because the brain matter he injected had a virus. The symptoms we classify as rabies are actually so extremely rare as to not be a concern and there's no evidence that vaccination would actually do anything about it anyway. If you get bit by a wild animal, get a series of rabies shots, and then don't end up with rabies symptoms they just assume the vaccination worked when the more likely answer is that you weren't going to develop rabies symptoms in the first place. People also still die of rabies after getting rabies shots, but of course that's just blamed on being "too late" rather than the vaccine being ineffective against a disease with no actual definitively proven cause.
2 months ago
Anonymous
And how do animals get rabies in the first place if it's not contagious...?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Good question, we don't actually know. Based on what we do know, I would suspect it has to do with some kind of toxic ingress into the brain that causes particular brain damage resulting in the symptoms.
>pseud doesn't know how traditional vaccines work, how they differ from mRNA gene therapy, and how the immunological response can be vastly different from being exposed to the latter vs the live virus
you got moderna mogged, no need to double down, take the L and move on
>by injecting you with small weakened traces of a disease we’ve strengthened your immune system >what do you mean you could’ve just gotten sick and naturally fought it off instead of getting crazy medical bills and making your immune system be dependent on medicine? >what? no don’t question why there was mercury or aluminum or liquid graphene with it you’re better now >wowowow another crazy random disease just popped up out of nowhere better get your vaccine and booster, your immune system is compromised for some reason
2 months ago
Anonymous
>making your immune system be dependent on medicine
You're totally clueless
>pseud doesn't know how traditional vaccines work, how they differ from mRNA gene therapy, and how the immunological response can be vastly different from being exposed to the latter vs the live virus
you got moderna mogged, no need to double down, take the L and move on
Wasn't specifying any vaccination in particular, covid or otherwise.
>literally and unironically believing correlation is always = causation
Smoothbrain retard. Theres no statistic showing that vaxed people die of heart attacks more than unvaxed people. Youre posting fucking headlines of people who died and screeching THE VAXXX THA VAXXXX THE VAXXXXX IM SCARED OF THA VAXXXXX
I'm wasting my time even explaining this to you though. Youre probably drooling and getting a migraine trying to comprehend any level of critical thought.
>Theres no statistic showing that vaxed people die of heart attacks more than unvaxed people.
There's data that shows various heart problems being correlated at a significantly higher level. But anyway, that isn't the point with this post.
>correlation =! causation
The problem with you reddit pseud fags is that you will repeat this mantra, without any understanding of what epistemology is, or even the mathematics and statistics which you blindly revere. Fudging statistics is the easiest thing in the world, and it's the least definitive form of knowledge.
If I observe a factor tied to an occurring event, yes that doesn't mean that the two are definitively causally related.
It does however make it statistically MORE likely that they are causally related than anything else I didn't observe, in lieu of other identifiable factors.
>Theres no statistic showing that vaxed people die of heart attacks more than unvaxed people.
There's data that shows various heart problems being correlated at a significantly higher level. But anyway, that isn't the point with this post.
>correlation =! causation
The problem with you reddit pseud fags is that you will repeat this mantra, without any understanding of what epistemology is, or even the mathematics and statistics which you blindly revere. Fudging statistics is the easiest thing in the world, and it's the least definitive form of knowledge.
If I observe a factor tied to an occurring event, yes that doesn't mean that the two are definitively causally related.
It does however make it statistically MORE likely that they are causally related than anything else I didn't observe, in lieu of other identifiable factors.
Anecdotal evidence does not make anything more likely, your own observations mean jack shit since theyre impacted by your own personal biases. Thats why stupid people like anecdotal evidence so much because stupid people tend to believe theyre above listening to other people or above things like personal faults and biases.
2 months ago
Anonymous
moron moron moron moron
2 months ago
Anonymous
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Anecdotal evidence
Is the first point of any observation. A series of anecdotal experiences is a data set, which can then be normalized, weighted etc. and compared to other sets originating from anecdotes.
Again, you don't understand what you're worshipping.
2 months ago
Anonymous
This is correct but this doesnt have anything to do with the retards here posting collages of headlines going SEE? THE VAXX
2 months ago
Anonymous
That intelligent post BTFO your entire insulting rant and this thread is about eggs you maniac
2 months ago
Anonymous
You didnt understand anything he said and you think its smart because he used big words
2 months ago
Anonymous
Which of those do you consider big, hard to understand words?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Theres no statistic showing that vaxed people die of heart attacks more than unvaxed people.
There's data that shows various heart problems being correlated at a significantly higher level. But anyway, that isn't the point with this post.
>correlation =! causation
The problem with you reddit pseud fags is that you will repeat this mantra, without any understanding of what epistemology is, or even the mathematics and statistics which you blindly revere. Fudging statistics is the easiest thing in the world, and it's the least definitive form of knowledge.
If I observe a factor tied to an occurring event, yes that doesn't mean that the two are definitively causally related.
It does however make it statistically MORE likely that they are causally related than anything else I didn't observe, in lieu of other identifiable factors.
Oh btw i am literally a professional data analyst and you are retarded and wrong, the fact that statistics can be fudged intentionally doesnt make them unreliable as a whole. Believing that the entire field of statistics is the "least definitive form of knowledge" is schizophrenically paranoid.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>look I am a code monkey that makes me smart
lmfao >Believing that the entire field of statistics is the "least definitive form of knowledge"
You're empirically inferring something from a model only applicable to the same exact set you based it on, so yes it is. The possibilities for user error in every step along the way along with misinterpretation of the results is massive.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Are you seriously implying statistics are less definitive than retards on IST pulling information from their ass? God fuck off.
Again the fact that its not a perfect or even ideal way to gather data doesn't mean its not viable. Its used because its the best method we have available.
>look I can say "empirically inferring" that makes me smart
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Are you seriously implying statistics are less definitive than retards on IST pulling information from their ass?
If I'm one of those retards, yes
2 months ago
Anonymous
>If I'm one of those retards, yes
kek hijacking a thread about fucking eggs to go on a 4chan screech fest about THE VAX! Then at the end finally just admitting "I'm right because I'm me" is your entire argument. You're either dangerously retarded or an expert level troll.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>"I'm right because I'm me"
I'm not the guy you're getting trolled by, but this statement is true in my case, I have goated opinions and everyone else has cringe opinions
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Are you seriously implying statistics are less definitive than retards on IST pulling information from their ass?
Not strictly, but I don't put much more stock in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies done by people with ties to pharmaceutical companies that produce studies with results that favour pharmaceutical companies.
At least the "retards on IST" lack a unifying motive, apart from confirming their own biases. But those biases can differ, so yes the net sum of knowledge in a format like this might be more valuable than the obviously cooked shit served to the mainstream regarding certain medical events in the past years.
There's nothing wrong with statistics and math, just the people that use it, and claim authority from invoking The Science.
I used the statistics available spring 2020 to correctly determine that COVID-19 was on par with pathogens I've been exposed to all of my life without problems.
I then spent the following two years watching The Science emerging as a religion, contrary to what was the actual physical state of affairs.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I then spent the following two years watching The Science emerging as a religion, contrary to what was the actual physical state of affairs.
Holy fuck, someone finally gets it. The issue is no longer about the lack of efficacy in modern scientific research, but how the general population perceives "science" as concept.
With the death of organized religion in the West, people have turned to the scientific disciplines to base their beliefs on. It's gone from a means to describe and understand the physical world to that of describing everything, in an attempt to fill the void left over from religions falling out of favor. This has created an extremely dangerous precedent with the scientific disciplines, with the focus now on forming unshakeable dogmas, rather then what they're supposed to be doing, which is advancing our understanding of the physical world around us.
Mark my fucking words, the shift towards science as the supreme monolith of understanding and belief is going to have disastrous consequences that we're not going to fully understand for generations to come.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Any good scientist will revel in the idea of their ideas being criticised because that is what science is, hypothesis, testing, review, new hypothesis, and so on.Everything should be questioned and tested.
"Peer-review" should address this but the standards are so low you can honestly disregard it. The thing is nobody is forcing people with knowledge and experience in that field to weigh in on each new study that comes out. Sure, they're open to be peer reviewed but who has actually taken the time to review it? You'll never know. >Hey Dr. schmoigel what do you think of my new study saying milk is poisonous to humans? >Yeah looks good to me, herchel.
Herschel has now created an undisputable fact and you will be considered retarded for suggesting it may be flawed.
2 months ago
Anonymous
additionally, who actually knows what scientist (and what nation/institution/industry they are affiliated with) said the shit they read in a youtube comment and now base their world view on.
Try it. Tell someone scientists have found out that bees actually accumulate helium in their tissue which enables them to fly with such small wings. They'll more than likely believe you.
2 months ago
Anonymous
To be fair the whole Lancet hydrochloroquine debacle during covid shined a light on the shitshow called ‘modern research’
Even normies now understand how a single study doesn’t prove shit, if they have at least 3 digit IQs
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Any good scientist will revel in the idea of their ideas being criticised because that is what science is, hypothesis, testing, review, new hypothesis, and so on.Everything should be questioned and tested.
We've long since had a shortage of good scientists anon. The entire field has been infested with those who seek profit or the glorification of their own intelligence.
It's a sorry state of affairs, and it's only going to get worse.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Science requires trust. You can check methods for coherence, you can check analysis, you can redo the experiment, but ultimately some form of trust is required (e.g. that an experiment has in fact taken place, that measurements have been recorded truthfully etc...). When science was practiced by elites it was rarely necessary to lie, so it more or less worked even though egos got in the way. Currently however in 'academia' plebs try to make a living publishing anything whatsoever. Especially in sociology, psychology and adjacent fields agenda's are pushed left and right. If anything in 'publish or perish' there is a strong incentive to not be truthful. The communications can not be trusted, not be verified and are therefore very low on information.
This has little to do with efficacy of 'science' though. In commercial enterprise, say plant breeding or something, there is little point in lying to yourself about the efficacy of your own shit and so research works. Similarly in most kinds of practical development lying is not possible, or simply dumb since it will soon be discovered in the next round of experiments. The weapons industry is not suffering a replicability crisis.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Science requires trust. You can check methods for coherence, you can check analysis, you can redo the experiment, but ultimately some form of trust is required >This has little to do with efficacy of 'science' though.
bro what are you smoking? Efficacy is extremely important when undertaking scientific research in all the fields, in order to establish a baseline from which other research studies can test and replicate your work. In short, efficacy directly fosters and builds trust in your research, to show that you're not just pulling shit out the wind and claiming it to being true.
Allow me to give an example: Recently, I had to do a report on naphthalene (Mothballs), and one of the instructions was to look at the EPA risk report for the chemical. In that report, there was two papers cited in order to determine the Reference Dose (RfD) for naphthalene. Despite there being two independent papers cited in that report, the EPA couldn't assign an RfD for naphthalene, because the papers were, how do you say, very poorly written. One was soo bad that the EPA report outright states that it cannot confirm its findings, and that several of the key findings made in that paper couldn't be replicated anywhere else. It didn't conform to the standards of testing, it had a limited subject pool, and it even failed to examine the some of the organs of the test animals, for some reason.
For context, RfD is an extremely important measurement, since it measures the how toxic a chemical is to animals and humans. Naphthalene in particular is a very nasty chemical, as it can cause blindness, coma, and is a category C carcinogen. This is just one example of what I'm talking about with the efficacy problem in the modern era. When even the studies about a potential carcinogen are slapped together to the point where the EPA can't even give it an RfD, what other shit is going on in the other disciplines?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Low IQ cope
It’s usually complete nerds that say stuff like this
2 months ago
Anonymous
All observations are impacted by the biases of the observer. Why should I trust the observations of people paid off by multi-billion dollar corporations over my own?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Because you SHOULDNT
See
https://i.imgur.com/m4FxCI0.png
One thing I hate about this site and the recent rise of anti-intellectualism in general is that people will take an obvious shill study from some fucking hack pushing an agenda and go "SCIENCE IS FAKE! DONT THINK IF YOU LIKE SCIENCE YOURE A BETA MALE!!" But then I'll see these same people do retarded shit they heard from some idiot on Youtube like go on a 2 day dry fast to "restore their telomeres" or do semen retention or some other BS. Or they'll take the OPPOSITE of science as a matter of fact, like instead of healthy vax skepticism (which you SHOULD have if you use your brain at all) they'll see literally any person die of a heart attack and go "it was the vax bros....."
Its fucking retarded, science is better than anything else we have. You never were supposed to trust every single study at face value, and if you did then you misunderstand what science is about. Studies can be manipulated, poorly done, not replicatable etc an isolated study means NOTHING its about trusting a series of studies with the same result run by different groups that dont have reason to share an agenda, thats what makes them reliable and those are the kind of finds you SHOULD be taking information from. "TRUST THE SCIENCE" retards on reddit who believe any study they see as fact are also wrong, but theyre just as wrong as OP.
Why is this so hard to understand? Be skeptical dont be daft and accept some alternative bullshit you saw online as fact.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I don't think science is fake. I disagree with his point that "your own observations mean jack shit since theyre impacted by your own personal biases". Every observation or suggestion you hear is going to be biased in some way, even if it's from a scientist, so it's stupid to blindly believe a scientist who says something that contradicts your own observations just because they are "impacted by your own personal biases".
2 months ago
Anonymous
You think there's just one organization?
you can verify the studies yourself, by the way. Just because you're too stupid to understand abstracts doesn't mean the studies are bias.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You thing there's just one organization?
I said corporations, plural.
If you actually read the abstracts and methodology, you would know that every study is inherently biased in some way. You're supposed to read studies with a healthy amount of skepticism as others have said. Don't ignore your personal observations just because they are biased, like
[...]
Low IQ cope
[...]
Anecdotal evidence does not make anything more likely, your own observations mean jack shit since theyre impacted by your own personal biases. Thats why stupid people like anecdotal evidence so much because stupid people tend to believe theyre above listening to other people or above things like personal faults and biases.
I agree principally, but unfortunately you appear you be serial-injected, and I believe that following your intuition and instincts is more accurate for most people than believing what pop-sci tells them.
it's been bought for decades my dude, look back in the 70s when they pushed for "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" nonsense and had the gall to say that consuming a glass of sugar water with the fiber removed and then flakes made out of corn or wheat covered in sugar was remotely healthy and something that everyone needed, especially kids. Later it's revealed it was scientists bought by kellogs so that they could push their shitty cereal made of corn, because no one was buying it before.
Most people aren't even hungry in the morning and there are studies hinting that waking up and immediately shoving sugar down your gullet might be a bad idea, who would have thought?
Do what makes you feel good, I feel good when I eat eggs and meat at midday, I feel like shit if I eat a bunch of carbs and drink fruit juice (even more carbs) first thing in the morning.
>aking up and immediately shoving sugar down your gullet might be a bad idea
why?
I always do this, breakfast plus caffeine is how my brain and body boots up. Doesn't necessarily have to be high sugar or carb, but it's often the case. I dunk down carbs for breakfast and then some before lifting, rest of the day is low-med carb and higher protein/fat.
Cucumbers will ruin you! Each eaten cucumber approaches you to death. It is surprising, as thinking people till now have not distinguished lethality of this vegetative product and even resort to its name for comparison in positive sense («as small cucumber!»). And in spite of on anything, manufacture of tinned cucumbers grows. All main corporal illnesses are connected to cucumbers and all in general human misfortunes. Practically all people, suffering chronic diseases, ate cucumbers. Effect is cumulative obviously. 99,9 % of all people died of a cancer, at a life ate cucumbers. 100 % of all soldiers ate cucumbers. 99,7 % of all persons becoming victims of automobile and aviation accidents, ate cucumbers within two weeks previous to fatal accident. 93,1 % of all juvenile criminals occur from families where cucumbers consumed constantly.
There are data that harmful action of cucumbers affects very for a long time: among people born in 1899 and eating subsequently cucumbers, death rate is equal 100%. All persons of a birth of 1939-1949 have a flabby wrinkled skin, have lost almost all teeth, practically became blind (if the illnesses caused by consumption of cucumbers, have not sent them already to the grave). The result received by known collective of scientists — physicians is even more convincing: porpoises whom compulsorily fed on 20 pounds of cucumbers per day within a month, have lost any appetite!
Unique way to avoid harmful action of cucumbers — to change a diet. Eat, for example, soup from marsh orchids. From it as far as we know, still nobody died.
I hate never knowing whats actually true, didn't we evolve as omnivores? Meat fags say Veg and grains kill you Veg fags say meat kills you, both sides always have "studies" to backup their claims.
The problem is if you try and aggregate ALL studies the data becomes too messy. There are only a few things which generally hold:
1) Overall, calorie restriction extends lifespan, calorie surplus reduces it
2) Exercise generally increases healthspan (lifespan is less obvious, but marginally it does)
3) Overly processed foods generally are worse than whole foods
Outside of that, there are far too many confounding variables to make clear statements
>didn't we evolve as omnivores?
the thing is, human beings are literally made to adapt and survive. people argue that humans can't live only eating bread and potates, or that humans can't live only eating meat, but people in the past have done both and survived.
which is optimal? which is better?
the best thing you can do is to set up general guidelines you can follow. >no overprocessed foods (soda, oreos, doritos, deepfried shit, fast food...) >avoid canned stuff and other stuff that never goes bad >prioritize food you have to prepare yourself (except for fruit obviously)
Aside from that, what you can do is trial and error, eating different fruits, meats, carbohydrate sources. remove what makes you feel like shit, keep what makes you feel good.
What I did was I started out with a very simple vertical diet: white rice as my only carb source and read meat as my only protein and fat source. I felt good eating just that, then started adding different foods like legumes and vegetables, dairy, that way I could get a good feedback of how I felt eating different things.
also, I agree with this
The problem is if you try and aggregate ALL studies the data becomes too messy. There are only a few things which generally hold:
1) Overall, calorie restriction extends lifespan, calorie surplus reduces it
2) Exercise generally increases healthspan (lifespan is less obvious, but marginally it does)
3) Overly processed foods generally are worse than whole foods
Outside of that, there are far too many confounding variables to make clear statements
>people in the past have done both and survived.
You will literally deteriorate and die eating only plants and plant-based foods. Vegans don't die today because of the invention of artificial lab-made supplements in the 20th century. Before this, you could not be vegan. It was literally impossible due to the deterioration and death. This is factually true and not debatable.
Don't look at the "studies" so much. Diet research is abhorrent and very limited. The best way is to figure out a proper diet is to learn about our biology and our history. Brush up on genetics/evolution and animal biology for good measure. Use some basic logic. Then the truth is clear.
But I can save you time. We've been scavenging and hunting since before we were humans. Step outside and imagine you have to feed yourself based solely on historically and naturally available resources for the entire year. Good luck "gathering" enough carbs. High carb diets are inherently a creation of civilization. We evolved eating meat. It is an inherent and large part of our natural diet. Carbs are seasonal and sparse. Agriculture begins, and our health immediately declines. The benefit of carbs is that they can feed more humans who are stuck in one place and it keeps them alive long enough to breed and specialize labor for the land owners. It justifies govt power, slavery, and keeps the population more dependent, weak, and detached from their natural state. People suffering from illness are much more likely to abscond power to those feeding false promises and selling false cures to centralize wealth and power further.
Nice post. I would like to point out that, in some areas, humans have always had infinite access to carbs from fruit and honey (rainforests in South America, Saharan Africa, probably other places), but I think pretty much everything else about your post is correct.
This. I don't deny that we as a species were forced to be hunter/ gatherers for much of our early days but practically ZERO civilizations thrived as hunter gatherers for long. THeir lives were simple put, brutal, short and full of hardship and unspeakable suffering.
Being able to domesticate farm animals and produce grains intensively is what allowed civilizations to thrive. Sure grains can be bad for you, but the whole seed oil meme is wildly overstated.
Any nutritionist saying we need to "revert" back to wild sourced food is actually a cynical anarchist. It would lead to collapse of civilization and mass extinction of all wild caught game and food.
What if we just paid somebody to hunt and gather them for us so everyone else can get on with other things necessary to maintain a civilisation?
But since that would be a lot of work, how about they keep the creatures and crops contained within a defined enclosed area making it easy to harvest them? They could even tend and breed them to maximise their harvest and prevent loss or destruction of the food. This way we could have a hunter-gatherer society without the burdens of hunting and gathering.
This makes sense, but you are missing the other point. It is not possible for the "wild" to produce enough animals to feed a world population of 8 billlion+ people. Its just not.
Yes, a wild caught Salmon has slightly better nutrional profiles than farmed salmon, but again the entire salmon population would go extinct in a year if we eliminated farmed salmon.
Just look at what we did to the beaver and buffalo populatoins of NA. There were reportedly more beavers here than people on planet earth (some cartographers in northern Canada surveyed beaver dams 200+ miles across (!). Some asshole figured out beaver pelts make the best hats and bam, near total extinction of the beaver population.
I believe the true path forward is to provide better food to the farmed protein to get their nutritional profile to more closely match wild animals. Or we get used to eating more available but less desireable wild protein that is near impossible to make extinct (not bugs).
The poor South Africans eat a lot of Pilchards (type of sardine), and a lot of the richer South Africans mock them. But most credible nutritionists show that pilchards are one of the best superfoods on planet earth and the oceans have a near inexhaustible supply of them.
IST is once again leading the world on proper nutrition.
t. doctor
2 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't miss the point it's just so obvious it's not even worth pretending or joking that there would be people retarded enough not to see it. Surely nobody actually argues against this.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I suspect you may have missed the joke where I'm obviously just talking about farming and agriculture without saying the words farming or agriculture.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>It is not possible for the "wild" to produce enough animals to feed a world population of 8 billlion+ people
Yeah it is. And you just said there are an infinite amount of fish in the ocean. Your post doesn't make any sense. Also lol'ing hard at you responding "that makes sense" to anon's joke post.
>Sure grains can be bad for you, but the whole seed oil meme is wildly overstated.
processing seeds at an industrial scale into oil full of PUFAs is what people have a problem with, not the little bit of seed oil you'll ingest from eating pumpkin seeds or whatever.
>THeir lives were simple put, brutal, short and full of hardship and unspeakable suffering.
lol wtf is this idiot talking about? The hunter-gatherers alive in Africa today are tall, healthy and strong with fulfilling lives and there are plenty of old people in their tribes. They have pretty much infinite access to meat and honey and are doing amazing.
>but they have to hunt food and it's so le hard to hunt food and they can die
Well the African hunter-gatherers seem to really enjoy it and are thriving.
>you shouldn't do things that, if everyone else did, would make society collapse
Weirdest fucking take I've ever heard. Guess I'll stop buying from my local farms then because, if everyone else did that, the farms would run out of supply and go under. What a fucking idiot.
kek I still remember when I saw this useless fact posted and thinking yeah fuck I give up.
The problem is if you try and aggregate ALL studies the data becomes too messy. There are only a few things which generally hold:
1) Overall, calorie restriction extends lifespan, calorie surplus reduces it
2) Exercise generally increases healthspan (lifespan is less obvious, but marginally it does)
3) Overly processed foods generally are worse than whole foods
Outside of that, there are far too many confounding variables to make clear statements
Yeah thanks, I know you're right but my anxiety bullshit always makes me click on these "warning" threads and left feeling frustrated by all the constant contradictions about something so important. I wonder if in another century nutritional science will actually have everything completely worked out due to a better understanding of genetics and cancer risks or will it be the same arguments and claims.
Fuck, you don't even know the half of it.
Coming from a chemistry and biology background, the "academic" industry is wildly corrupt, almost to the point of it being none functional. It's all goes back to the issue of funding for research and certain groups backing some profs over others.
I usually filter by looking at vegans and their supplemental needs and then looking at carnivores and their supplements
Invariably vegans will twist themselves in knots trying to tell you why the micronutrient vegan diets lack isnt that important, but if it is you can still get it naturally and if you dont you can simply supplement it
Besides vegans look like shit and none of their diets are realistic, if they were they would be eating turnips and potatoes from November to March
Science isn’t dead. But anyone can publish anything and then have their marketing team publish shit like “studies say”. Im sure theres a tongkat or other placebo shill thread up on this very board. I really think the first amendment needs rewritten man fake news in this country is getting out of control
I had to write a well referenced essay evaluating a common nutritional myth as part of a biology degree. I chose eggs leading to cholesterol problems. The consensus is clear in abundance: Eating eggs improves the cholesterol in the blood. Those that were made to eat more eggs had healthier blood by the end of several studies on it. Eat eggs.
Don't know where this guy gets his information but I found nothing that actually implicated eggs as harmful in terms of cholesterol, they were consistently the opposite, so unless some new breakthough has happened recently that blows out about 30 previous studies, this guy might just be vegan. Shill any morsel of 'science' that supports you, delete the rest from memory immediately to protect that precious world view.
Science is in fact pretty shaky at present. This was spelled out plainly when I started my masters degree.
There is a crisis where raw data, which is what was actually recorded before doing their statistical analysis to put it in those neat little charts, is consistently lost. Something like 70% of raw data is lost for good and it is now being found that the majority of these historical studies that had since been referenced and used to support other papers cannot be recreated when tried.
Additionally, funding is a huge factor. If you run an egg alternative slop factory it's very easy to buy a few people with a degree to write you up a study that found a few concerns about eggs that aren't an issue with your product. As a joke whenever asked weight in on a scientific discussion, I always say "which one of you is paying me to be here?".
I've actually faked results myself. You aren't being watched while you're working unless another team member happens to be standing there. I had an experiment that just wouldn't work, couldn't get this stimulus to have any effect despite my preliminary research suggesting it should, I was already pretty much out of time since I'd based the whole project on it so I just wrote some results down. Nothing significant, after statistics it would just come out as "no significant correlation", but you take my point. Maybe if i'd done some things differently there should have been a significant effect. It is technically published as an official scientific document but nobody will ever read it unless they go to that university and take the physical file out of the library. See what I mean though?
Another thing is they run so many studies, the p-values actually aren't very impressive.
To simplify, suppose you run an epidemiological study and messure 100 variables which *should* have no real effect. At p=0.05, random chance means on average 5 will show an effect. Okay well that's one study so ignore it... right? No, because now 1000s of teams around the world will try to replicate it, and if they can't, maybe they don't publish. so a few teams again by random chance or bias produce similar results, then they form a meta analysis and claim that makes it a strong result.
Even without actively fudging data, omission of data, or not posting null data, is a big problem. Nobody is interested in the study which says "we measured 100 things and nothing is that important".
>You are retarded.
It's exactly this reason for why people like Greger and other grifters are so prevalent. A guy in a nice shirt or suit goes on video and cites a study or two that corroborates what he's saying and every idiot is impressed by it. Easy money and followers.
Science is incredibly complex and not meant to be understood by laymen but these fuckheads distill it down to the laymen regardless but do it to their advantage.
>The truth is everything can be skewed to serve the purpose of the people funding the study.
It is more often than not visible in the study's methodology tho.
Vegans really seethe about eggs. You can tell they want to eat it more than any other animal product.
From a nutritional standpoint it BTFOs any plant-based food and it tastes fucking delicious, and doesn't even involve the slaughter of any animal. You know they're seething.
Greger was raised in a small Arizona town, "the only gnomish family within 30 miles." His parents were New York natives; his mother taught Biblical Hebrew at the community college.
"Science" has been completely disconnected from reality for years.
At this point you are better off doing the opposite of what any "science" report recommends.
Of course you should still have common sense too, if "science" recommends eating daily you should not decided to starve instead.
But retarded bullshit like this is obviously just nonsense.
>don't use common sense >base all decisions on the words of a clearly compromised institution
or you're a brainless retard? lmao I truly wish you the best of luck.
That guy is a vegan so everything he ever says will be confirmation bias in favor of veganism. Same reason I can't take any meme diets seriously. Applying a brand to yourself over how to eat just makes you mentally ill.
Vegan garden gnome Fags want everyone to be weak pussies like they are. One look at this pencil necked turd and you can disregard anything that comes out of his cock holster.
Nobody wants to fund studies that confirm other studies' results. PI's do studies that will garner attention so they can sell their next book and get more funding.
If only there were a way to do actual science without funding...
>Davidson, S. (2004, Jan 29). MIT to hold forum on mad cow disease; local physician to give keynote address. gnomish Advocate. Retrieved from Proquest. Quote: "Consumers concerned about mad cow disease and other issues about safeguarding the food supply may want to attend the Jan. 29 lecture at MIT by Michael Greger, M.D., entitled "Mad Cow Disease: Plague of the 21st Century?" ... Greger was raised in a small Arizona town, "the only gnomish family within 30 miles." His parents were New York natives; his mother taught Biblical Hebrew at the community college. Following his parents' divorce, he moved with his mother and brother to Binghamton, N.Y., where she taught Hebrew school at the orthodox Beth Israel synagogue."
>My rural side of family have been consuming eggs for literally generations >The overwhelming majority of them, down to my great grand uncle had an average lifespan of 90+ or more >Some vegan shill always tries to make it seem like animal-based products the reason why people are fat and dying, not the fake carb or man-made "seed" oils that humans have only recently consumed.
How the hell did our ancient ancestors survive when their only primary source of food was animals until the agricultural revolution? Seriously, we have historical accounts, reports and genetic testing that showed ancient humans primary diet were fish, eggs and meat, and they didn't die from heart attacks, had obesity, or any other modern health related problem we have now. Yet, people expect me to believe that the stuff we ate from almost our entire history is killing us only now?
Eggs improve your blood cholesterol but the problem with meat and sometimes eggs is how what happens to it between being alive and healthy and being on your plate. Artificial additives and shit-tier cooking oils and whatnot are to blame, which interestingly vegan food is even worse for, at least a real sausage roll has some traces of actual nutritious meat among all the bullshit, a vegan sausage roll is entirely plastic, cardboard and chemicals that fuck with your hormones in weird unprecedented ways.
I know a lot of vegans and now they're reaching their 30s, they're all fat as fuck. Although vegetarian/vegan has a sort of healthy sound to it because it implies vegetables, they actually just eat fake sausage rolls, fake burgers, fake chocolate, fake pizza, fake hallumi cheese etc. They're a right bunch of wobbly gets these days. Not that I don't know fat meat eaters but they at least have some bulk to go with their flab because their shit food has one or two actual nutrients mixed into it somewhere. Also vegans have to take tablets to not die which should really set alarm bells ringing if you're supposed to be a healthy 20 odd year old.
It's interesting because the ringleader who converted them all gradually to veganism keeps buying these fucked up little dogs that can't breathe properly and have their eyes looking in opposite directions so they clearly don't have problems with supporting animal suffering. There's seriously about 6 of the noisy little shits now
Science has not existed in close to 100 years chief. What we have now is a religion called scientism which is the result of following unproven theories as "laws" for decadez and it functions a pitcher plant trap for midwits to lose their souls to.
I just want to give thanks and appreciation to the anons with brains in their heads who take time out of their day to deliver reasonable and often funny posts that utterly BTFO weaselly shills and bullshitters. There are still plenty of people worth sharing this planet with out there and the seethe and spiteful thrashing of the ousted venomous beasts is a sure sign that God hasn't abandoned this world just yet.
Dr. Greger once claimed that "eating one egg is as harmful to the body as smoking 1000 cigarettes", because he's mentally retarded and takes unrelated effects and makes shit up to scare people into eating faggy vegan shit.
Never, EVER listen to vegan "scientists", they have never been truthful with anyone.
t. former 10 year vegan
I live in LA and a bunch of "grown-ups" were protesting the local school board giving up the free freebreakfast scam. I.e; expecting these parents with new iphones to actually feed their own kids.
All these Hispanic-morons were complaining about not having enough money to feed them properly.
Some nutrionist from UCLA with like 20+ years of actual proven real world research pointed out scientifically that feeding a kid a hard boiled egg and half of a apple each breakfast would make them all thrive from grades 1-8. Costs something like $0.30 / day or some stupidly affordable shit.
Of course she was reprimanded for upsetting the Hispanic-moron victim concensus. Fuck I can't find the story for the life of me.
Eggs are GREAT nutrition; one of the best sources of protein, collagen and oil you can find.
It's simple. Don't have as little as half an egg. Seriously, if you cook an egg and then only eat half you've most likely got life shortening retardation anyway so you've got bigger things to worry about. I never do less than two at a time unless it's a fried egg with a big meal.
Not sure but he used to spam /fat/ endlessly and one of his giveaways was hed rant constantly about some vegan redditor called "Moxyte" and blame all posts disagreeing with him on the redditor.
The person youre talking about is someone else who may or may not be Moxyte or ketoschizo falseflagging but who knows. Or it could just be multiple people.
Modern science is an illusion, a fakery to push an agenda, especially nutrition science. If your thoughts allow for these intrusions to interrupt your eating habits, you're better off not thinking and eating whatever. Vegetarian diets are correlated with trans-positivity and submissive behavior.
I've been doing carnivore, intermittent fasting, and semen retention for the past 3 months and have never felt better in my entire life. If I got all of my information from mainstream doctors instead of blacklisted researchers trapped into doing influencer work on internet media websites, I'd be like you. What an awful thing that would be. Never trust a scientific journal that would publish this garbage, as they're guaranteed to be poorly peer reviewed and allow for the worst types of epidemiological "studies" to surface.
Modern science is ruined because it pays better to get goverment bucks for your dogshit n=1 study than to properly prepare the process and actually do the science. It's essentially the hedonistic treadmill meets the scientists.
>blacklisted researchers
If they were blacklisted they wouldn't be promoted by the YouTube algorithm and have millions of subscribers...
You're also a victim of modern nutrition science.
Massive genetic bottle neck resulting in decades of inbreeding, it's no shit so bad that there is a list of genetic disorders only found in Ashkenazi garden gnomes because of this ,to combat this gnomish dating sites have features in them to insure your not boinking your cousin
I just imagine myself in the woods. Or how we'd all be living years ago. Do I, a human, have access to countless plants at any given time? Can my body even make use of the nutrients without getting sick? Can my teeth withstand the sheer amount of sugar in fruit? How am I getting enough calories a day to maintain muscle, fight other humans and animals, and build fortifications?
I don't understand where vegans are coming from. Are they basing their ideology off morality? Because even though that's retarded, it makes more sense than what's "natural" and what isn't.
>the burden is on you to prove why such an extraordinary claim would be true
No it isn't
I can eat sugar and drink soda every day yet so long as I stay under 2000 calories as a 6ft male, I won't gain weight. Even without exercise. That's still an unhealthy way to eat.
Why shouldn't I eat animals? How are you even going to enforce your doctrine without soldiers/government officials who also have to eat meat and I be strong enough to fight a small army of rebels? Even with guns you still need to be in shape. By that logic alone you're a hypocrite
>Why shouldn't I eat animals?
Go ahead, I don't care. Anon asked a completely different question.
>how?
animal protein is higher quality than plant protein
>animal protein is higher quality than plant protein
Not relevant.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why not? It's an example of animal based nutrition being superior to plants?
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2478 >Adequate intake (at or above the Estimated Average Requirement or the Adequate Intake level) of vitamin A, vitamin K, magnesium, zinc, and copper was associated with reduced all-cause or CVD mortality, but the associations were restricted to nutrient intake from foods.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109718345601?via%3Dihub >Their systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed generally moderate- or low-quality evidence for preventive benefits (folic acid for total cardiovascular disease,folic acidand B-vitamins for stroke), no effect (multivitamins,vitamins C, D, β-carotene, calcium,and selenium), or increased risk (antioxidant mixtures andniacin[with a statin] for all-cause mortality). >Conclusive evidence for the benefit of any supplement across all dietary backgrounds (including deficiency and sufficiency) was not demonstrated; therefore, any benefits seen must be balanced against possible risks.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2014.912199 >The majority of scientific studies investigating the use of MVM supplements in chronic disease risk reduction reported no significant effect.
Your turn to prove the outlandish and impossible-to-prove claim that "supplementing is the exact same as getting nutrition as food". Best of luck.
I can eat sugar and drink soda every day yet so long as I stay under 2000 calories as a 6ft male, I won't gain weight. Even without exercise. That's still an unhealthy way to eat.
Why shouldn't I eat animals? How are you even going to enforce your doctrine without soldiers/government officials who also have to eat meat and I be strong enough to fight a small army of rebels? Even with guns you still need to be in shape. By that logic alone you're a hypocrite
>Humans don't NEED
You also don't NEED sunlight or exercise since drugs exist that alter your brain function. So is your "simple" point that we should all live in a pod with IV nutrition...? What would even be the point of living?
>Can my teeth withstand the sheer amount of sugar in fruit?
Vegans are retarded but this was a retarded thing to say. Fruit don't decay your teeth. If you think they do, please provide a single source of evidence that fruit decay your teeth. I will allow anecdotal life experience if you've truly experienced apples rotting your teeth (lmao).
How the fuck are there STILL ~~*articles*~~ about eggs increasing the risk of dying from heart disease?
Hasn't this been debunked by now? There's no fucking way that's true.
factual yet retarded statement, many such cases. He knows associated means correlated, but most people dont even fucking know what correlation means even if they're a native English speaker.
He's completely right though
That guy looks absolutley atrocious, its obvious he has tons of visceral fat in his distended belly, is sarcopenic, the skin pallor, the teeth, everything about him screams a lack of health and vitality.
Go away moxyte nobody likes you and that includes your mom
literally looks like the greasiest gnomish slimeball
He's greasy for sure but there's plenty worse
oy vey
Holy fuck, do you have more irl cartoonishly looking garden gnomes ?
Tons
>filename
>picrel
You mastered my disgusting attempt.
Couldn't have done it without ya
>smiling.jpg
uh okay
Imagine listening to a doctor with a body like that
>Pencil neck
>Skinny arms
>That bulging balloon of a belly
Holy fuck this is the most uncanny grotesque physiques I've ever seen. And to top it off bros hitting the Fauci stare
Yudkowsky-Greger syndrome
how do you get a belly like this while looking so pale and skinny at the same time
it cant be alc
Its pretty easy just be sedentary and dont go outside.
His pencil neck and face fat distribution is genetic which means hed have a chad jawline if he was actually thin but he wastes it by looking like a walking chicken nugget
Could be a diabetic.
He's full of shit, he most probably drinks alcohol and eats animal products, he's a snake
Yep, think I'm done ever listening to doctors. All a bunch of pasty trust fund fat gay nerds shilling the vaxx.
>That guy looks absolutley atrocious
And? What does that have to do with the scientific evidence?
You aren't seriously claiming to be ignorant of the very clear point that anon is making, are you? How could a person not understand that the way a man looks is reflective of the quality of his advice?
>How could a person not understand that the way a man looks is reflective of the quality of his advice?
That has more to do with genetics more than anything. Are you retarded?
>how you look has more to do with genetics than the actions you take in life
Post body. Or tell me you won't because you have a beer belly that you inherited from your fat parents.
>Or tell me you won't because you have a beer belly that you inherited from your fat parents.
I'm skinny, exactly like my parents and grandparents.
>there are pretty much no differences between these two pictures
>there's no easy way to tell if this man had a lifestyle change between these two points in time
>whatever change happened probably happened due to genetics
So if we took Woody Allen, made him train like Arnold(at age 18), eat like Arnold, take the same drugs Arnold took, do you think he's going to look anywhere close to as impressive as prime Arnold looked? The power of genetics is massive and constantly throws people off because "big, impressive people much do the right things". That's true, but only to a point.
lol what the fuck are you talking about you delusional moron? The vegan garden gnome has a massive beer belly and looks pale and generally unhealthy. If he took better care of himself and had a better diet, he wouldn't look so disgusting. This has nothing to do with bodybuilding, being "big," or Woody Allen.
>lol what the fuck are you talking about you delusional moron?
You could put Gregor on a animal based diet and he would still be bald and like a garden gnome, because he is a garden gnome.
And his beer belly would go away and his skin would stop looking disgusting.
>And his beer belly would go away
The same beer belly that most omnivore Americans have?
Yes, the same beer belly that most "omnivore" Americans have that consume a stupid amount of seed oils and processed sugars. What's your point?
Ah, so you are a ketolard. Tell the class where the "seedoils" touched you
What? Most people on keto consume seed oils via eating nuts. Do you think keto means you don't eat processed sugars or something? Did you even look at my image?
at some point a ton of vegans associated the word "keto" with pictures of bacon and eggs, and to this day they still think it's synonymous with carnivore.
it's quite a sight to behold
Unironically yeah he'd probably be much closer than you might think.
he looks like a titan
Imagine spamming this same image for over half a decade.
>the choline deficient brain thinks 2 years is over half a decade
good lord im glad i ate half a dozen eggs today
Sure he is
No he’s not, show me the study and i’ll tell you how fucking trash it is.
99% sure it doesn’t control for any other significant factors, like fucking calories, and it just boils down to ‘vegan vs non vegans’ like any of these shit studies.
Yeah let’s compare a vegan, a community known for caring about their health, with the obese American average joe that happens to eat eggs.
Boy o boy i wonder what will be the results ?
>this guy ate 2000 calories of margerine-fried shit cuts of preservative-laced processed bacon for breakfast, and has 4 hot dogs and a cheeseburger for dinner and he's unhealthy! See? Meat is bad!
That's pretty much my diet when bulking.
Only if you are VAXXED
>~~*Michael Greger*~~
>is notorious for using studies that agree with his worldview
cool it with the antisemitism goy
he vill eat ze bugs
What a rat looking garden gnome, all garden gnomes look dysgenic
This guys proportions are uncanny. He’s got a balloon gut that meshes perfectly into his moobs. His shirt buttons are hanging on for dear life. Then he’s got a thin little neck. This guy looks like he’s got such an inflated self worth, but if we went to war he would be a useless mouth to feed. Pathetic
Wow cool it with the antisemitism pal Ok?
How can I achieve this body
blood
air of bolshevik garden gnome that would send millions to prison or death for thought crimes
>listening to plant based fags
what the fuck is with that lich hand
This is no different than the gender wage gap myth. Is literally the same thing. It’s saying A=C without accounting for B
A diet full of saturated fats can lead to early death and heart issues, IF YOU ARE SEDENTARY.
Look at uncontacted or primitive tribes. They eat like 80% meat and cancer and heart issues simply don’t occur among them at even 1/4th the rate it does for the rest of the world. Why? Because 1.) they’re physically active and on their feet all day and 2.) they’re not eating refined carbs they’re eating shit like roots and fruits and nuts.
>Look at uncontacted or primitive tribes. They eat like 80% meat and cancer and heart issues simply don’t occur among them at even 1/4th the rate it does for the rest of the world.
There's like 12 of them
If they're uncontactes tribes or primitive tribes what makes you think we have any idea what their general health is like lmao
There are ancient hunter gatherer remains from ice that have arterial calcification. Inuits absolutely suffer from heart disease at comparable or greater rates to western people's.
I think he's mostly talking about recently contact tribes that still live in their traditional way and don't participate in outside society. Are you implying meat is bad for you, or just too much meat?
Those guys eat all the honey they can get their hands on lol
Greger is a vegan and a hack who is notorious for using studies that agree with his worldview to propagate his vegan diet superiority myth
He also looks like a ghoul and he's barely 50
Stupid vegans with their evidence-based arguments
The evidence that none of them look healthy? The evidence that many of them suffer chronic health issues? Yeah probably.
I literally eat 5 eggs a day.
100% of everyone who drinks hydrogen dioxide has died yet people still drink it everyday
"everyday" is an adjective; you mean "every day".
Good bot!
I learned something today.
You learn something new everyday.
His usage was informal but not incorrect. For example, you could replace it with another adjective such as "some people drink it cold."
No it isn't you fucking inbred retard. Everyday as an adjective means that it's commonplace, it says nothing about frequency.
Maybe he meant commonplace. You're the one bringing up frequency.
Ah yes they drink water in a commonplace manner. Yep, I'm sure that's what he meant.
Makes scents to me.
I would never drink that goy juice
I don't know anyone that drinks hydroperoxyl
Is that chemically possible?
Dihydrogen monoxide* my friend
mind explaining how I've never died then, shill?
Do you think H2O is hydrogen dioxide?
you had one job
I'll have an H2O too.
>hydrogen dioxide
ho2? You mean hydrogen superoxide? I never drank one, its a very reactive compound anon not suprised ppl die from it.
You're a fucking retard
r*ddit
The fuck Is hydrogen dioxide and how do I drink it?
Do you mean Dihydrogen monoxide?
i eat 4-5 eggs per day almost 365 days a years for over a decade.
my doc is euphoric about my blood test results. he says its rare to see such perfect blood.
give us a rough overview of your diet then my bro
i told you, 4-5 eggs per day.
>4-5 eggs and vegetables perhaps a bit rice for breakfast ( 11am)
>midday meal is a burrito filled with beans and harzer cheese, a bit of cream cheese sometimes sausage Hispanices ketchup. a carrot
>for evening it differs wildly sometimes pasta sometimes just meat and veggies or potatos
>snack is kefir with nuts and a banana
>iam a high quality japanese green tea addict though
i literally just eat the usual recommended stuff.
how do you eat that every day without getting tired of it?
i like it and never get tired of it. satiates me in a way like nothing else. i feel full but not too full. i feel energy. its also quickly and convenient done ( i eat strictly scrambled eggs with a bit of butter and ketchup)
They're also extremely easy to get variation with. Rice and eggs will take up the flavor of whatever you feel like making it taste like. Herbs, Hispanices, sauces (just don't use goyslop sauces) - sky's the limit. Just stock a Hispanice cabinet and have fun.
I just ate eggs and now I want some Hispanicy eggs kek
just don't be a fucking pussy or goyfed drug dependent a*erican
It's called not being a slut
Careful doc might be a vampire
>some guy on twitter says something
>"wooouuuuuhhh SCIENCE is kekin BROKEN!"
Dumbass
This. You retards will rage over anything. Stop being dumb.
lmao imagine ever listening to biased garden gnome like this
Whole food is cool. I like to eat the whole pig, not just some muscles.
how's pig anus taste?
Like your mom's mouth.
Trust the science goy
I know the guy on the right is on gear but lmao
the guy on the right is natty, keep coping
those titties don't lie anon
If the question is about longevity then they're right, being a herbivore is gonna give you a better chance at living past 90. Test is the reason men live shorter on average and a meat based diet is going to produce more test. Happy medium might be going vegetarian once you're like 60 or something. But again this is all assuming you give a shit about being a geriatric for more years than you would normally. I would rather eat meat and die at 80 than go veg and possibly live to 85
>being a herbivore is gonna give you a better chance at living past 90
False. "Herbivore" humans haven't even existed until this past century.
>Test is the reason men live shorter on average
False. One of the most retarded things I've ever heard. Have you ever heard of "dangerous jobs" or "war?" How can someone be so ignorant of such basic things?
>Happy medium might be going vegetarian once you're like 60 or something
Horrible idea. You'll become calcium-deficient and break your hip or wrist bones, and then you'll be anemic for the rest of your life due to the lack of iron.
>I would rather eat meat and die at 80 than go veg and possibly live to 85
People who think like this are absolute retards, especially you. This is the same reasoning people give for not exercising, because they don't want to "use up their life juice." Then someone retarded like you comes around and says "well I'd rather work out and live to 80 than never work out and live to 85!" like that makes any fucking sense.
My grandparents are 95 and still healthy and mobile and my grandma says she'll not eat anything that hasn't looked over a gate or swam in the sea.
I'm glad your grandma is still enjoying boar hunting and enjoying the fruits of her labor at the age of 95.
>"Herbivore" humans haven't even existed until this past century.
Seventh Day Adventists started vegan/near veganism in the 19th century and have better health than anyone else in the world
>Seventh Day Adventists started vegan/near veganism in the 19th century and have better health than anyone else in the world
According to studies done by Seventh Day Adventists. Honestly thwy are like the garden gnomes of the nutrition world, every time I google a lead author of a study telling me to eat lots of grains its one of those pseudo-garden gnomes
>near veganism
Thanks, I don't really care. I was talking about being an "herbivore," not being a "near-herbivore." Seventh-Day Adventists eat eggs and fish btw. Please don't bother posting if you're going to make up some more stupid shit.
He's natty, but eating a pure carnivore diet provides an incredible natural test boost and he does low-rep high intensity workouts. If he was roiding he'd be absolutely insanely massive.
He previously posted a bloodwork that's shown 230 ng/dl (extremely low, even for a non lifter).
Which can be due to either one of those two things :
>He is not natty, and went off cycle for the blood test, which crashed his natural test, therefore you're wrong.
>He is natty and his "pure carnivore diet" is doing the exact opposite of giving him a test boost, therefore you're wrong.
In short : you're wrong.
Fucking Ted stole the top of Greger's hair.
Right looks natty to me?
Right is natty fag. He holds "natty proven" USA deadlift record. Keep coping and eating ur oats.
see
>the guy on the right is on gear
that further illustrates the point of veganism being horrible for your well being since steroids cause accelerated ageing
What's even bad about dying early? Who wants to be an old fuck?
Probably true
I bet the majority of people who die prematurely have eaten at least half an egg
One thing I hate about this site and the recent rise of anti-intellectualism in general is that people will take an obvious shill study from some fucking hack pushing an agenda and go "SCIENCE IS FAKE! DONT THINK IF YOU LIKE SCIENCE YOURE A BETA MALE!!" But then I'll see these same people do retarded shit they heard from some idiot on Youtube like go on a 2 day dry fast to "restore their telomeres" or do semen retention or some other BS. Or they'll take the OPPOSITE of science as a matter of fact, like instead of healthy vax skepticism (which you SHOULD have if you use your brain at all) they'll see literally any person die of a heart attack and go "it was the vax bros....."
Its fucking retarded, science is better than anything else we have. You never were supposed to trust every single study at face value, and if you did then you misunderstand what science is about. Studies can be manipulated, poorly done, not replicatable etc an isolated study means NOTHING its about trusting a series of studies with the same result run by different groups that dont have reason to share an agenda, thats what makes them reliable and those are the kind of finds you SHOULD be taking information from. "TRUST THE SCIENCE" retards on reddit who believe any study they see as fact are also wrong, but theyre just as wrong as OP.
get out of here you stupid science bitch
Didn't read. Post body.
>healthy vax skepticism
You mean refusing all vaccines because they're literally poisonous cocktails of heavy metals and toxic chemicals? If that's what you mean, then I agree.
Do you think all vaccines are bad? I mean let's take Rabies for example. You can vaxx yourself against it but if you get bitten without being vaxxed you die.
*if you get bitten by an infected animal
Yes, all vaccines.
https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/What-About-Rabies:a
Thankfully, more people are waking up to the bullshit. You really think it's a good thing to inject mercury, aluminum, and formaldehyde into babies and children 25 times throughout their fragile development?
>posts a 17 minute long video instead of his actual opinion of a very simple question involving a possible disease he could get and the inevitable death it would cause without the only treatment available (rabies vaccine)
Way to discredit yourself.
Fine, here's the tl;dw:
Rabies as a contagious virus was "proven" by Louis Pasteur literally taking the brain matter of one animal and then injecting it into the brain of another live animal, then when severe neurological issues developed he declared that it must be because the brain matter he injected had a virus. The symptoms we classify as rabies are actually so extremely rare as to not be a concern and there's no evidence that vaccination would actually do anything about it anyway. If you get bit by a wild animal, get a series of rabies shots, and then don't end up with rabies symptoms they just assume the vaccination worked when the more likely answer is that you weren't going to develop rabies symptoms in the first place. People also still die of rabies after getting rabies shots, but of course that's just blamed on being "too late" rather than the vaccine being ineffective against a disease with no actual definitively proven cause.
And how do animals get rabies in the first place if it's not contagious...?
Good question, we don't actually know. Based on what we do know, I would suspect it has to do with some kind of toxic ingress into the brain that causes particular brain damage resulting in the symptoms.
I remember when being an anti vaccine schizo was a lefty thing, dumbass tree hugger types. Somehow chuds have now been infected with this stupidity.
>no no don’t just get sick naturally and strengthen your immune system, you need to let us inject your baby with heavy metals and synthetic hormones
>schizo doesn't know how vaccines work
Every fucking time
>pseud doesn't know how traditional vaccines work, how they differ from mRNA gene therapy, and how the immunological response can be vastly different from being exposed to the latter vs the live virus
you got moderna mogged, no need to double down, take the L and move on
>by injecting you with small weakened traces of a disease we’ve strengthened your immune system
>what do you mean you could’ve just gotten sick and naturally fought it off instead of getting crazy medical bills and making your immune system be dependent on medicine?
>what? no don’t question why there was mercury or aluminum or liquid graphene with it you’re better now
>wowowow another crazy random disease just popped up out of nowhere better get your vaccine and booster, your immune system is compromised for some reason
>making your immune system be dependent on medicine
You're totally clueless
Wasn't specifying any vaccination in particular, covid or otherwise.
>spacing
>they'll see literally any person die of a heart attack and go "it was the vax bros.....”
But more times than not it IS because of the vax
Youre an actual smoothbrain NPC retard. You'll believe anything that confirms what tou want to believe.
>X causes Y to happen
>”hm I thinks these are connected”
>NO NO WRONG NPC SHEEP THEYRE NOT CONNECTED TRUST SCIENCE
>literally and unironically believing correlation is always = causation
Smoothbrain retard. Theres no statistic showing that vaxed people die of heart attacks more than unvaxed people. Youre posting fucking headlines of people who died and screeching THE VAXXX THA VAXXXX THE VAXXXXX IM SCARED OF THA VAXXXXX
I'm wasting my time even explaining this to you though. Youre probably drooling and getting a migraine trying to comprehend any level of critical thought.
>Theres no statistic showing that vaxed people die of heart attacks more than unvaxed people.
There's data that shows various heart problems being correlated at a significantly higher level. But anyway, that isn't the point with this post.
>correlation =! causation
The problem with you reddit pseud fags is that you will repeat this mantra, without any understanding of what epistemology is, or even the mathematics and statistics which you blindly revere. Fudging statistics is the easiest thing in the world, and it's the least definitive form of knowledge.
If I observe a factor tied to an occurring event, yes that doesn't mean that the two are definitively causally related.
It does however make it statistically MORE likely that they are causally related than anything else I didn't observe, in lieu of other identifiable factors.
What obnoxious moron
Low IQ cope
Anecdotal evidence does not make anything more likely, your own observations mean jack shit since theyre impacted by your own personal biases. Thats why stupid people like anecdotal evidence so much because stupid people tend to believe theyre above listening to other people or above things like personal faults and biases.
moron moron moron moron
>Anecdotal evidence
Is the first point of any observation. A series of anecdotal experiences is a data set, which can then be normalized, weighted etc. and compared to other sets originating from anecdotes.
Again, you don't understand what you're worshipping.
This is correct but this doesnt have anything to do with the retards here posting collages of headlines going SEE? THE VAXX
That intelligent post BTFO your entire insulting rant and this thread is about eggs you maniac
You didnt understand anything he said and you think its smart because he used big words
Which of those do you consider big, hard to understand words?
Oh btw i am literally a professional data analyst and you are retarded and wrong, the fact that statistics can be fudged intentionally doesnt make them unreliable as a whole. Believing that the entire field of statistics is the "least definitive form of knowledge" is schizophrenically paranoid.
>look I am a code monkey that makes me smart
lmfao
>Believing that the entire field of statistics is the "least definitive form of knowledge"
You're empirically inferring something from a model only applicable to the same exact set you based it on, so yes it is. The possibilities for user error in every step along the way along with misinterpretation of the results is massive.
Are you seriously implying statistics are less definitive than retards on IST pulling information from their ass? God fuck off.
Again the fact that its not a perfect or even ideal way to gather data doesn't mean its not viable. Its used because its the best method we have available.
>look I can say "empirically inferring" that makes me smart
>Are you seriously implying statistics are less definitive than retards on IST pulling information from their ass?
If I'm one of those retards, yes
>If I'm one of those retards, yes
kek hijacking a thread about fucking eggs to go on a 4chan screech fest about THE VAX! Then at the end finally just admitting "I'm right because I'm me" is your entire argument. You're either dangerously retarded or an expert level troll.
>"I'm right because I'm me"
I'm not the guy you're getting trolled by, but this statement is true in my case, I have goated opinions and everyone else has cringe opinions
>Are you seriously implying statistics are less definitive than retards on IST pulling information from their ass?
Not strictly, but I don't put much more stock in studies funded by pharmaceutical companies done by people with ties to pharmaceutical companies that produce studies with results that favour pharmaceutical companies.
At least the "retards on IST" lack a unifying motive, apart from confirming their own biases. But those biases can differ, so yes the net sum of knowledge in a format like this might be more valuable than the obviously cooked shit served to the mainstream regarding certain medical events in the past years.
There's nothing wrong with statistics and math, just the people that use it, and claim authority from invoking The Science.
I used the statistics available spring 2020 to correctly determine that COVID-19 was on par with pathogens I've been exposed to all of my life without problems.
I then spent the following two years watching The Science emerging as a religion, contrary to what was the actual physical state of affairs.
>I then spent the following two years watching The Science emerging as a religion, contrary to what was the actual physical state of affairs.
Holy fuck, someone finally gets it. The issue is no longer about the lack of efficacy in modern scientific research, but how the general population perceives "science" as concept.
With the death of organized religion in the West, people have turned to the scientific disciplines to base their beliefs on. It's gone from a means to describe and understand the physical world to that of describing everything, in an attempt to fill the void left over from religions falling out of favor. This has created an extremely dangerous precedent with the scientific disciplines, with the focus now on forming unshakeable dogmas, rather then what they're supposed to be doing, which is advancing our understanding of the physical world around us.
Mark my fucking words, the shift towards science as the supreme monolith of understanding and belief is going to have disastrous consequences that we're not going to fully understand for generations to come.
Any good scientist will revel in the idea of their ideas being criticised because that is what science is, hypothesis, testing, review, new hypothesis, and so on.Everything should be questioned and tested.
"Peer-review" should address this but the standards are so low you can honestly disregard it. The thing is nobody is forcing people with knowledge and experience in that field to weigh in on each new study that comes out. Sure, they're open to be peer reviewed but who has actually taken the time to review it? You'll never know.
>Hey Dr. schmoigel what do you think of my new study saying milk is poisonous to humans?
>Yeah looks good to me, herchel.
Herschel has now created an undisputable fact and you will be considered retarded for suggesting it may be flawed.
additionally, who actually knows what scientist (and what nation/institution/industry they are affiliated with) said the shit they read in a youtube comment and now base their world view on.
Try it. Tell someone scientists have found out that bees actually accumulate helium in their tissue which enables them to fly with such small wings. They'll more than likely believe you.
To be fair the whole Lancet hydrochloroquine debacle during covid shined a light on the shitshow called ‘modern research’
Even normies now understand how a single study doesn’t prove shit, if they have at least 3 digit IQs
>Any good scientist will revel in the idea of their ideas being criticised because that is what science is, hypothesis, testing, review, new hypothesis, and so on.Everything should be questioned and tested.
We've long since had a shortage of good scientists anon. The entire field has been infested with those who seek profit or the glorification of their own intelligence.
It's a sorry state of affairs, and it's only going to get worse.
Science requires trust. You can check methods for coherence, you can check analysis, you can redo the experiment, but ultimately some form of trust is required (e.g. that an experiment has in fact taken place, that measurements have been recorded truthfully etc...). When science was practiced by elites it was rarely necessary to lie, so it more or less worked even though egos got in the way. Currently however in 'academia' plebs try to make a living publishing anything whatsoever. Especially in sociology, psychology and adjacent fields agenda's are pushed left and right. If anything in 'publish or perish' there is a strong incentive to not be truthful. The communications can not be trusted, not be verified and are therefore very low on information.
This has little to do with efficacy of 'science' though. In commercial enterprise, say plant breeding or something, there is little point in lying to yourself about the efficacy of your own shit and so research works. Similarly in most kinds of practical development lying is not possible, or simply dumb since it will soon be discovered in the next round of experiments. The weapons industry is not suffering a replicability crisis.
>Science requires trust. You can check methods for coherence, you can check analysis, you can redo the experiment, but ultimately some form of trust is required
>This has little to do with efficacy of 'science' though.
bro what are you smoking? Efficacy is extremely important when undertaking scientific research in all the fields, in order to establish a baseline from which other research studies can test and replicate your work. In short, efficacy directly fosters and builds trust in your research, to show that you're not just pulling shit out the wind and claiming it to being true.
Allow me to give an example: Recently, I had to do a report on naphthalene (Mothballs), and one of the instructions was to look at the EPA risk report for the chemical. In that report, there was two papers cited in order to determine the Reference Dose (RfD) for naphthalene. Despite there being two independent papers cited in that report, the EPA couldn't assign an RfD for naphthalene, because the papers were, how do you say, very poorly written. One was soo bad that the EPA report outright states that it cannot confirm its findings, and that several of the key findings made in that paper couldn't be replicated anywhere else. It didn't conform to the standards of testing, it had a limited subject pool, and it even failed to examine the some of the organs of the test animals, for some reason.
For context, RfD is an extremely important measurement, since it measures the how toxic a chemical is to animals and humans. Naphthalene in particular is a very nasty chemical, as it can cause blindness, coma, and is a category C carcinogen. This is just one example of what I'm talking about with the efficacy problem in the modern era. When even the studies about a potential carcinogen are slapped together to the point where the EPA can't even give it an RfD, what other shit is going on in the other disciplines?
>Low IQ cope
It’s usually complete nerds that say stuff like this
All observations are impacted by the biases of the observer. Why should I trust the observations of people paid off by multi-billion dollar corporations over my own?
Because you SHOULDNT
See
Why is this so hard to understand? Be skeptical dont be daft and accept some alternative bullshit you saw online as fact.
I don't think science is fake. I disagree with his point that "your own observations mean jack shit since theyre impacted by your own personal biases". Every observation or suggestion you hear is going to be biased in some way, even if it's from a scientist, so it's stupid to blindly believe a scientist who says something that contradicts your own observations just because they are "impacted by your own personal biases".
You think there's just one organization?
you can verify the studies yourself, by the way. Just because you're too stupid to understand abstracts doesn't mean the studies are bias.
>You thing there's just one organization?
I said corporations, plural.
If you actually read the abstracts and methodology, you would know that every study is inherently biased in some way. You're supposed to read studies with a healthy amount of skepticism as others have said. Don't ignore your personal observations just because they are biased, like
said
Source of that pic?
the game 13 sentinels. half tactical rpg half visual novel. the tactical portion is incredible
I agree principally, but unfortunately you appear you be serial-injected, and I believe that following your intuition and instincts is more accurate for most people than believing what pop-sci tells them.
>I hate the rise of antisemitism!
Fuck I hate vampires so fucking much.
into the locker you go
I'm with you, anon. 420chan was way better than this shit but it's dead
Moxyte you always impress me with your sheer aptitude for gayry.
Villager elder and community medicine mogs retardo science
He looks incredibly gnomish and therefore I don't trust anything he says.
Weird. I'm an 8 to 10 eggs a day guy, aged 40, look 25, and my blood work paints me as 25 too.
Seems like the nose tribe is lying once again. Imagine mah shock.
it's been bought for decades my dude, look back in the 70s when they pushed for "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" nonsense and had the gall to say that consuming a glass of sugar water with the fiber removed and then flakes made out of corn or wheat covered in sugar was remotely healthy and something that everyone needed, especially kids. Later it's revealed it was scientists bought by kellogs so that they could push their shitty cereal made of corn, because no one was buying it before.
Most people aren't even hungry in the morning and there are studies hinting that waking up and immediately shoving sugar down your gullet might be a bad idea, who would have thought?
Do what makes you feel good, I feel good when I eat eggs and meat at midday, I feel like shit if I eat a bunch of carbs and drink fruit juice (even more carbs) first thing in the morning.
>aking up and immediately shoving sugar down your gullet might be a bad idea
why?
I always do this, breakfast plus caffeine is how my brain and body boots up. Doesn't necessarily have to be high sugar or carb, but it's often the case. I dunk down carbs for breakfast and then some before lifting, rest of the day is low-med carb and higher protein/fat.
I say stuff like that but look nothing like that. Cope.
you just replied to bait
Not my problem.
The quality of discussion on this board is everyone's problem. Do better.
Everytime
>*eats half a cartoon of eggs in one sitting*
Thank you Dr. Chud.
Thank you Dr. Chud
Thank you Dr. Chud.
some rogue physician is going to open a practice called Dr. Chud's and make bank
Thank you Dr. Chud
thank you, doctor chud
>Choline is le racist
ABOUT HARM OF CUCUMBERS
Cucumbers will ruin you! Each eaten cucumber approaches you to death. It is surprising, as thinking people till now have not distinguished lethality of this vegetative product and even resort to its name for comparison in positive sense («as small cucumber!»). And in spite of on anything, manufacture of tinned cucumbers grows. All main corporal illnesses are connected to cucumbers and all in general human misfortunes. Practically all people, suffering chronic diseases, ate cucumbers. Effect is cumulative obviously. 99,9 % of all people died of a cancer, at a life ate cucumbers. 100 % of all soldiers ate cucumbers. 99,7 % of all persons becoming victims of automobile and aviation accidents, ate cucumbers within two weeks previous to fatal accident. 93,1 % of all juvenile criminals occur from families where cucumbers consumed constantly.
There are data that harmful action of cucumbers affects very for a long time: among people born in 1899 and eating subsequently cucumbers, death rate is equal 100%. All persons of a birth of 1939-1949 have a flabby wrinkled skin, have lost almost all teeth, practically became blind (if the illnesses caused by consumption of cucumbers, have not sent them already to the grave). The result received by known collective of scientists — physicians is even more convincing: porpoises whom compulsorily fed on 20 pounds of cucumbers per day within a month, have lost any appetite!
Unique way to avoid harmful action of cucumbers — to change a diet. Eat, for example, soup from marsh orchids. From it as far as we know, still nobody died.
I hope this was pasta. I'd hate to think you spent time on this
I hate never knowing whats actually true, didn't we evolve as omnivores? Meat fags say Veg and grains kill you Veg fags say meat kills you, both sides always have "studies" to backup their claims.
The problem is if you try and aggregate ALL studies the data becomes too messy. There are only a few things which generally hold:
1) Overall, calorie restriction extends lifespan, calorie surplus reduces it
2) Exercise generally increases healthspan (lifespan is less obvious, but marginally it does)
3) Overly processed foods generally are worse than whole foods
Outside of that, there are far too many confounding variables to make clear statements
>didn't we evolve as omnivores?
the thing is, human beings are literally made to adapt and survive. people argue that humans can't live only eating bread and potates, or that humans can't live only eating meat, but people in the past have done both and survived.
which is optimal? which is better?
the best thing you can do is to set up general guidelines you can follow.
>no overprocessed foods (soda, oreos, doritos, deepfried shit, fast food...)
>avoid canned stuff and other stuff that never goes bad
>prioritize food you have to prepare yourself (except for fruit obviously)
Aside from that, what you can do is trial and error, eating different fruits, meats, carbohydrate sources. remove what makes you feel like shit, keep what makes you feel good.
What I did was I started out with a very simple vertical diet: white rice as my only carb source and read meat as my only protein and fat source. I felt good eating just that, then started adding different foods like legumes and vegetables, dairy, that way I could get a good feedback of how I felt eating different things.
also, I agree with this
.
>people in the past have done both and survived.
You will literally deteriorate and die eating only plants and plant-based foods. Vegans don't die today because of the invention of artificial lab-made supplements in the 20th century. Before this, you could not be vegan. It was literally impossible due to the deterioration and death. This is factually true and not debatable.
Don't look at the "studies" so much. Diet research is abhorrent and very limited. The best way is to figure out a proper diet is to learn about our biology and our history. Brush up on genetics/evolution and animal biology for good measure. Use some basic logic. Then the truth is clear.
But I can save you time. We've been scavenging and hunting since before we were humans. Step outside and imagine you have to feed yourself based solely on historically and naturally available resources for the entire year. Good luck "gathering" enough carbs. High carb diets are inherently a creation of civilization. We evolved eating meat. It is an inherent and large part of our natural diet. Carbs are seasonal and sparse. Agriculture begins, and our health immediately declines. The benefit of carbs is that they can feed more humans who are stuck in one place and it keeps them alive long enough to breed and specialize labor for the land owners. It justifies govt power, slavery, and keeps the population more dependent, weak, and detached from their natural state. People suffering from illness are much more likely to abscond power to those feeding false promises and selling false cures to centralize wealth and power further.
Nice post. I would like to point out that, in some areas, humans have always had infinite access to carbs from fruit and honey (rainforests in South America, Saharan Africa, probably other places), but I think pretty much everything else about your post is correct.
This. I don't deny that we as a species were forced to be hunter/ gatherers for much of our early days but practically ZERO civilizations thrived as hunter gatherers for long. THeir lives were simple put, brutal, short and full of hardship and unspeakable suffering.
Being able to domesticate farm animals and produce grains intensively is what allowed civilizations to thrive. Sure grains can be bad for you, but the whole seed oil meme is wildly overstated.
Any nutritionist saying we need to "revert" back to wild sourced food is actually a cynical anarchist. It would lead to collapse of civilization and mass extinction of all wild caught game and food.
Ignore them with extreme contempt.
What if we just paid somebody to hunt and gather them for us so everyone else can get on with other things necessary to maintain a civilisation?
But since that would be a lot of work, how about they keep the creatures and crops contained within a defined enclosed area making it easy to harvest them? They could even tend and breed them to maximise their harvest and prevent loss or destruction of the food. This way we could have a hunter-gatherer society without the burdens of hunting and gathering.
This makes sense, but you are missing the other point. It is not possible for the "wild" to produce enough animals to feed a world population of 8 billlion+ people. Its just not.
Yes, a wild caught Salmon has slightly better nutrional profiles than farmed salmon, but again the entire salmon population would go extinct in a year if we eliminated farmed salmon.
Just look at what we did to the beaver and buffalo populatoins of NA. There were reportedly more beavers here than people on planet earth (some cartographers in northern Canada surveyed beaver dams 200+ miles across (!). Some asshole figured out beaver pelts make the best hats and bam, near total extinction of the beaver population.
I believe the true path forward is to provide better food to the farmed protein to get their nutritional profile to more closely match wild animals. Or we get used to eating more available but less desireable wild protein that is near impossible to make extinct (not bugs).
The poor South Africans eat a lot of Pilchards (type of sardine), and a lot of the richer South Africans mock them. But most credible nutritionists show that pilchards are one of the best superfoods on planet earth and the oceans have a near inexhaustible supply of them.
IST is once again leading the world on proper nutrition.
t. doctor
I didn't miss the point it's just so obvious it's not even worth pretending or joking that there would be people retarded enough not to see it. Surely nobody actually argues against this.
I suspect you may have missed the joke where I'm obviously just talking about farming and agriculture without saying the words farming or agriculture.
>It is not possible for the "wild" to produce enough animals to feed a world population of 8 billlion+ people
Yeah it is. And you just said there are an infinite amount of fish in the ocean. Your post doesn't make any sense. Also lol'ing hard at you responding "that makes sense" to anon's joke post.
>Sure grains can be bad for you, but the whole seed oil meme is wildly overstated.
processing seeds at an industrial scale into oil full of PUFAs is what people have a problem with, not the little bit of seed oil you'll ingest from eating pumpkin seeds or whatever.
>THeir lives were simple put, brutal, short and full of hardship and unspeakable suffering.
lol wtf is this idiot talking about? The hunter-gatherers alive in Africa today are tall, healthy and strong with fulfilling lives and there are plenty of old people in their tribes. They have pretty much infinite access to meat and honey and are doing amazing.
>but they have to hunt food and it's so le hard to hunt food and they can die
Well the African hunter-gatherers seem to really enjoy it and are thriving.
>you shouldn't do things that, if everyone else did, would make society collapse
Weirdest fucking take I've ever heard. Guess I'll stop buying from my local farms then because, if everyone else did that, the farms would run out of supply and go under. What a fucking idiot.
Just look at their bodies
>Breathing associated with premature death
Fuck bros I'm trying nobreath this month
kek I still remember when I saw this useless fact posted and thinking yeah fuck I give up.
Yeah thanks, I know you're right but my anxiety bullshit always makes me click on these "warning" threads and left feeling frustrated by all the constant contradictions about something so important. I wonder if in another century nutritional science will actually have everything completely worked out due to a better understanding of genetics and cancer risks or will it be the same arguments and claims.
>listening to the malnourished vegan goblin
Today I will remind them
Fuck, you don't even know the half of it.
Coming from a chemistry and biology background, the "academic" industry is wildly corrupt, almost to the point of it being none functional. It's all goes back to the issue of funding for research and certain groups backing some profs over others.
>watch vegan channels
good arguments with sources
>watch keto channels
good arguments with sources too
This shit makes me want to reject science and become an ISTschizo
the common factor between the two is the rejection of goyslop
I usually filter by looking at vegans and their supplemental needs and then looking at carnivores and their supplements
Invariably vegans will twist themselves in knots trying to tell you why the micronutrient vegan diets lack isnt that important, but if it is you can still get it naturally and if you dont you can simply supplement it
Besides vegans look like shit and none of their diets are realistic, if they were they would be eating turnips and potatoes from November to March
Science isn’t dead. But anyone can publish anything and then have their marketing team publish shit like “studies say”. Im sure theres a tongkat or other placebo shill thread up on this very board. I really think the first amendment needs rewritten man fake news in this country is getting out of control
I had to write a well referenced essay evaluating a common nutritional myth as part of a biology degree. I chose eggs leading to cholesterol problems. The consensus is clear in abundance: Eating eggs improves the cholesterol in the blood. Those that were made to eat more eggs had healthier blood by the end of several studies on it. Eat eggs.
Don't know where this guy gets his information but I found nothing that actually implicated eggs as harmful in terms of cholesterol, they were consistently the opposite, so unless some new breakthough has happened recently that blows out about 30 previous studies, this guy might just be vegan. Shill any morsel of 'science' that supports you, delete the rest from memory immediately to protect that precious world view.
Science isn’t broken. The study in question is a weak correlation study. You are retarded.
To be fair he put sciene in quotation marks
Science is officially broken when +50% of all published studies are junk
Science is in fact pretty shaky at present. This was spelled out plainly when I started my masters degree.
There is a crisis where raw data, which is what was actually recorded before doing their statistical analysis to put it in those neat little charts, is consistently lost. Something like 70% of raw data is lost for good and it is now being found that the majority of these historical studies that had since been referenced and used to support other papers cannot be recreated when tried.
Additionally, funding is a huge factor. If you run an egg alternative slop factory it's very easy to buy a few people with a degree to write you up a study that found a few concerns about eggs that aren't an issue with your product. As a joke whenever asked weight in on a scientific discussion, I always say "which one of you is paying me to be here?".
I've actually faked results myself. You aren't being watched while you're working unless another team member happens to be standing there. I had an experiment that just wouldn't work, couldn't get this stimulus to have any effect despite my preliminary research suggesting it should, I was already pretty much out of time since I'd based the whole project on it so I just wrote some results down. Nothing significant, after statistics it would just come out as "no significant correlation", but you take my point. Maybe if i'd done some things differently there should have been a significant effect. It is technically published as an official scientific document but nobody will ever read it unless they go to that university and take the physical file out of the library. See what I mean though?
This is very true.
Another thing is they run so many studies, the p-values actually aren't very impressive.
To simplify, suppose you run an epidemiological study and messure 100 variables which *should* have no real effect. At p=0.05, random chance means on average 5 will show an effect. Okay well that's one study so ignore it... right? No, because now 1000s of teams around the world will try to replicate it, and if they can't, maybe they don't publish. so a few teams again by random chance or bias produce similar results, then they form a meta analysis and claim that makes it a strong result.
Even without actively fudging data, omission of data, or not posting null data, is a big problem. Nobody is interested in the study which says "we measured 100 things and nothing is that important".
It actually is, because these shit studies would never have been peer reviewed 30 years ago.
>You are retarded.
It's exactly this reason for why people like Greger and other grifters are so prevalent. A guy in a nice shirt or suit goes on video and cites a study or two that corroborates what he's saying and every idiot is impressed by it. Easy money and followers.
Science is incredibly complex and not meant to be understood by laymen but these fuckheads distill it down to the laymen regardless but do it to their advantage.
You can look up literally anything and find opposite "scientific studies"
The truth is everything can be skewed to serve the purpose of the people funding the study.
Your better off just doing what you feel is right
>The truth is everything can be skewed to serve the purpose of the people funding the study.
It is more often than not visible in the study's methodology tho.
Vegans really seethe about eggs. You can tell they want to eat it more than any other animal product.
From a nutritional standpoint it BTFOs any plant-based food and it tastes fucking delicious, and doesn't even involve the slaughter of any animal. You know they're seething.
>and doesn't even involve the slaughter of any animal.
Fascinating analysis anon. I never thought about it like that.
Retard
Greger was raised in a small Arizona town, "the only gnomish family within 30 miles." His parents were New York natives; his mother taught Biblical Hebrew at the community college.
why are they like this
>tp
>td (digits)
CHECKED, also EVERY.SINGLE.TIME
"Science" has been completely disconnected from reality for years.
At this point you are better off doing the opposite of what any "science" report recommends.
Of course you should still have common sense too, if "science" recommends eating daily you should not decided to starve instead.
But retarded bullshit like this is obviously just nonsense.
Brainless retard
ironic post
have a nice day
>don't use common sense
>base all decisions on the words of a clearly compromised institution
or you're a brainless retard? lmao I truly wish you the best of luck.
>you dare question the science? have a nice day now defective goy!
I say this and look like what you probably think i do
you forgot to say no schlomo bro
That guy is a vegan so everything he ever says will be confirmation bias in favor of veganism. Same reason I can't take any meme diets seriously. Applying a brand to yourself over how to eat just makes you mentally ill.
Vegan garden gnome Fags want everyone to be weak pussies like they are. One look at this pencil necked turd and you can disregard anything that comes out of his cock holster.
It's called the replication crisis (ironically).
Nobody wants to fund studies that confirm other studies' results. PI's do studies that will garner attention so they can sell their next book and get more funding.
If only there were a way to do actual science without funding...
Has been for a few years now.
>Davidson, S. (2004, Jan 29). MIT to hold forum on mad cow disease; local physician to give keynote address. gnomish Advocate. Retrieved from Proquest. Quote: "Consumers concerned about mad cow disease and other issues about safeguarding the food supply may want to attend the Jan. 29 lecture at MIT by Michael Greger, M.D., entitled "Mad Cow Disease: Plague of the 21st Century?" ... Greger was raised in a small Arizona town, "the only gnomish family within 30 miles." His parents were New York natives; his mother taught Biblical Hebrew at the community college. Following his parents' divorce, he moved with his mother and brother to Binghamton, N.Y., where she taught Hebrew school at the orthodox Beth Israel synagogue."
>My rural side of family have been consuming eggs for literally generations
>The overwhelming majority of them, down to my great grand uncle had an average lifespan of 90+ or more
>Some vegan shill always tries to make it seem like animal-based products the reason why people are fat and dying, not the fake carb or man-made "seed" oils that humans have only recently consumed.
How the hell did our ancient ancestors survive when their only primary source of food was animals until the agricultural revolution? Seriously, we have historical accounts, reports and genetic testing that showed ancient humans primary diet were fish, eggs and meat, and they didn't die from heart attacks, had obesity, or any other modern health related problem we have now. Yet, people expect me to believe that the stuff we ate from almost our entire history is killing us only now?
Eggs improve your blood cholesterol but the problem with meat and sometimes eggs is how what happens to it between being alive and healthy and being on your plate. Artificial additives and shit-tier cooking oils and whatnot are to blame, which interestingly vegan food is even worse for, at least a real sausage roll has some traces of actual nutritious meat among all the bullshit, a vegan sausage roll is entirely plastic, cardboard and chemicals that fuck with your hormones in weird unprecedented ways.
I know a lot of vegans and now they're reaching their 30s, they're all fat as fuck. Although vegetarian/vegan has a sort of healthy sound to it because it implies vegetables, they actually just eat fake sausage rolls, fake burgers, fake chocolate, fake pizza, fake hallumi cheese etc. They're a right bunch of wobbly gets these days. Not that I don't know fat meat eaters but they at least have some bulk to go with their flab because their shit food has one or two actual nutrients mixed into it somewhere. Also vegans have to take tablets to not die which should really set alarm bells ringing if you're supposed to be a healthy 20 odd year old.
>eats chips and sandwiches all day
wtf no meat is unhealtyh and unethicl
It's interesting because the ringleader who converted them all gradually to veganism keeps buying these fucked up little dogs that can't breathe properly and have their eyes looking in opposite directions so they clearly don't have problems with supporting animal suffering. There's seriously about 6 of the noisy little shits now
Science has not existed in close to 100 years chief. What we have now is a religion called scientism which is the result of following unproven theories as "laws" for decadez and it functions a pitcher plant trap for midwits to lose their souls to.
Today I will remind them.
I just want to give thanks and appreciation to the anons with brains in their heads who take time out of their day to deliver reasonable and often funny posts that utterly BTFO weaselly shills and bullshitters. There are still plenty of people worth sharing this planet with out there and the seethe and spiteful thrashing of the ousted venomous beasts is a sure sign that God hasn't abandoned this world just yet.
Dr. Greger once claimed that "eating one egg is as harmful to the body as smoking 1000 cigarettes", because he's mentally retarded and takes unrelated effects and makes shit up to scare people into eating faggy vegan shit.
Never, EVER listen to vegan "scientists", they have never been truthful with anyone.
t. former 10 year vegan
My favorite true story about eggs.
I live in LA and a bunch of "grown-ups" were protesting the local school board giving up the free freebreakfast scam. I.e; expecting these parents with new iphones to actually feed their own kids.
All these Hispanic-morons were complaining about not having enough money to feed them properly.
Some nutrionist from UCLA with like 20+ years of actual proven real world research pointed out scientifically that feeding a kid a hard boiled egg and half of a apple each breakfast would make them all thrive from grades 1-8. Costs something like $0.30 / day or some stupidly affordable shit.
Of course she was reprimanded for upsetting the Hispanic-moron victim concensus. Fuck I can't find the story for the life of me.
Eggs are GREAT nutrition; one of the best sources of protein, collagen and oil you can find.
It's simple. Don't have as little as half an egg. Seriously, if you cook an egg and then only eat half you've most likely got life shortening retardation anyway so you've got bigger things to worry about. I never do less than two at a time unless it's a fried egg with a big meal.
>if you cook an egg and then only eat half you've most likely got life shortening retardation anyway
Nope science is right
Doesn't mean some random tard on Twitter interpretted the results correctly
Ketoschizo thread, didnt realize it until the dude mentioned his reddit nemesis twice. Pathetic.
Does ketoschizo practice keto or is he the guy who schizophrenically calls everyone "ketolards," even in threads about fruit and stuff?
Not sure but he used to spam /fat/ endlessly and one of his giveaways was hed rant constantly about some vegan redditor called "Moxyte" and blame all posts disagreeing with him on the redditor.
The person youre talking about is someone else who may or may not be Moxyte or ketoschizo falseflagging but who knows. Or it could just be multiple people.
Modern science is an illusion, a fakery to push an agenda, especially nutrition science. If your thoughts allow for these intrusions to interrupt your eating habits, you're better off not thinking and eating whatever. Vegetarian diets are correlated with trans-positivity and submissive behavior.
I've been doing carnivore, intermittent fasting, and semen retention for the past 3 months and have never felt better in my entire life. If I got all of my information from mainstream doctors instead of blacklisted researchers trapped into doing influencer work on internet media websites, I'd be like you. What an awful thing that would be. Never trust a scientific journal that would publish this garbage, as they're guaranteed to be poorly peer reviewed and allow for the worst types of epidemiological "studies" to surface.
Modern science is ruined because it pays better to get goverment bucks for your dogshit n=1 study than to properly prepare the process and actually do the science. It's essentially the hedonistic treadmill meets the scientists.
>blacklisted researchers
If they were blacklisted they wouldn't be promoted by the YouTube algorithm and have millions of subscribers...
You're also a victim of modern nutrition science.
>2023
>people still fall for clickbait that's designed to generate outrage to be spread around the internet
Massive genetic bottle neck resulting in decades of inbreeding, it's no shit so bad that there is a list of genetic disorders only found in Ashkenazi garden gnomes because of this ,to combat this gnomish dating sites have features in them to insure your not boinking your cousin
I just imagine myself in the woods. Or how we'd all be living years ago. Do I, a human, have access to countless plants at any given time? Can my body even make use of the nutrients without getting sick? Can my teeth withstand the sheer amount of sugar in fruit? How am I getting enough calories a day to maintain muscle, fight other humans and animals, and build fortifications?
I don't understand where vegans are coming from. Are they basing their ideology off morality? Because even though that's retarded, it makes more sense than what's "natural" and what isn't.
>I don't understand where vegans are coming from
Humans don't NEED animal sources for food today. So why should we consume them? It's that simple.
Do you at least accept you'd be better off if you did have them? And you just choose to avoid it anyway for moral reasons?
>Do you at least accept you'd be better off if you did have them?
how?
>supplementing is not the same as getting nutrition from food
Prove it
the burden is on you to prove why such an extraordinary claim would be true
>the burden is on you to prove why such an extraordinary claim would be true
No it isn't
>Why shouldn't I eat animals?
Go ahead, I don't care. Anon asked a completely different question.
>animal protein is higher quality than plant protein
Not relevant.
Why not? It's an example of animal based nutrition being superior to plants?
ok just checking.
>how?
animal protein is higher quality than plant protein
>Prove it
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-2478
>Adequate intake (at or above the Estimated Average Requirement or the Adequate Intake level) of vitamin A, vitamin K, magnesium, zinc, and copper was associated with reduced all-cause or CVD mortality, but the associations were restricted to nutrient intake from foods.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109718345601?via%3Dihub
>Their systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed generally moderate- or low-quality evidence for preventive benefits (folic acid for total cardiovascular disease,folic acidand B-vitamins for stroke), no effect (multivitamins,vitamins C, D, β-carotene, calcium,and selenium), or increased risk (antioxidant mixtures andniacin[with a statin] for all-cause mortality).
>Conclusive evidence for the benefit of any supplement across all dietary backgrounds (including deficiency and sufficiency) was not demonstrated; therefore, any benefits seen must be balanced against possible risks.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2014.912199
>The majority of scientific studies investigating the use of MVM supplements in chronic disease risk reduction reported no significant effect.
Your turn to prove the outlandish and impossible-to-prove claim that "supplementing is the exact same as getting nutrition as food". Best of luck.
>Humans don't NEED animal sources for food
yes we do. supplementing is not the same as getting nutrition from food
I can eat sugar and drink soda every day yet so long as I stay under 2000 calories as a 6ft male, I won't gain weight. Even without exercise. That's still an unhealthy way to eat.
Why shouldn't I eat animals? How are you even going to enforce your doctrine without soldiers/government officials who also have to eat meat and I be strong enough to fight a small army of rebels? Even with guns you still need to be in shape. By that logic alone you're a hypocrite
humans don't NEED vegetables either
so what?
>Humans don't NEED
You also don't NEED sunlight or exercise since drugs exist that alter your brain function. So is your "simple" point that we should all live in a pod with IV nutrition...? What would even be the point of living?
>Can my teeth withstand the sheer amount of sugar in fruit?
Vegans are retarded but this was a retarded thing to say. Fruit don't decay your teeth. If you think they do, please provide a single source of evidence that fruit decay your teeth. I will allow anecdotal life experience if you've truly experienced apples rotting your teeth (lmao).
How the fuck are there STILL ~~*articles*~~ about eggs increasing the risk of dying from heart disease?
Hasn't this been debunked by now? There's no fucking way that's true.
>ugly garden gnome who avoids protein and does light walks for exercise is skinnyfat
>therefore, eggs are good
Why is everyone on this planet so fucking retarded?
eggs are good
Eggs are the perfect food until you drop dead from heart disease and bowel cancer.
ive heard the heart disease nonsense but bowel cancer. thats a new one. which "science" told you that one
There are thousands of studies providing a causal link between cholesterol consumption, both of these diseases, and a plethora of others as well.
lol no theres not. all confounded associations. not one bradford hill criteria satisfied
I've been eating over ten everyday for 2 years. Cope.
>There are thousands of studies providing a causal link
lol no there aren't, you psychopath.
I'VE EATEN FIFTEEN EGGS TODAY WHY CAN'T I JUST FUCKING DIE
AM I IMMORTAL? RELEASE ME
if you really want to die you should be drinking 15 cola and smoking 15 cigarettes a day. if anything the eggs are protective
lol
BTFO
factual yet retarded statement, many such cases. He knows associated means correlated, but most people dont even fucking know what correlation means even if they're a native English speaker.