Ketotards be like yep, that's a REAL superfood
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Ketotards be like yep, that's a REAL superfood
Ketotards be like yep, that's a REAL superfood
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
It works if you're not eating a stick at a time.
it's a real food anyway
awesome, now do corn oil
>not filled with significant amounts of your DV of toxic saturated fat
>filled with antioxidants like vitamin E to help enhance their health effects further
>filled with heart healthy unsaturated fatty acids
You are evil
hopefully they pay for you this shlomo
>CORN OIL IN TREATMENT OF ISCHAEMIC HEART DISEASE
>The patients receiving the key treatment (corn oil) fared worse than those in the other two groups: two years from the start of the treatment infarction or death in one-quarter more of the corn-oil than the control group.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14288105/
One of my grandmas staple/favourite foods in the post-war time was whole bread with butter.
VegBlack folk today scrap that and eat PBJ sneed & sugar toast sandwhiches instead, like what the frick?
Do you really think that's better?
As far as super food goes, who in the actual frick only eats butter?
No one fricking does that. It always gets mixed with something else that doesn't have fat.
And that actually makes a lot of sense, since fat is not only a required nutrient, it also mediates a delayed insulin response when combined with protein or sugar, which spike it.
Didn't Ancel Keys own damn experiments disprove that moronic idea of yours?
Actually, yeah they did and then tried to hide it - look up the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, pic rel..
Stupid homosexual.
Just to make myself as clear as possible
High unsaturated fat intake and low saturated fat intake will KILL YOU.
This was proven by Ancel Keys and Ivan Frantz.
They *hid* their data and it was only released posthumously *40 years later*, after we started to get a fricking heart disease epidemic caused by their own saturated fats bad theory.
high saturated fat intake is literally corelated with higher incidence of heart disease you fricking moron. Unsaturated fat is linked to LOWER risk.
Why try and prove your point by showing a graph comparing saturated fat to trans fat?
try and find one comparing saturated fat to unsaturated fats then schizo
it doesnt matter whats correlated to what theyve been disproven by intervention trials. why are you getting upset?
except they haven't. enjoy your heart attack fatty.
concession accepted. go eat a steak youll feel better champ i promise
>high saturated fat intake is literally corelated with higher incidence of heart disease you fricking moron.
Source: the sugar industry
kys moron
>high saturated fat intake is literally corelated with higher incidence of heart disease you fricking moron
And mr. rabbi cannot show a single good quality, unbiased study that actually produces verifiable, replicable proof that high saturated fat intake is bad for us.
You're a fricking Black person, Morty, a Black person.
I explained it in the most down to earth way fricking possible and you just ignore it all for >no but you are wrong
KYS Moxyte Black person
https://doi.org/10.2147/ijgm.s333004
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268692/
https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2014-000196
FRICK
FRICKING ANCEL KEYS, FATHER OF THE LOW FAT DIET, HIS DATA WHICH HE *HID* FOR 40 YEARS BECAUSE HE PROVED HIMSELF WRONG DISAGREES WITH YO
And- and what?
You just IGNORE it?
You blame it on trans-fats with no source, link or further explanation?
Open my links and then frankly -ACK yourself.
real seed oil shilling hours
No no no. You can't cherry pick 3 things. What B vitamins and omega profile are we getting? Iron, Zinc, etc. should all be better, right? RIGHT?!
Great, now show sunflower oil
Tell me moxyte, are these "ketoschizos" currently in the room?
>fat that almost every mammalian baby consumes but vigorously shaken is LE BAD
Careful he might have a breakdown and start spamming the board even more
The fat itself is good for you.
>eating fat (the cause of being fat and disease) is actually le good
>being fat and disease
Fat doesn't make you fat, carbs that spike insulin do.
Go learn some basic biology, moxyte.
Not even carbs, it's the combo of fats+carbs together, high calories and adipocreative, WITH a dash of insulin spike.
And, more than anything else, it's the sheer amount of the stuff people ingurgitate. You'd get fat on rabbit meat (super lean protein), if you were to eat so fricking much of it.
I have read a lot of keto content lately and insulin probably plays a part, but as you say the reason why people are really fat isn't subtle. It's not because of a slice of bread or a glass of milk. Really fat people overeat extremely, several burgers, fries, snacks, soda, thousands of excess calories per day.
If people just ate less there would be way fewer problems, even if they sometimes ate a bit of sugar or seed oil.
>thousands of excess calories per day.
obesity doesnt happen overnight. all it takes is 15 calories a day. nobody knows how much they are eating to that accuracy
>all it takes is 15 calories a day.
I'm not anti-cico but it's statements like this that make it easy to ridicule. The body has a large buffer for caloric intake at which it can maintain homeostasis. You body doesn't have some exact caloric intake that you can go over or under by 15kcal. There's a bunch of mechanisms to raise or lower metabolism to maintain the same bodyweight on variable caloric intake.
Can you elaborate on that? With the common CICO formula that would not even be 2 pounds per year, how do people become 100 pound overweight in their 30s then? Or even more than that?
Someone who is just a bit chubby most likely won't have medical problems, it's those 300lbs ham beasts that are the problem, they are not overeating by 15 calories.
If you want to look like a fitness model you definitely have to optimize more but not if you just want to have a normal weight, I don't know a single person who got fat just overeating on whole foods with some grains, they all eat extreme amounts of sugar and processed crap.
i was using a more typical example
Tired of posting the same image yet, moxyte?
He just wanted moore food
Why is the cause of disease found in all breastmilk that's fed to mammalian babies? You'd think that'd be a pretty huge evolutionary blackhole. I suppose we should feed seed oils to babies instead.
vegan morons dont believe in natural wisdom
Are you a baby?
>butterfat is healthy for babies
>becomes poison when you turn 2 years old
le science is amazing. any other brilliant takes?
I just question how something that was fed to me as a baby and is fed to almost every mammalian baby, could be bad. And how something that is incredibly divorced from nature like seed oils, could be good. My instincts just tell me something is up when a guy spams every day calling everyone a ketoschizo and shilling for vegetable oils, idk
im a human
are you?
rhetorical question vegBlack person
Butter is not a superfood but it's fairly benign other than palmitic acid, which is the fatty acid with the most solid evidence of being harmful in excessive quantity. The healthiest fat source is probably evoo.
you are confusing serum palmitic acid with that consumed. serum palmitic acid comes from liver DNL from carbohydrates
No I'm talking about dietary palmitic acid.
Post text studies instead of agenda-driven youtube griters and I'll look into it.
there is no evidence dietary palmitic acid is a problem
Given how easy it is to find evidence to the contrary, I suspect you're saying that in bad faith. But in case you're genuinely ignorant, here's a review of some of the data that specifically refers to dietary palmitic acid.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26393565/
and not a single human trial was seen. like i said theres no evidence for harm
Olive oil and MUFAs cause insulin resistance and other metabolic problems
Everything in moderation - all other advice and superfood bullshit is just a fricking meme.
>Everything in moderation
even moderation?
Can veganturds and vegetaritards explain to me why, if butter/meat/eggs etc are bad for me. Why do they taste good? is evolution stupid or something?
Not vegan/vegetarian but do you also think sugar is good for you? I'm not making any statement on if it is or isn't, btw, just curious how consistent your stance is.
digestible sugar is relatively rare in nature. animals are plentiful
Ok, so your argument that taste good = healthy gets thrown out the window when it doesn't fit your agenda. Good to get that out of the way before wasting time trying to have an honest discussion.
there was basically no sugar in ancient europe for instance
it all looked like pic related - mammoth-steppe
the sweetest thing you'd have found would have been a small root with the sweetness of a carrot
big juicy fruit with lots of sugar as you know them simply did not exist in most of the world, as those are a product of modern agricultural breeding practices
the only fruits you did have were less energetic, less nutrient dense and less juicy - they are eaten by monkeys and apes to this day and they were not available in the human habitat of the savannah, grassland and steppe, which is where elephants/mastodons/mammoths and cattle/bison/deers lived, which comprised most of our diet (compare pictures of a dense jungle to a steppe plateau and see which one you find more relaxing, it's literally engrained into our DNA)
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-tooth.html source for the sweetness of ancient plants btw.
besides that there is honey and it isn't very plentiful or easy to get
since starvation was possible and winter was harsh, getting as much energy as possible to be able to build fat during summer (where you get a caloric excess from both plants and animals) was extremely important
during the winter when food was short and basically only came from animals you would have then lost fat, as your body utilized your energy stores
this is why meat + sugar causes you to become fat, while only meat causes you to lose fat, whereas veganism can make you either fat or thin, depending on whether or not you get enough nutrients to build new tissue
I hope this explains it
None of this is relevant. The anon's argument was that tasty = healthy. If he can't stick to that principle then the argument is inherently flawed.
>None of this is relevant.
yeah when it btfos you and you cant react to it its not "relevant" kekkkkkkkk
What do you think about nuts? Were they a big part of our diet?
I know a lot of the modern plants are very different from even 500 years ago, but what about nuts? Is a modern walnut still very similar to the kinds of nuts we might have eaten 50k years ago?
Nuts and seeds are the part of the plant that carries their genome - as such they are generally the single part of the fruit that is the richest in every chemical defense measure they can muster.
This is not true for all plants, but it holds true generally, especially for grains.
I do not believe that we ate significant quantities of any nuts or grains until recent times.
The walnut tree is actually an interesting case, although millions of years old fossilized nuts were found, all of the trees died out in Europe several hundred thousand years ago.
This means that there were virtually no walnuts by the time of humanities arrival there.
Most of them were imported much later from Asia and as human culture and trade evolved, they were spread far and wide.
As far as nutrients go, I expect modern walnuts to be ever so slightly less bitter, larger and possibly with different or lower micronutrient concentrations.
Of course there are different cultivars and species of walnuts, you can find illustrations of these and even of focilized varieties online.
Trees generally do produce more healthy food than crops, though.
Maybe this is due to their mechanism of reproduction, or because we have a harder time cultivating them due to their size and life span.
Just realize that a lot of our land wasn't covered in trees. And then they are seasonal and you are competing for the food with other animals.
So while some nuts may have been consumed, it would have been confined to specific time windows and in limited quantities.
Essentially they served as an energetic supplement that was utilized opportunistically when found in order to build as much energy reserves as possible (which is something carbs are really good at, as long as they are combined with quality nutrition from something like meat.)
And here is a map of the global biomes during the last glacial maximum
notice how there is almost no rainforest - elephants, mastodons and mammoths alike share the habit of destroying trees
scientists often speculate why they do this, but some understand
they do this instinctually to preserve and shape their own habitat
as homosexual sapiens spread through the savannah, grasslands and steppes of the world, we systematically killed so many of those creatures, that forests were eventually able to spread
once those forests reached europe, where mammoths also compacted the snow to prevent the ground from melting, the soil temperatures rose massively
this melted the permafrost in the region and released the decaying biomatter in the soil into the air, mainly in the form of methane and carbon dioxide - this biomatter was created over millennia by long grass roots repeatedly growing and freezing over
these kinds of roots are a big reason modern soils are dry and dead, especially in agricultural settings, as most agricultural plants have extremely short roots
Anyhow, we continued to drive back mammoths and overeat them, the forests spread, the soil melted, the methane was released, the temperature rose, we were able to advance further north, which let us drive mammoths further back and overeat them -> repeat
and when we finally realized that there were no more mammoths, we invented the bow and arrow and started killing even more animals
we also burned down many forests once they were there, probably in the hopes of bringing back the mammoths, as they did not live in forested areas; we can actually tell this from samples of ancient sedimentary charcoal deposits
finally we had to settle for agriculture, as the lands were empty compared with before
neanderthals did not behave like we did, instead of just killing more and more animals when food was short, they changed their dietary patterns to make things work
we know this from SIA and it probably implies similar trends for their population dynamics, especially considering how many of us there were and how little of their DNA has stuck around
anyhow, they managed like this for 250k+ years, while we wiped out the important prey animals in europe in just under 50k years and caused mass extinctions on every continent
this kind of reckless exploiting and moving on is a key sign of apex predator behavior
we mogged everyone so hard that we degenerated ourselves to a lesser manifestation
mate if you have 3 braincells left in your head you will be able understand that modern industrial society is not the environment our biology or genes have adapted to, which is why our species is so fricking maladapted and dysfunctional in so many areas
in nature you can just eat what is tasty and you will be fine, you can eat as much as you want and you will be fine, you can frick as much as you want and you will be fine, you can play as much as you want and you will be fine, because there are natural limits to how much of these are available at any give time with no way to get around them
there is no excess of economic power or goods and barely any complex products beyond simple tools and animal skin, which means that even greed is perfectly adapted
everything is perfectly balanced in such a way that remaining pure and healthy while following your instincts completely with no mindfulness whatsoever is your natural and the societies normal state
this is the meaning behind enkidus seduction in the epic of gilgamesh
these people understood what was happening, even if they did not have the entire context, as they experienced very early agriculture and the last of the ancestral hunter-gatherers
>you will be able understand that modern industrial society is not the environment our biology or genes have adapted to, which is why our species is so fricking maladapted and dysfunctional in so many areas
Not relevant. The argument was that tasty=healthy if you have to start making if and buts then the principle fails and it's worthless as an argument.
>in nature you can just eat what is tasty and you will be fine
And since none of us live in nature anymore this has zero relevance to how we determine what's healthy.
>The argument was that tasty=healthy
and now you are ignoring its context because that way you can ignore his entire argument because you are too moronic to react to it in any meaningful way
uh huh
you didn't propose any real arguments, and what you said is based on that quote
god, what a fricking mouthbreathing cretin imbecile you are, im losing braincells reading your posts and reacting to you
>and now you are ignoring its context
There was no original context, he added that later as a cope for his original premise not working and I addressed it. We don't live in nature so judging how healthy a food or diet is by his good it tastes is worthless. Being able to buy unlimited animal products from domesticated animals is no more natural than having unlimited access to an international range of plant foods regardless of season.
>what you said is based on that quote
No it isn't. I've said nothing that indicated that was my reasoning. Once again you are a despicable shill incapable of honesty debate.
Again. We evolved to a natural habitat for millions upon millions of years.
At some point we become too based - the most chad predators who have ever lived.
We run out of animals and have to eat plants.
Suddenly we have all kinds of fricking issues with our health and wellbeing, as our genes, our biology, the thing that makes us - us gravely misinteracts with a now heavily changed world.
We are now maladapted to the modern world, but at the same time we build it, which means that we cannot adapt to it, without changing us and therefore it.
Do you understand now?
The rules of man do not matter.
You *MUST* follow nature without doubt. For this day and age this means being mindful and cultivating of your own value.
Anything else will lead to little more than death, loss and suffering.
To make it very plain for you: Because there was little sugar in nature and starvation was a real issue, being adapted to eating all sugar you come across was a good trait. People were healthy and more fit because of this trait.
Today, because of our changed environment, this trait will cause you to become fat and unhealthy, which is a bad thing and will lead you to higher chances of death.
This then with other factors will change our nutritional behavior over time.
The result so far has been a !20% reduction in our brain volume over the past 10000 years and 10% in just the last 3000 years!*
So the danger is clear. We must avoid the danger, by being in touch with nature and our history, so that we can be mindful enough to not lose who we are in a broken world.
We have to eat what is tasty - within the context of our ancestral habitats, which shaped our biology and hence our instincts, desires, fears and vices - all of which are fundamental drivers or motivators for what we call the human soul.
I hope this is finally conducive now.
You don't seem to understand that you're proving my point that basing what's healthy off of what tastes good is a fundamentally flawed premise. You seem to be arguing against points I never made.
sure, but meat/eggs et al dont make me feel like shit within 5 minutes of eating them. They don't make me feel like shit at all, i feel satiated for hours afterward.
Thus nature's signal is that processed sugar is bad for me, it might taste good. But it still has a negative affect.
also there's LIMITED times that sugar would be needed for the body like sprinting.
I used to think that "Moxyte" redditor complaining about keto 24/7 was a meme.
But I've seen his posts in r/ketoduped and in vegan subreddits literally defending seed oils.
I guess this is that vegan brain shrinkage I've heard about. Pretty sad if it weren't that pathetic.
Ironic, considering that the only type of fat that has really been increasing in consumption is sneed oil, overlapping almost perfectly with the increases in sugar consumption.
Moxshite has sneed oil induced brain damage, as does anyone who shills for sneed oils, he cannot be reasoned with. There is actually a keto spammer but moxshite thinks everyone is him, such a moronic hypocrite with zero self-awareness.
both keto and veganism are moronic meme diets pushed by israelites to ruin your health
i have never seen a healthy person who is in good shape shill for either keto or veganism. its always some malnourished vegan or some obese landwhale who blames carbs for their lack of self control that prevents them from huffing a bag of cheetos in 30 seconds
neither of these diets work thats why no serious athlete uses them
>not eating sugar to lose weight is a moronic meme diet
holy frick Americans are stupid
>that ESL reading comprehension
Okay bro.
>neither of these diets work thats why no serious athlete uses them
Athletes are not an argument. Athletes train for performance, not for health. Athletes with a very low BF% may eat carbs to increase performance during events.
They don't train for longevity, health or looks. They do whatever it takes to win at their competitions, even if it destroys their bodies later in life.
Which is why so many athletes have chronic joint problems and heart issues at absurdly high rates later in life.
Girls need to eat more butter.
yep, that's a REAL superfood
100 gram serving? Thats like eating 3 sticks of butter lmao this graph is bullshit
Actually it's a little under 1 whole stick. 454 grams is 1lb, butter comes with 4 sticks per lb pack.
>per 100g serving
thats a shitload of butter
threads like these just convince me more and more that being a vegan, not eating enough animal products, and consuming seedoils daily makes you moronic as frick
Same but I feel the same way about carnivore/ketoists too. I wasn't particularly opposed to the idea of carnivore either until these moronic b8 threads.
except the carnivores make sound arguments and the vegantards just spam the same shitty memes and deflect all the time
but I guess the thread you made up in your head reads differently
So why are you pretending to be some neutral actor when you're obviously just agenda driven from the start? Both sides sound like morons and cultists.
except every vegan argument has been btfo in this thread, and not a single carni argument has been
like in every other thread
ive been reading these for years now
this is the thread 4352345 where vegans get btfo and move onto the next thread to post the same stupid shit that has been debunked a million times before
they are fricking bots
no matter how many times you explain to them why theyre moronic, or defend carnivore diet, they never reply, because they either cant, or they are literal shillbots
veganism is the most moronic and most btfod worldview in the world
You're clearly a carnivore cultist and no better than vegan shills. I have no interest in engaging with you as you're incapable of not being dishonest and biased
you are biased because you are clearly incapable of being objective
Projection. That's literally what you're doing by pretending that both sides aren't moronic and ignoring that your side are constantly shiling, posting b8 threads and moronic arguments all the time, exactly like vegans do
>le both sides are le bad!
>why?
>because...BECAUSE REASONS!!!
ok
Cope. I literally just listed the reasons. You're a dishonest shill.
your "reasons" are vague, and based on moderation fallacies and "well thats how i was raised, and thats the "norm" it has to be the best right?" homosexualry
you have no idea how to make a coherent argument thats not
>WELL BOTH SIDES ARE LE BAD BECAUSE I REFUSE TO EVEN ENTERTAIN THE IDEA THAT EVERYTHING IVE EVER BELIEVED WAS WRONG ABOUT EATING
>well thats how i was raised, and thats the "norm" it has to be the best right?" homosexualry
Strawman. Never proposed that as an argument.
>Screaming in caps
Lmao. Seething, pathetic shill.
You might have a status quo bias. What's so special about a diet that mixes fats and carbs? Why is saying 100% fat + protein like a cult but saying 40% carbs, 30% fats, 30% protein is somehow a moderate view? Just because it's a more common way to eat at this arbitrary point in history? Any macro split is a priori as likely/unlikely to be the best one.
There's no need to get as autistic as believing a precise split of macronutrients is optimal. The truth seems evident to me that humans are opportunitic omnivores with a leaning towards animal based foods that can thrive on a variety of diets, but that incorporating different food groups results in better outcomes than limiting to a narrow range of foods like carnivores and vegans do.
There are healthy science approved alternatives that are solvent extracted and bleach washed before sale