*is the best diet*

*is the best diet*

Ape Out, Gorilla Mindset Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Ape Out, Gorilla Mindset Shirt $21.68

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      its not even keto

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Anything that isn't plant-based is keto according to vegans. Keto is the devil in vegan religion.

        Moxyte has a tantrum when people talk about seed oils, too.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          ketogays like communists now.

          >it's not real keto
          >real keto has never been tried!

          https://i.imgur.com/tMbQZxl.png

          [...]
          why are you samegayging?

          https://i.imgur.com/MPSlZGQ.png

          [...]
          go eat your stick of butter dumbass

          what the frick is going on with this board lmao, it isn't keto it's paleo. you're eating carbs in paleo.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just explained to you what is going on.

            A vegan (moxyte) is chimping out because you mentioned a diet that isn't plant-based.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              man that guy sounds like a fricking gay, totally fricked up my paleo thread, frick him

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                He's obnoxious but his posts are so repetitive it is easy to mentally filter him.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            picrel sums it best, out of all meme diets, paleo is probably the best, i used to eat a low-ish fat paleo and had great results but i started craving dairies so i had to cut it short

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Yep. Diet has mostly been a solved problem for a long time now, that's just not profitable to sell.
              Paleo is about as close as the fads have come, and definitely palatable in terms of advice.

              But for the massive "diet industry" to continue, they need to keep pushing new fads and keep people from falling into something that works. It's like planned obsolescence - they need a diet that'll make people adjust their eating enough to break bad habits, but still one that they can gain crazy amounts of weight on so they'll need the next fad diet.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Diet has mostly been a solved problem for a long time now
                and the solution is?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Eat a variety of foods to ensure a wide range of balanced micronutrition. Whole grains like rice and quinoa, fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, eggs, milk, and minimally processed yoghurts. With occasional fish, poultry, and other meats, or more if you're trying to build muscle.
                The less micronutrition per calorie, the more you need to limit your intake.
                At least 10% of calories from each macro, and 33/33/33 at rest. Add carbs for endurance sports or protein for resistance training.
                Stay away from sugar and processed carbs, particularly bread and factory food. Avoid added salt when you can, and don't rely too heavily on foods with a high cholesterol content.

                That's about it. That's all you really need.

                But you can't sell that. It's not flashy or catchy or meme'd like Vegan or Carnivore or Paleo or whatever stupid bullshit Frugivore diet is coming next.

                So people start getting into the weeds.
                Finding studies that can be twisted to support whatever fricking fad they're chasing.
                And since there's so much goddamn study of food, of course they'll find things they can misrepresent, or poorly-done studies that they can wave around.
                So then the population just gets confused, and where does that leave them?
                In need of diet plans. Like the current fad diet. How convenient.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >whole grains
                sometimes refined is better, rice being the example
                >Stay away from sugar
                shitty fad
                >Avoid added salt when you can
                another moronic fad, this shit does more harm than good
                >don't rely too heavily on foods with a high cholesterol content
                imagine not eating shellfish despite the god tier protein to calorie ratio and other useful trace minerals like iodine, zinc, and selenium

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Carnivore.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Carnivore is a marketing scheme to sell supplements and high end butcher products. The fictional premise is that it's based on what actual palaeolithic humans ate and that said humans were in perfect health. If you wanted to follow an actual palaeolithic diet, you would eat more small game, rodents, frogs, roots, grubs, etc. not just modern raised and bred cattle.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, and a shitload more seafood including crustaceans and shellfish. There's a reason human migration spread along coasts and cities.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Coasts and rivers*
                >t. phoneposter

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sure, bud.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                What's your point? You don't think competing interests can both shill their separate memes? Stop being a moron that believes everything is a dichotomy.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It reminds me of people calling anyone skeptical of the mRNA pseudovaccines
                >grifter
                As if money motivated people would go against a hugely profitable narrative.

                Shills shill for big pharma, big agriculture, etc. Nobody "shills" a counterculture point of view which can get them censored and banned on all corporate tech platforms.

                There's no profit in selling beef and eggs. Even cattle ranchers don't make much from it. And the meat packing companies all want to sell plant-based protein instead but they haven't figured out how to trick their customers into buying that slop yet.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not going to call you a moron because you just seen painfully naive and I feel bad for you, but of course people will shill a counterculture point of view, or any view where there's a market for it. That's how capitalism works. People have made entire careers doing just that. Not everything has to be a huge industry backed conspiracy.

                Any random person can get a youtube channel and start shilling a meme like carnivore with affiliate links and sponsorships with a few companies like butcherbox or whatever. Once they get a bit more successful they can do a deal with a supplement manufacturer to produce a line of "primal" supplements or whatever. This isn't even hypothetical, there's dozens of shills doing exactly this. Obvious recent one being liverking, and as well as being a roider, which we all knew, it turned out he was downing hundreds of grams of carb shakes a day because he doesn't actually believe in any of the crap he was spouting.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >affiliate links and sponsorships with a few companies like butcherbox or whatever
                LOL. LMAO, even.

                Your attempt to prove people would "shill" carnivore just proves there's absolutely no way to make profit from it.

                People who want to shill products advocate for a plant-based diet. That's where all the money is.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                People shill both, you dumbass. That's how markets work. You're embarrassingly naive. You think all the carnivore promoters are doing it for free? Liver king wasn't financially motivated and was selling his supplement line at cost? You're willfully deluding yourself.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                supplements are only necessary if you eat a plant based diet

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I know that, see:

                Of course you can, but that has nothing to do with my point. That's how marketing works. A shill can go on about how liver is a super food for instance (which I totally agree with) and knowing a good section of their weak willed followers won't be able to stomach eating it can go >btw guys here's my dessicated liver supp because I know some of you have trouble eating raw liver

                Vegan shills do the exact same thing but swap out the product for greens "superfood" powder.

                You know what genuinely no-one is shilling? A non-extreme varied diet of traditional whole foods. Because that's boring and difficult to sell things with.

                >People shill both, you dumbass. That's how markets work.
                People shill profitable narratives.

                Pharmaceuticals are profitable. Telling people they don't need pharmaceuticals is not profitable.

                Plant-based products are profitable. Animal-based products are not.

                Causing and treating disease is profitable. Curing disease is not profitable.

                When someone is promoting a counterculture point of view (e.g. carnivore) that gets them shadowbanned and censored on big tech platforms, you can be sure they actually believe in it.

                Plenty of carnivore shills on various platforms. There's no mass banning going on.

                They found a niche and made decent money, but it is pretty disingenuous to compare them with the like of Monsanto.

                I'm not though. The other anon brought up big grain as some sort of evidence that other types of shills don't exist. That was never my comparison.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Carnivore advocates get banned and censored constantly. Shawn Baker had a million view tiktok video deleted where he simply said that carnivore diets don't have to be expensive.

                If someone is profit motivated going against big tech, big pharma, and big agriculture is the dumbest thing you could possibly do.

                I'm talking about a diet of meats, seafood, dairy, vegetables/fruits, and starches in accordance with activity and energy demands. i.e. the way people ate prior to the industrial revolution. If you think that's "extreme" or "grain shilling" then you're bordering on being mentally ill.

                So basically the current government recommendations, right? You think the current government recommendations aren't profit motivated shilling done on behalf of globalist corporations?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So basically the current government recommendations, right?
                No. But your interpretation of what I just said is warped to the point where any suggestion of incorporating some non-animal based food groups into your furry is the same as government propoganda. The first three items I listed were all animal based and would make up the bulk of your caloric intake.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I eat pickles. Pickles are plant-based.

                You're fighting against a strawman.

                To suggest that carnivore diet advocates are shills is a complete inversion of reality. Anyone interested first and foremost in making money will advocate a plant-based diet. Guaranteed. That's where all the money is.

                Trying to monetize good advice is not the same thing as giving advice for the purpose of monetization. If you want money, you advocate plant-based. If you want to help people, you advocate something like carnivore and then try to figure out how to monetize it after the fact.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Pickles aren't carnivore so you're re-enforcing my point that the carnivores diet is needlessly restrictive.
                >Anyone interested first and foremost in making money will advocate a plant-based diet. Guaranteed. That's where all the money is.
                You are clearly not business minded. Everywhere there is a demand, no matter how niche there will be entrepreneurial supply. You might as well say why sell bicycles when all the money is in cars, and you're also failing to understand how market saturation works and why it's easier for a newcomer to break into an emerging market or niche like carnivore rather than a saturated and longer standing one.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not needlessly restrictive for people who have diseases like Crohn's or autoimmune diseases triggered by vegetables.

                Carnivore diet is a baseline cure to all modern disease. From there you can determine what plant based foods work for you. Or you can just avoid plants forever. There's no need for plants.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is carnivore-light to make it sound less extreme and pointless. There's no reason to follow a diet as restrictive as carnivore and no benefit over simply not eating processed industrial foods.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Many people cannot tolerate fiber, or gluten, or nightshades, or carbs, etc. There are very good reasons why some follow carnivore.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                So what? A food intolerance isn't a reason to eliminate every type of food other than meat from your diet. You're clutching at straws and slowly redefining carnivore to simply be a short term elimination diet until you find out what your specific trigger food is.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Bruh, I eat carnivore because I like it and I feel good on it. I don't need or miss vegetables and grains, so why should I eat them even if some don't harm me? What else am I needlessly restricting? I do like fried onions though, but the last time ate them with my meat, I had gas for a couple of days.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                You can do whatever you want, I don't care what you eat. That doesn't make your argument correct though.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It is not needlessly restrictive if the alternative are unhealthy foods, or foods that are not required for health. Why the frick would anyone eat vegetables unless they thought it was good for them? So tell me what healthy food am I needlessly restricting on carniovre?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Excluding every food that isn't absolutely required for survival, even perfectly benign ones is "needlessly restrictive" in any sane person's view, anon.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The only foods that may be benign are some vegetables and low-calorie fruits. The diet is restrictive, but not needlessly so.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is simply incorrect but even if it was then restricting those foods would still be needlessly restrictive, as you just admitted they can be perfectly benign.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                You tell me a food I am needlessly restricting, and I'll explain to you why it isn't needless. In the case of vegetables and low-calorie fruits, I can't be bothered testing for benign ones, and they are a needless expense.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah once you learn about nutrition, eating plants is a huge waste of money. Why would I buy celery when I can buy eggs or beef?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Look at the thread title. Your argument is akin to saying a Toyota Corolla is the *best* car, because you don't *need* anything offered by other vehicles.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, it is the best because it provides me with all the nutrition I require without any ill effects.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                That doesn't make it the best though, obviously. It makes it acceptable. The same way a corolla is an acceptable vehicle, but not the best. The best vehicle will be one more specifically suited to your needs, like a pickup if you live somewhere rural and haul stuff, or a small hatchback if you live in a city and only have a short commute. Similarly there's no *best* diet.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                That literally is the best diet. More nutrition than I require has the potential to do harm as is the case with all the livertards with fricked up iron levels and female levels of testosterone.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                So eating a raspberry in addition to your current diet would suddenly make it no longer the best? That's what your claim would suggest if your current diet is already the best.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, a raspberry would do more, though minor, harm than good unless I was starving I suppose.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Tell me what harm a raspberry would do.

                so therefore we should give up and eat heavily processed hyperpalatable slop instead. ok

                Another feeble strawman I see.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sugar, salicylates, and fiber would harm me.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, they wouldn't.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, they would.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >There's no reason to follow a diet as restrictive as carnivore
                Carnivore cures all modern disease.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Shut the frick up well poisoning shill homosexual

                T. 3 year carnivore

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                What's wrong with Gov.Plate thing? Seems pretty balance and easy to understand for fattie nation. You don't like eating veggies, homie?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's plant-based.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The point is they're bad sources of information and can't be trusted
                Shawn Baker isn't selling me anything.
                >It isn't
                I doubt you have tried it, or needed to, but there are many people who benefit from eliminating plant food from the diet for various reasons.

                >shawn faker
                >not selling anything
                lol lmao kek even

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Lol imagine thing anything is wrong with that image or that your typical fat diabetic hamplanet eats anything like that

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >eat protein foods

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                They found a niche and made decent money, but it is pretty disingenuous to compare them with the like of Monsanto.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >People shill both, you dumbass. That's how markets work.
                People shill profitable narratives.

                Pharmaceuticals are profitable. Telling people they don't need pharmaceuticals is not profitable.

                Plant-based products are profitable. Animal-based products are not.

                Causing and treating disease is profitable. Curing disease is not profitable.

                When someone is promoting a counterculture point of view (e.g. carnivore) that gets them shadowbanned and censored on big tech platforms, you can be sure they actually believe in it.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, meat is not as profitable, or scalable and can't be as monopolized, unlike grains and sugar.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >counterculture point of view
                >keto
                lmao are you still living in the 90s? Keto has been mainstream for 20 years now. Just google low fat diets, you'll get all kinds of low carb and keto diets instead.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Carnivore is a marketing scheme to sell supplements and high end butcher products
                You can do well on mostly store-bought ground beef and no supplements are required.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Of course you can, but that has nothing to do with my point. That's how marketing works. A shill can go on about how liver is a super food for instance (which I totally agree with) and knowing a good section of their weak willed followers won't be able to stomach eating it can go >btw guys here's my dessicated liver supp because I know some of you have trouble eating raw liver

                Vegan shills do the exact same thing but swap out the product for greens "superfood" powder.

                You know what genuinely no-one is shilling? A non-extreme varied diet of traditional whole foods. Because that's boring and difficult to sell things with.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >A non-extreme varied diet of traditional whole foods.
                Grain shills promote the idea that their diet is "balanced" and "non-extreme" and "traditional" all the time. You fell for the shilling.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                now do vegetable oils vs animal fats over that same time period

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm talking about a diet of meats, seafood, dairy, vegetables/fruits, and starches in accordance with activity and energy demands. i.e. the way people ate prior to the industrial revolution. If you think that's "extreme" or "grain shilling" then you're bordering on being mentally ill.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                So what if people are exploiting new trends for financial gain? Carnivore is legit and if you have any sense you don't fall for the bullshit.

                Regardless, only one of those diets is being pushed by the WEF and the corporate/governmental/org elites, and it isn't meat.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >So what if people are exploiting new trends for financial gain?
                The point is they're bad sources of information and can't be trusted
                >Carnivore is legit
                It isn't
                >if you have any sense you don't fall for the bullshit
                It's all bullshit though and you did fall for it
                >Regardless, only one of those diets is being pushed by the WEF and the corporate/governmental/org elites, and it isn't meat.
                Indeed and this is the main reason for the popularity of carnivore diets. Not because it's actually ideal but because people enjoy the feeling of going up against globohomosexual and being contrarian. Unfortunately many people fall at the first hurdle and just replace globohomosexual for a low level shill to listen to rather than think independently.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The point is they're bad sources of information and can't be trusted
                Shawn Baker isn't selling me anything.
                >It isn't
                I doubt you have tried it, or needed to, but there are many people who benefit from eliminating plant food from the diet for various reasons.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              That picture sums it up quite nicely. Pretty much how I've been eating and feeling good.
              Also makes sense to my simple mind as to how you would eat if you were Grug 100000 years ago.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              what a dumbass. hunter-gathers would've been most likely to be fasting (and therefore in ketosis) in the winter, and they sure as hell weren't finding any honey or fruits in winter, let alone any other source of carbs. they would've been temporarily breaking their winter fast with the occasional carnivore meal, which would keep them in ketosis. even more moronic is his implication that everyone was regularly bingeing on honey rather than it being a rare treat shared with the whole tribe

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >occasional carnivore meal, which would keep them in ketosis
                ketards are so delusional it's unreal

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                People knew how to preserve food

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >People knew how to preserve meat
                Ftfy. Pemmican

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Preserved meat is inevitably low fat which alone would be useless for sustenance for long periods. You would need fat and/or carbs with it to avoid rabbit starvation.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Not neccesarily. You clearly don't know what pemmican is. High fat was the norm

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Didn't traditional pemmicam also contain dried fruits, which re-enforces my point?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                White mans pemmican had fruit. Traditional pemmican didnt. Could still be high fat while having some fruit in it technically as well

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Preserved fruit/veg is high fat?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                No it's not. Did you not know that?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, so there's literally no choice for ancient humans, they must eat meat.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                What's your point exactly? Who disputes that early humans (or humans in general) required meat for sustenance?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                vegans, frugivores

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, but that doesn't describe anyone in this thread as far as I can tell so still not sure what your point is.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                not sure what yours is either honestly. i answered your question and then you move the goalposts because you're a homosexual

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Well you didn't answer my question because I obviously didn't mean who in general, I meant who in this thread based on your claim that "ancient humans must eat meat" as though someone here disagreed with that. Now you're seething for some reason.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Paleolithic people preserved food? That said, they preserved meat.

                Imagine trying to collect enough berries for any significant amount of time. A raspberry or blueberry is 1 calorie - and that's a modern berry not an ancient one.

                Let's say you are fasting and you will lose weight and you only need 1200 cal per day. Winter is let's say 100 days. You need to collect 120,000 per person. Then dry them etc. It's insane to suggest ancient people really did that.

                On the other hand an average sized dear is 35,000 calories. What sounds harder to you? Hunt 3 deer or pick 100,000 berries?

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >low-ish fat paleo
              real deal paleo/hunter-gatherer diet is low fat unless you want to imitate loser dwellers of frozen shitholes who got cgased away from better lands. wild animals are lean as shit. they have like 4%body fat and not much fat in their muscles either. tubers were commonly eaten in temperate climates and so were evul grainz. you should dig actual scientific papers and learn physiology instead of listening to grifters anons. chicken and rice chliche 80s fit diet is more paleo than butter and bacon shit "primal" morons are pushing. keto is just slow suicide. less bad than "low" fat SAD diet despite veing bit more deadly. ketos at least are bit overfat but not obese like normal gluttonous westerners. few yeas of lookng human at least in clothes before death... unlike decades of obesity... inhuman and cruel sentence....

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                i used to lurk on paleo forums back in the day and it was pretty split on either low carb following the cordain way or moderate to high carb, it was never the le ketosis meme until the ketogays started barging in out of nowhere and somehow swayed the opinions of the community. not to mention that the low carb paleo folks had messed up bloodworks, probably due to the lack of carbs, calcium, or too much PUFAs

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              What a ridiculous post. If you want to be historically accurate, then no you are not going to be eating honey every day.

              Vegetables have essentially zero calories. A modern potato has 160 cal, so you need if you need to eat 3000 cal per day that's about 20 potatoes. But a modern potato is much bigger than a wild potato. If you're an ancient person and you have access to one of the highest calorie foods, you might have to find and cook 100-500 potatoes per day.

              It's just not possible to live without most of your calories coming from meat. Up until 12,000 years ago humans were carnivores. There's scientific consensus. Ancient humans very rarely ate vegetables because they were well aware that most of them are bad for you.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Ancient humans very rarely ate vegetables because they were well aware that most of them are bad for you
                Seen all those historical cooking channels on youtube? Vegetables are used sparingly. It's meat and grains with supplemental butter and eggs.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Agreed, but I'm talking +12,000 years ago

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Every active board on IST these days has a resident schizo who posts shit everybody hates constantly and is protected by the mods for some inexplicable reason. Moxyte is IST's.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        ketogays like communists now.

        >it's not real keto
        >real keto has never been tried!

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/WV1ZuZb.jpg

        Anything that isn't plant-based is keto according to vegans. Keto is the devil in vegan religion.

        Moxyte has a tantrum when people talk about seed oils, too.

        why are you samegayging?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/WV1ZuZb.jpg

        Anything that isn't plant-based is keto according to vegans. Keto is the devil in vegan religion.

        Moxyte has a tantrum when people talk about seed oils, too.

        go eat your stick of butter dumbass

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Who the frick eats a stick of butter?

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ketards

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Subhumans that don't know how to cook in 30s and 40s.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Its a meme diet

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Can the mods rangeban this guy? He fricks up nearly every thread about diet and he's been posting the same shit for years at this point.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nta, but go back to your r/paleo sub or wherever you came from if you're so easily triggered

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      lmao this morons calls everything thats not vegan keto

      why are vegans so moronic?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >why are vegans so moronic?
        B12 deficiency literally causes brain damage over time, not to mention all of the other things that vegans miss out on like taurine. It's a terrible way to live, and nobody who isn't severely mentally ill or impoverished commits to it beyond a few years.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >taurine
          What are good sources besides beef?
          Genuine question, the cat experiment kind of spooked me.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            We aren't cats. We make our own taurine as an adaption to cooking meat.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              We were cooking food for so long? Interesting.
              How about dogs, tho?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >We were cooking food for so long?
                >A new study, published in Nature Ecology and Evolution, suggests that early humans first cooked food around 780,000 years ago.

                >How about dogs, tho?
                >Many mammals are able to use either glycine or taurine for bile acid conjugation. Cats and dogs are only able to use taurine to conjugate bile acids. >Whereas dogs are able to synthesize sufficient taurine from cysteine, cat taurine synthesis is negligible due to low activity of two enzymes in the pathway.26

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >suggests

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, suggests, that's very basic academic phrasing.
                No one of them was there 780.000 years ago.
                It the same reason as to why the evolution theory is called a theory, despite being agreed on fundamentally, no one was there all the time to catalogue it all.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, so I don't have to worry about my dog, thanks!

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/tMbQZxl.png

      [...]
      why are you samegayging?

      https://i.imgur.com/MPSlZGQ.png

      [...]
      go eat your stick of butter dumbass

      >those filenames
      Why do you shill here.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        To save animals.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Well at least you admit to your shilling.
          Do you do it for free too?

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >muh animals
          nobody cares

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't follow any meme diets. I just make sure to get enough protein and hate Black folk.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      You sir have won the internet

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >another thinly veiled racist post
      TRUMP LOST GET OVER IT

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      uh hello based department? you're gonna want to see this

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous
  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Imagine struggling with diets and weight loss kek

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah diet is easy to figure out once you realize that mainstream advice is created by evil people.

      Just eat what the bad guys don't want you to eat (meat, eggs, full-fat dairy) and avoid what they want you to eat (plants, grains).

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    This plus dairy is what I eat. What would that be, pastoralist or something?

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Can you back up your claim with physique and stats?

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >doesn't exist
    Modern plant and animal breeds =/= ancient ones.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah unfortunately we can't eat mammoths like our ancestors but fatty beef is close enough.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        No it isnt modern cattle breeds are very specifically selected and that's ignoring the difference in their feed, hormones medicine etc.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ruminant digestive systems protect the meat from being contaminated.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even if that were the case, it still ignores the fact that the breeds are different and modern feed is far more different leaving to higher levels of intramuscular fat and a difference in meat composition simply because they get different nutrients.
            Aside from that they also get slaughtered earlier for more tender cuts, once again having an effect on the product.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              Humans always favored fatty meat.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                So? That doesn't fricking matter.
                Paleolithic humans didn't have access to grain fed cattle and in turn not to marbled beef.
                Their preference is of no relevance.
                Modern foods differ highly from ancient food sources and a paleolithic diet is not replicable.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                The fatty acid profile of grain fed vs grass fed beef is almost identical. Grains cause metabolic disease and therefore fatty muscle but most of the fat stored is from fermented grass just like exclusively grassfed cattle.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The fatty acid profile of grain fed vs grass fed beef is almost identical.
                Why do you make bullshit claims that have nothing to do with the core argument? Are you some sort of chromosome lasagna?
                >Health claims have reported that grass-fed beef showed 62% lower fat content, 65% lower SFA, and greater concentrations of omega-3 fatty acids and conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) compared to grain-fed beef (Ziehl et al., 2005).
                >Grass-based diets have also been shown to enhance the total CLA (C18:2) isomers, trans vaccenic acid (TVA, C18:1 t11), and omega-3fatty acids on a g/g fat basis while grass-finished beef has tended to increase saturated fatty acids (SFA) such as myristic (C14:0), palmitic (C16:0), and stearic (C18:0) fatty acids (Daley et al., 2010).
                >Grass-feeding or grain-feeding shows influences on the alteration of the fatty acid composition in beef.

                Even if you were right, which as proven you aren't, it wouldn't change the fact that modern cattle has a different nutrient composition and in no way is representative of paleolithic animals.
                And that's ignoring the wildly improved access to beef that modern people have.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >modern cattle has a different nutrient composition and in no way is representative of paleolithic animals.
                The range of differences in the composition of any meats is not significant, especially comparing the meat of different species of ruminants. Beef is the closest practical thing we have.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Nta, but the fatty acid composition is completely different. Not only that but eating select cuts of beef will give you s completely different overall amino profile from eating entire wild animals. Too much methionine and not nearly enough glycine for starters. It's simply not possible to eat like a paleolithic human.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Jesus christ, you really are a chromosome lasagna.
                Read homie read!

                So? That doesn't fricking matter.
                Paleolithic humans didn't have access to grain fed cattle and in turn not to marbled beef.
                Their preference is of no relevance.
                Modern foods differ highly from ancient food sources and a paleolithic diet is not replicable.

                >Modern foods differ highly from ancient food sources and a paleolithic diet is not replicable.
                First of all, I don't care if modern ruminants are the closest best thing we have, it never was part of my argument. Paleolithic humans didn't just consume ruminants, being close is something different than being the same and the way we consume them differs highly.
                Secondly, considering your track record, if you dont have any solid proof for that:
                >The range of differences in the composition of any meats is not significant
                Your once again just talking our of your ass.

                This is true and but many carnivore adherents don't want to hear it because a big draw of the diet is larping as big epic caveman (e.g. fans of liverking who was using tren and guzzling dextrose shakes).

                Honestly I dont mind carnivorous diets, it's at the very least a very interesting idea.
                Of course most people don't consume a very diverse amount of animals, let alone make use of all their parts like bone, brain, skin, eyes, lung, kidneys etc.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Of course most people don't consume a very diverse amount of animals, let alone make use of all their parts like bone, brain, skin, eyes, lung, kidneys etc.
                Exactly, which gives you a skewed ratio of nutrients compared to the animal intake a paleolithic human. Methionine vs glycine being an obvious one I mentioned earlier. This is where shills can come in and sell products to correct the issues trying to emulate (poorly) a paleolithic can create. Like bone broths, collagen peptides, dessicated liver powders, etc. Of course vegan shills do the same and shill ALA supps to compensate for lack of omega 3 intake, calcium, etc.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's a valid point and a general issue with most dietary trends getting peddled, too many grifters looking for a buck.

                It's a bullshit argument. Plants can differ wildly from each other in terms of the compound they contain. That is not the case for ruminant animals, which are all related genetically now as they were in the past.

                >That is not the case for ruminant animals, which are all related genetically now as they were in the past.
                Because plants aren't genetically related?
                Besides genetic relation means unsurprisingly little, we share a third of our genome with potatoes, it's only a 5% difference between dogs and humans.
                And speaking of dogs, their breeds share all the same genome but you'd have to be delusional to claim they dont differ greatly due to selective breeding.

                And as always, wheres your proof?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's a bullshit argument. Plants can differ wildly from each other in terms of the compound they contain. That is not the case for ruminant animals, which are all related genetically now as they were in the past.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Besides genetic relation means unsurprisingly little, we share a third of our genome with potatoes, it's only a 5% difference between dogs and humans.
                Reddit tier argument.
                >And speaking of dogs, their breeds share all the same genome but you'd have to be delusional to claim they dont differ greatly due to selective breeding.
                Right, and if you have to, or want to live off of deer/elf, you'll require an additional source of fat. But that doesn't me ruminants are not nutritionally appropriate because they aren't exactly the same. How about you prove the amino acid and micronutrient profile of different ruminants (or dog breeds) is so wildly different as to be not suitable to meet nutritional requirements?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How about you prove the amino acid and micronutrient profile of different ruminants (or dog breeds) is so wildly different as to be not suitable to meet nutritional requirements?
                He never said that though. He said you can't accurately emulate a paleolithic diet. Why are you shills so dishonest and resort to strawmen arguments so much.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >He never said that though. He said you can't accurately emulate a paleolithic diet
                Why on earth would minor differences in the profile of muscle meat from then to now mean emulating paleolithic diets be a fruitless endeavor?

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                That's not the only difference though.. There's the amino acid profile, the fatty acid profile, the fact most paleo adherents aren't eating the cartilage, skin, brain, lungs, etc. the way paleoolithic humans would have. This does make a difference. You're just eating a modern artificially constructed diet, not a genuinely ancestral one. Even paleo shills admit this, which is where they get you with their products that claim to correct the difference.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >the fact most paleo adherents aren't eating the cartilage, skin, brain, lungs, etc. the way paleoolithic humans would have.
                How exactly do you know they ate all these things, or if they did these things were ideal for them? There is little evidence to suggest we require anything more than muscle meat.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                We know they ate all those things based on archeological evidence (and common sense). Whether it's ideal or not isn't relevant, we're discussing whether or not "paleo" diets accurately emulate the diets of paleolithic humans or not.

                Also, there is evidence that eating muscle meat only and neglecting to eat other animal parts is detrimental to health. Look into methionine vs glycine intake.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                so therefore we should give up and eat heavily processed hyperpalatable slop instead. ok

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Reddit tier argument.
                >make claim
                >claim is inappropriate because it also fits your counterpoints
                >uh... uh... reddit
                Truly a well argued point, how about you just have a nice day?

                >How about you prove the amino acid and micronutrient profile of different ruminants (or dog breeds) is so wildly different as to be not suitable to meet nutritional requirements?
                Why should I indulge you? I've already quoted multiple studies in this thread while you make unsubstantiated claims.
                Besides, it's not like you care about them you just keep moving the goalpost and ignoring everything mentioned before.

                We know they ate all those things based on archeological evidence (and common sense). Whether it's ideal or not isn't relevant, we're discussing whether or not "paleo" diets accurately emulate the diets of paleolithic humans or not.

                Also, there is evidence that eating muscle meat only and neglecting to eat other animal parts is detrimental to health. Look into methionine vs glycine intake.

                Nta, but adding to that, to clarify aside from the classic archeologic evidence most think of like animal carcasses, preparation tools etc. we even have human excrements from back than which we can analyze to learn about their diet.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's a Reddit-tier argument because genetic differences and similarities between species of animals are relevant and significant regardless of the absolute likeness of DNA across all lifeforms.

                >Why should I indulge you? I've already quoted multiple studies in this thread while you make unsubstantiated claims.
                Ruminants are metabolically similar, they are genetically similar, their meat is similar. You claimed modern ruminants couldn't sufficiently approximate paleolithic nutrition You prove it.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >genetic differences and similarities between species of animals are relevant and significant
                Didn't you read what I wrote?
                That's the very point I made.
                Dogs are genetically all similar to each other but the difference through gene expression due to selective breeding is enormous.
                You only claimed ruminants are genetically similar, which they are, that only means very little because similarities in the genome have little relevance to gene expression.

                As for the rest, as always, post proof.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                claims have reported that grass-fed beef showed 62% lower fat content, 65% lower SFA
                no shit, they don't get that much intramuscular fat like grain fed diabetic cows but the fatty acid profile between them is pretty much the same. i'm not the carnitard you're replying to btw

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Large ruminant meat is the closest practical thing we have to ice age megafauna back then.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                And it still isn't close.
                We are factually incapable of eating like paleolithic men. Irrelevant of wether we should or not, we simply can't just like we can't live without oxygen, it's not possible.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                This is true and but many carnivore adherents don't want to hear it because a big draw of the diet is larping as big epic caveman (e.g. fans of liverking who was using tren and guzzling dextrose shakes).

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Of course, optimal health comes from it. There's a reason why the same scum bags who fund and shill cultural destruction, rental societies, never ending pharma addiction, and sexually mutilating helpless children are the same ones buying farmland en masse to artificially create a "plant based" societal norm.
                There is literally not one single reason for anyone to be against people eating meat as much as they want other than for them to increase a bottom line in some documents that will make no difference to anyone, including their shills.

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is the best diet if you want to fuel your sugar addiction and get your legs amputated down the line

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *