>one study says meat will kill you
>one study says it will make you live longer
>one study says eggs are good
>one says they will kill you
>one says milk is good for you
>one says it will kill you
So basically we have no idea right?
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
>studies need to be interpreted
so basically you have no idea right?
Correct, the field of nutrition is barren of real proof of anything.
everyone agrees protein is good. But beyond that it's a guessing game
yup
those are 2 different kinds of egg moron
oy vey
Science is fake and gay. The replication crisis is manufactured so soientists only have to design 3 studies their whole life and then just repeat them for decades until they're ready to stop parasitising the system and retire.
>So basically we have no idea right?
Yeah, I trust what I know and what works for me and has worked for people for thousands of years.
Meat good (eat in moderation), eggs VERY good, dairy good, veggies good.
>Yeah, I trust what I know and what works for me
The real problem here is that most people don't test their blood frequently and even if they do really have no idea the condition of their arteries.
It's entirely possible for the very first sign of Cardiovascular Disease to be a fatal heart attack or a stroke that turns you into a vegetable.
Unless I eat everything I wrote deep-fried, why would I worry about my arteries at all?
you have to udnerstand the current state of basedence. its about getting some meme arbitrary points assigned to journals conferences etc. you have a lot of points -> you are a good boy. Unis became article printers ,they go for volume not quality. after all why would you spend say 2 years on something unsure for say N arbitrary points when you can just shart out the bullshit you mentioned 10 times for 0.5N points? smart statistics manipulation etc and it works.
when you research meat you can exploit the researchh to the bone and shit out like 10 articles:
> why meat will kill you
> why meat will save you
> meat on cardiovascular health
> meat on bone density
> meat and sports eprformance among athletes
etc etc
you need a subject thats catchy. then you pick parts of your research that will fit the thesis
t.sorta basedentist
just do anything in moderation
>just have unprotected sex with strangers in moderation
>just smoke fentanyl in moderation
You CAN have fentanyl in moderation though
Okay, George Floyd.
Can I kill myself in moderation?
Old meme but still relevant
>left will outlive right
Your reaction when this happens?
How? they don't reproduce.
She has two children. She's a Belgian politician. Oh you mean incel schizos with body dysmorphia and an untreated eating disorder. Yeah, they don't. They're unfit for reproduction and they die young, full of regrets or hate; miserable and lonely.
Black person they're killing their kids before they're born and cutting their dicks off
They're not reproducing.
Vince Gironda was an absolute chad that, at one point, ate three dozen eggs a day. He was a lifetime natty that hated steroids, but used diet to boost his gains. He died just shy of his 80th birthday back in the 90s.
Maggie De Block is a fat, disgusting slob who probably won't even make it to 80.
if you look into these studies you'll understand why they say the things that they do. agriculture and farming in america is a massive economy of scale running on the slimmest margins imaginable, if some basedbean farmer can pay a scientist to publish a study that says meat is bad and 3% less americans eat meat that year as a result he's massively changed the amount of money being made. it's always like this, the best thing to do with nutrition is read as much as you can from schizos and then just try everything yourself and see what works.
>ITT: A bunch of fricking moronic children.
Feel free to post your need for validation below.
Just do what you want and accept whatever consequences may or may not come up later. Everyone is still going to die someday. Just apply some common sense, try to be reasonably healthy, and live your life. No sense in worrying about this shit so much you miss the forest for the trees.
It's less meat and more saturated fat. Lean chicken and fish are fairly well established to be health promoting.
If humans have been encouraging each other to do something for hundreds of years, you can assume it's probably not the worst thing ever
Welcome to science, the latest cult/god the 3rd caste worships.
Science for normies is relevant after thousands of studies and dozens of meta studies give a somewhat conclusive answer to something but even then the answer is for an average human, a creature almost nobody is and only is interesting to Pharma companies who care for probability.
all the studies saying meat will kill you are for poor people
all the studies saying meat is good for you are for rich people
care more about incentives. What is the incentive structure that this information is coming out of? People used to be dimly aware of this back when "merchant of death" industries were producing research, but now everybody's forgotten it.
The chief incentive of 'scientists' is to receive grant money. Grant money follows politically useful results. The politicians are invested in medical industries. The biggest incentive for medicine is for you to get, and stay, sick, so that you continuously pay for medical services.
Faced with an incentive structure like this, you should automatically prefer its competitors: prior art - what people believed before people believed before things got this bad - and random schizos and grifters.
Meat has very little benefits
The studies mostly say "its not as harmful as thought"
Thats how they trick you
Thee is no study that ever said meat makes you live longer
Also, pic related is me.
no, because I eat eggs and occasionally meat
But Im not under the delusion that some people here are
>Thee is no study that ever said meat makes you live longer
Took me like 5 seconds lol:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881926/
>Total Meat Intake is Associated with Life Expectancy: A Cross-Sectional Data Analysis of 175 Contemporary Populations
>meat intake is positively correlated with life expectancies.
>This relationship remained significant when influences of caloric intake, urbanization, obesity, education and carbohydrate crops were statistically controlled.
You haven't proven him wrong even a little
>Associated
>meat makes you live longer
Not the same thing
Yes, I perfectly understand that this study doesn't "prove meat makes you live longer." That would be impossible for any study to do, which anyone with a functioning brain knows.
If you want to split hairs like this, then anon's original point is completely moot anyway because there has never been any study on anything ever that "proves it makes you live longer." Such a study is impossible, and you are being disingenuous pretending otherwise.
The study clearly shows meat is associated with longevity. Anon implied no study exists showing eating meat is associated with longevity. I proved him wrong.
all the study shows is that richer countries can afford more meat
and beign richer is a factor for longevity
the study is compeltely worthless because it leaves out controlling for one of the most important factors
>and beign richer is a factor for longevity
Yes, when you're comparing people in the same country who live in similar conditions. Richer people in the US live longer than poorer people in the US obviously. But you're implying a person who makes $100k/year has the same life expectancy whether they're living in the US or Vietnam, two countries with completely different costs of living. That's moronic. If you don't understand why I can't help you.
That's why the authors of this study didn't "control for income." It makes no sense to do across different countries. And that's why the study was still peer-reviewed and published. Literally no one in that field would expect them to "control for income."
By the way, there are many countries poorer than the US with longer life expectancy. Source:
.
>USA life expectancy: 76.33 years
>Greece life expectancy: 80.18 years
>China life expectancy: 78.21 years
>Saudi Arabia life expectancy: 76.94 years
Its a fricking correlation, you moronic Black person
Basically no correlation on earth is 100%
Your brain is frickign fried, you frickign moronic frick
>Literally no one in that field would expect them to "control for income."
they did control for other shit, you stupid Black person
Conrtollign for income is one of the most obvious ones, and they didnt
Because they are frickign liars
>Conrtollign for income is one of the most obvious ones
Controlling for income would be literally useless as I've already gone into enough detail about.
You do realize they controlled for GDP PPP, though, right? That's how they compared the relative wealth of the countries.
from the study
they admit their own study is worthless
>Thirdly, GDP PPP may be a comprehensive life expectancy contributor. For instance, populations with greater GDP PPP may have higher meat affordability, better medical service and better education level. Each factor may contribute to life expectancy in its unique way, but it is impossible to collect all these data and include them as the potential separate confounders in the data analyses to remove their competing effects on life expectancy.
>a study discussion includes limitations
>anon thinks this means the authors, who published this study successfully, think their research is worthless
Is this your first time reading a research paper?
there is nothign impossible about collecting these these factors, they just didnt want to
with the same logic of this study you could "prove" that more meat intake makes you more wealthy
the study is moronic on its face
>with the same logic of this study you could "prove" that more meat intake makes you more wealthy
Who are you arguing with? I already said explicitly that epidemiology doesn't "prove" anything.
well, then the study is worthless
Worthless for what? I feel like you forgot what we were talking about. Anon said there were no studies linking meat eating and longevity. Here is a study linking meat eating and longevity. It had worth in proving anon wrong.
Linking is not the same as associating. They didnt link anything
life expectancy: 78.21 years
Arabia life expectancy: 76.94 years
Reported life expectancy.
It wasnt their hypothesis, or their conclusion. You are projecting your own bias onto the study and conferring it with the other anons statement.
>This study has shown that meat intake is positively associated with life expectancy at national level.
>The complete nutritional profile of meat and human adaptation to meat eating have enabled humans to gain many physical benefits, including greater life expectancy.
>Meat intake, or its adequate replacement, should be incorporated into nutritional science to improve human life expectancy.
Idk anon, they sound like big fans of meat to me.
Nothing I just said was incorrect
lmao my guy why are you quoting the abstract after I quoted from the actual, full research study? Do you even know that's what you did? What's your point, even?
>they sound like big fans of meat to me
More projection. Okay I guess.
This literally shows the bias of the researchers are you serious
>researchers find meat is associated with longevity, after carefully controlling for country development, GDP, education, and other important factors
>researchers claim meat is probably necessary for humans to eat because of their findings
>"this is literally so biased!"
>Find an "association"
>claim direct causal relationship that isnt there
>that's not bias!!!
one of these typical bullshit studies
why dont they control for income, that is one of the most important factors for life expectancy
Conveniently they leave that out
>why dont they control for income
>Conveniently they leave that out
Can't tell if trolling or moronic. The study is comparing different populations all across the world. It's not comparing individuals in similar regions. "Controlling for income" makes no sense, because the cost of living across the world is radically different. You can't compare the incomes of Vietnamese villagers with American businessmen.
of course you can on a national level
I know you can compare incomes, you absolute moron. We're talking about controlling for income and comparing health outcomes. Compare Australia, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. I don't think you can comprehend this, so I'm not going to elaborate.
Vietnam is poorer and has lower life expectancy than Australia
what the frick are you even babbling about
higher income = longer life expactancy
there is no way they missed this obvious correlation
the whole study is an obvious lie
the countries with the highest meat consumption are the most wealthy, with the best health care systems
Source?
Every moron can publish a study, and the best ones are against eating them
Apparently I've started a shit storm with my latest test results. Ive been recei ving hundreds of messages over the last 24 hours with questions, inquiries and h elp requests. The reason I believe the post had this effect is not because I am eating paleo o r that my test results are good, but because I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 15 YEARS . There are few people who have been following such a lifestyle for so long. So, let me provide you with some details: 1. I eat animal protein the size of my palm (200-350 grams) with green veggies w ith every meal. Thats the base of my diet. 2. I vary all that I eat, all the time. Example proteins from the last year: ven ison, kangaroo, ostrich, chicken, quail, lamb, croc, wild salmon, wild sardines, sea food, eggs, turkey, arctic char, wild boar, deer and more and more. Yes, I k now this source is contaminated and that source is not optimal - you know what? shut up. 3. I ingest a PWO shake after training with quality Whey Protein and some carbs in it. I rarely go above 30 grams of carbs here. Yes I know I might need more after heavy glyocolitic training, (I box regularly) but I feel best when not top ped off fully and also - performance is not the only marker I am after. 4. I have a carb up meal once/twice a week based on tubers and rice. I will have some dark 85% chocolate and will avoid dairy and gluten fully. The next day I wake up even more ripped.
Cont:
5. Supplements: I am a believer. Yes, I know many authors are taking down their supplement recommendations (the one's who are selling books) while others are increasing their recommendations (the ones who are selling supplements) whil e I have stood the middle ground for many years now and will continue to do so. I have seen great benefits in: A. Vit-D (upon blood test only) B. Omega-3 from pharmaceutical grade fish oil supplement. I take 6-15 a day. (ye s, that much. Yes, aware of the recent research) C. Magnesium - in chelated forms only, PWO and night time. I am a big believer i n Mag supplementation, but dont take Citrate and I wouldnt give Oxide to my dog. D. Zinc - in chelated form, upon test. I hate the Zinc Tally test - its shit and I've seen countless cases where it was false compared to blood RBC Zinc test. Z inc can be huge for some males if you get this right, life is good and you need to attend one my my Handstand w orkshops in order to properly pee into the toilet in the morning. Now for all your nay sayers: I still dont see your shirts coming off.
This is from a guy with perfect bloods and all around athleticism of the top 0.00001% of people
I adopted a lot of this and feel good improvements in health and body composition
where do you source your supps?
wow it’s almost as if the human body is an extremely complex system and it’s impossible to pinpoint health outcomes to one singular factor
It's understandable that conflicting studies can be confusing and make it seem like we have no idea about the health effects of certain foods. However, it's essential to understand that science is a process of continuous inquiry and refinement. Individual studies can only provide a piece of the puzzle, and often, the media tends to sensationalize findings or present them out of context.
To gain a clearer understanding, it's helpful to look at the body of research as a whole and consider factors such as study design, sample size, duration, and the specific population studied. Additionally, scientific consensus is often formed based on the overall weight of evidence from multiple studies and systematic reviews.
When it comes to nutrition, it's also important to recognize that individual dietary needs and responses can vary based on factors like genetics, lifestyle, and overall dietary patterns. Instead of focusing on single studies or sensational headlines, it's best to consult reputable sources like national health organizations or registered dietitians for evidence-based dietary recommendations.
In summary, while individual studies may sometimes seem contradictory, the scientific process involves ongoing research and refinement to better understand complex topics like nutrition and health.
>still believing in studies
>missing the point entirely
Basically. Some sciences are better than others, but nutrition is nearly impossible to study because both the inputs AND outputs are nearly impossible to control for. Not every health or human body related science is like this, but nutrition is especially bad.
The reason basically any diet "works" is because people who diet are inherently taking care of their body. They are paying attention to what they eat, generally try to avoid sweets and processed foods, and are more likely to be more active as well. It's a simple self selection bias, plus some other confounding factors. Basically, if you want to eat healthy just try to. Don't strive for perfection. Just do what works for you, has a good tasty to healthy ratio, and find a lifestyle that's sustainable for your entire life. That's it. No special tricks, because beyond that we don't know.