>solves nutrition
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>solves nutrition
>solves nutrition
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>why the heck do I bulk all the time starter pack
Anorexic twinks need to stop posting to this board
I literally eat OPs pic and lost 4kg of fat in a month, while gaining lean mass.
>How to die in your early 20s starter pack
?
if you eat what we evolved to eat you randomly die for some reason
>NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO STOP EATING MEAT YOU MUST EAT ZE BUGS
bugs are meat you moron.
Not all "meat" is the same.
>bugs are meat
they LITERALLY aren't THOUGH
have an ancient reaction pic
you've earned it
saturated fat and heart disease are very well correlated moron, dont eat too much sat. fat
Saturated fat is the only fat worth eating.
The alternatives are much much worse. PUFA causes heart disease not sat fat. Look up the mice experiments they did and the data.
>Saturated fat is the only fat worth eating.
You need to watch this
>youtube video
ok, you need to watch this
Layne Norton is a smug manlet pseud full of arrogance yet devoid of wisdom, and I don't understand why anybody views him as an authority on anything. He's insufferable to look at and listen to and he doesn't tell you anything about nutrition that you couldn't get from CNN or some other corporate propaganda rag.
>Look up the mice experiments they did and the data.
Why do that when we have human experiments that show the opposite?
We have randomized controlled trials showing saturated fats directly cause heart disease? Oh, please link one.
This, I am tired of reading the same thread with the same talking points every single day from both sides. From now on, I will only be reading posts accompanied by links to randomized human control trials or by anecdotes about the quantity of animal products your grandpa eats in his 90s. Actually I will also entertain discussions of ancestral diet patterns and of the influence of industrial farming interests on dietary guidelines.
You have it backwards, but if you’re referencing mice studies on one of the most well researched topics in modern dietetics when there are assloads of studies with human subjects you’re far too stupid for me to have any hope you will ever have your mind changed on this.
On the off chance you are capable of abstract thinking, here is a good place to start learning real nutrition science https://youtu.be/mBFe1QattAU?si=QAVuc4GAaWBIHboh
>here is a good place to start learning real nutrition science
>https://youtu.be/
kek
>on the off chance you are an abstract thinker
>please watch this video while I provide no counter-points or reasoning
>just accept everything this guy says as fact
>I won't explain why though
lol you can't be serious.
Can’t force a horse to drink I guess. But good god if you aren’t trolling you’re stupid. Watch that video and try to come up with a disagreement you have with him
Telling someone to watch a YouTube video to "start learning" and accept everything said in it as a fact is the opposite of "abstract thinking." If you weren't lazy and moronic you would be providing your own views and information here and asking us to critically think about it. I don't actually care what your views on nutrition or whatever you're arguing about are. I'm just pointing out the obvious here.
There is no “lazy”. The ability for the average person to comprehend and analyze a field of research is limited. You don’t watch a youtube video to mindlessly nod and drool along with what the person is saying. It’s educational content, that may or may not include any substantially strong claims, and is more about looking at research in the broader context of what already exists, methodology issues, and the confidence we can have when making claims from it
And what does any of that have to do with "abstract thinking?"
?si=QAVuc4GAaWBIHboh
cant stand that ugly fricker consensus shill
>cant stand that ugly fricker consensus shill
Same. He's a piece of shit spewing the same bad advice that we've been hearing for 60 years at this point and I hate seeing people parade his bullshit.
>mice studies
Yikes.
That pyramid is moronic. RCTs are obviously stronger than systemic reviews or meta-analyses covering mostly/entirely epidemiology and in vitro studies.
>what if the review contains RCTs
That entirely depends on the quality of the RCTs cited.
Do you think smoking causes cancer?
Yes due to the well-established mechanisms of smoke carcinogens and the lack of any compelling RCTs providing counter-evidence.
>lack of any compelling RCTs providing counter-evidence.
Lmao. So observational studies are fine as long as you don't have an RCT proving the opposite....which is the same situation with saturated fat.
>muh mechanism
apob is a better mechanism than anything we know about smoking. Hypocrite.
>which is the same situation with saturated fat
The same situation as saturated fat and what? Heart disease? There is a countless number of "observational studies" showing saturated fat consumption has no correlation with heart disease. This doesn't exist with smoking, you deceitful homosexual.
>There is a countless number of "observational studies" showing saturated fat consumption has no correlation with heart disease
Well they are likely lower quality than the ones showing the contrary. Feel free to post them and I'll show you. But they have to be high quality than
>https://www.nature.com/articles/1600621
>These data suggest that cholesterol synthesis is lower during diets rich in coconut fat and safflower oil compared with diets rich in butter and might be associated with lower production rates of apoB-containing lipoproteins.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34527059/
>Our findings revealed that flaxseed oil supplementation might play a beneficial role in the reinforcement of the antioxidant defense system and amelioration of oxidative stress in adults.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34635132/
>Flaxseed intervention suggested the positive effects on lipid profiles, inflammatory cytokines and anthropometric indices in patients with dyslipidemia related diseases
>https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/7/2436/htm
>The addition of EVOO enhances the vasodilatory capacity of the brachial artery even in the short term
> https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.ATV.0000163185.28245.a1
> High SFA caused deterioration in FMD compared with high PUFA, MUFA, or CARB diets
> https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.010236
> These data provide support for current recommendations to replace saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat for primary prevention of CHD.
> https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-021-02507-1
>replacement of saturated fats with other macronutrients, such as polyunsaturated fats, was associated with reduced cardiovascular disease occurrence.
> https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.ATV.14.6.892
> reducing saturated fats is the key to lowering total and LDL cholesterol.
The gish-gallop, a classic
I opened up one of your studies and it was cited by 7 other studies, which is fricking pathetic, especially since you're holding it up as a "high-quality" study. I am definitely not opening up any other ones after that. You didn't even cite full sentences lmao.
Anyway, since you're asking nicely, I'll leave you with one meta-analysis (top of the pyramid lol), which is the first one I found and was cited by 300 other studies (a bit more than 7).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/
>During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke.
>Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD.
>there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.
>discussing why saturated fat is bad
>links an article saying coconut oil (more saturated fat than butter) is healthy
>randomly links an article about extra virgin olive oil being healthy
Did you read any of these articles...?
>first study he posts recommends eating coconut oil
>coconut oil is saturated fat
>implies that cholesterol synthesis is bad (lmao)
>2nd study
>might
>muh antioxidants (marketing BS)
>not even abiut saturated fat
>3rd study
>not even about saturated fat
>4th study
>literally says PUFAs, MUFAs, and carbs cause higher cholesterol than sat fat and that is why they're good (contradicts your first study's conclusion)
>5th study
>no intervention
>says linoleic acid is to blame
>6th study
>"The quality of evidence was low to very-low."
>literally says its own study is dogshit lmao
>final study
>9 week study
>even points out that due to small sample size the results can't be trusted to mean anything
I hate midwit morons like you who just spam studies with 0 understanding. You stand on the peak of Mount Midwit, making the world a worse place.
Based autist anon. I can't believe anyone would actually go through and read all of the research studies he linked.
NTA but not eating bugs or going vegan, sorry. I don't care what you evil liars say about anything, your masters eat Wagyu steak daily while useful idiots like you think we should eat rabbit food. have a nice day homosexual, preferably in front of your family.
I've seen plenty bullshit nonsense studies and can usually point it out: X study says Y unpatentable nutrient doesn't help with Z unlike what Dr. John Smith claimed, meanwhile X study not only failed to actually use Dr. John Smith's protocol but also used it at the wrong time. Clearly fraudulent and meant to discredit Dr. John Smith's work, but it doesn't really matter because the news rags will only report the conclusion of the study and most people will only read the headline of the news report. I saw this sort of thing all the time with vitamins, fasting, etc., and when I was involved in the circumcision debate there was never any shortage of insane nonsense studies trying to pass off the foreskin as the root of all evil, like that famous HIV study done in Africa that was absolutely meaningless if you read about how it was carried out. Science is full of fricking frauds and prostitutes and most any high profile RCT is evil to the core.
>like that famous HIV study done in Africa that was absolutely meaningless if you read about how it was carried out
redpill me on this please, I hear it cited all the time.
Sure. There were obviously two groups of men in the study: an intact group and a group that was circumcised. The men who were circumcised were given safe sex education and free condoms and also had to wait six whole weeks for their circumcision wounds to heal before they could have sex, which means that the intact group had a full month and a half head start on fricking and getting HIV before the other group. There's also the number that gets reported, I think it was like a 40% reduction in HIV acquisition? That's the relative percentage, the absolute difference between the two groups was like half a percentage point. This isn't even getting into HIV itself which has a really sketchy origin (look up what Kary Mullis the inventor of the PCR test had to say about it). The circumcision-HIV connection is one of the worst medical scams in history and of course, multiple people involved in the study had a prior interest in pushing circumcision.
>The men who were circumcised were given safe sex education and free condoms and also had to wait six whole weeks
>That's the relative percentage, the absolute difference between the two groups was like half a percentage point.
fricking lmao, thanks anon.
You're welcome, anon. It was actually a 60% reduction which is even more outrageous, I can't believe I forgot that. If you want more details, look up the documentary American Circumcision and jump to the part about HIV. The bit about the relative reduction rate will throw you for a loop, not to mention the "voluntary medical male circumcision" campaign inevitably led to just cutting babies like they do in the US. WHAT A SHOCK!
Unsurprisingly, one of the people involved in the trials was israeli. It's funny, I have often seen israelites say they don't care whether or not non-Jews are circumcised but for supposedly not caring they sure do like to finagle their way into positions of medical authority in the United States to tell non-Jews they should be circumcised. Very peculiar.
gee, I wonder why those ~~*people*~~ would do that?
>apob is a better mechanism than anything we know about smoking.
Apob is not a mechanism. It has nothing to do with heart disease. Your body makes these particles for a purpose not to kill you
>That pyramid is moronic
Lmao nobody cares what you think. Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it not true.
>Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it not true.
Not that anon but it's not true, though. I've seen plenty of RCTs done with a foregone conclusion in mind so this weird naive idea that they're this holy grail of scientific rigor is preposterous. The majority of actually decent science is small scale and independent; anything with major funding is almost always done with a foregone conclusion in mind. The people funding it want a return on their investment after all.
Captcha: PRAY
Yeah and people who actually know what they are talking about are able to discern a well done study with one that is obviously botched with biases. "Funding" is the laziest excuse to why you don't like a study. Points out what is wrong with the methodology not who funded it.
>good point anon
>i'm actually like, really smart though
>so funding doesn't really matter
>i can tell what a good research study is because i'm like really smart
>you really shouldn't judge things based on funding, that's kind of rude
Yeah.
On the contrary, I understand that the pyramid is a gross oversimplification of many fields of research and that having a strict hierarchy promotes the creation of copious amounts of poorly-made research to shut down well-crafted, opposing research. Many scientists agree with me.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975798/
>We suggest another way of looking at the evidence-based medicine pyramid and explain how systematic reviews and meta-analyses are tools for consuming evidence—that is, appraising, synthesising and applying evidence.
Also,
>nobody cares what you think
>if you disagree it means you don't understand
>just believe in The Science
What a horrible way of thinking. You are definitely COVID vax'd, and I would bet you were raised by a single mom, too.
>non-interventional observations are stronger than interventional trials
I hate how people eating ice cream causes forests fires
Where is the opposite of what israelites say, schizos on IST evidence, and esoteric evidence from cryptic dreams?
Am I in 1999?
>correlated
Yeah, spuriously correlated
Kek, you have no idea wtf you're talking about
>same nutritional knowledge as a housewife
Saturated fat is good.
Sugar is good.
Salt is good.
Or we are just telling you to eat each macronutrient with moderation
???????????????????????????????????
50s is more like it. ketoschizos and wapftards tend to be more fit and better looking than average person but their arteries are bad but being skinny saves them a bit. still better to live to 50 being no fatfer than skinny/builtfat than be fat frick proper and die in 60-80s after decades of suffering.
Are you the guy who things eating 3 eggs a day is making you go blind?
Dumb
These are all delicious foods
What is bro yapping about?
What have you been eating that seems to have caused you autism in your early teens?
I am 31 but look like I'm in my early 20s yet my diet is basically OP's, except instead of gay fruit like blueberries I eat pineapple or cantaloupe
great bait, got many (You)s, happy for you bro, excellent form
I follow the mediterranean diet. Simple as.
I, personally, follow a modified Mediterranean diet.
I am half Italian so whatever I eat is automatically a Mediterranean diet.
>half Italian
merimutt
>Red meat bad based off of flawed studies but reccomends drinking alcohol because it's correlated with longevity
>Implying Italians, Greeks, French and Lebanese all eat the same shit
Cringe
Is top right meat or liver? I can't tell.
Liver is meat
Liver is organ. Meat is meat. moron.
I'm sorry you are so upset at being wrong
Technically he's correct. Liver is meat. But yes, the pic is of liver.
"meat" refers to flesh.
liver is not flesh.
therefore, liver is not meat.
>meat" refers to flesh.
"Such tissue of an animal, used as food"
-The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
>The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition
kek
>the flesh of an animal (especially a mammal) as food. - Oxford English Dictionary
>the flesh of an animal when it is used for food - Cambridge Dictionary
>the flesh of animals as used for food - Dictionary.com
>Meat is defined as the flesh of animals (including fishes and birds) used as food - USDA.gov
>Meat is flesh taken from a dead animal that people cook and eat. - Collins Dictionary
>The flesh (muscle tissue) of an animal used as food - Wiktionary
>Use meat to mean any food that comes from the flesh of an animal. - Vocabulary.com
>The edible flesh of animals, especially that of mammals as opposed to that of fish or poultry. - Wordnik.com
>The flesh of animals used as food, esp. the flesh of mammals or, often, of fowl. - YourDictionary.com
>the flesh of an animal used as food - The Britannica Dictionary
>The edible flesh of animals - thefreedictionary.com
I could go on but I think you get the point.
TLDR: you're a homosexual
Its funny because you aren't defining the same word as I was, and totally missed the entire point. Now look up "flesh".
>Now look up "flesh".
k
>the soft substance consisting of muscle and fat that is found between the skin and bones of an animal or a human. - Oxford English Dictionary
>the soft parts of the body of an animal, especially the parts composed chiefly of skeletal muscle as distinguished from internal organs, bone, and integument - Merriam-Webster
>the soft part of the body of a person or animal that is between the skin and the bones - Cambridge Dictionary
>Flesh is the soft part of a person's or animal's body between the bones and the skin. - Collins Dictionary
>the soft substance of a human or other animal body, consisting of muscle and fat. - Dictionary.com
>Flesh is the part of a body that's made of muscles and fat - Vocabulary.com
>The soft tissue of the body, especially muscle and fat. - Wiktionary
>The soft tissue of the body of a vertebrate, covering the bones and consisting mainly of skeletal muscle and fat - thefreedictionary.com
>The soft substance of the body (of a person or animal) between the skin and the bones; esp., the muscular tissue. - YourDictionary.com
>The soft tissue of the body of a vertebrate, covering the bones and consisting mainly of skeletal muscle and fat. - Wordnik.com
Again, I could go on but you get the idea.
How does it feel to be double moronic?
You seem real upset man. Hope things get better
I'll put my meat in your mom's organ.
>honey is better than other sugar because... it just is okay!
It has same macros, but is better than other sugary stuff due to micros.
What micros? Honey doesn't have any micros.
There are none, like 99% of nutrition talk on the internet this moron is parroting an idea from another moron parroting a headline from some random b***h’s blog who has no credentials or citations
Honey literally can cure you
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5424551/
>has never heard about fructose
just don't post anymore
If you're getting any nutritional impact from the "micros in honey" then you're simply eating too much honey, you have an unhealthy unbalanced diet if that's the case
honey has anti inflammatory and anti microbial properties and has been used in herbal remedies for millennia, it is a superior source of sugar than a refined white sugar for example
> herbal remedies
Lmao, okay. I heard you can double the effectiveness by charging your honey with your crystals under a full moon while whispering positive affirmations to it. Fricking moron.
Hey champ you got your 7th booster yet
>you either believe everything I repeat from a sourceless hippy blog, or you are vaccinated to me!!
Dumb
>the adults are talking
This is ironically only ever said by infantile men who have the weakest grip on their life.
You aspire to live up to the title of adult. Being mistaken for an adult improves your pitifully low social standing.
Reminder that in the current year of our lord, 2024, that there are still people who think the only way to fix problems in your body is with pharmaceutical horse pills
>These days, medicines come from a variety of sources. Many were developed from substances found in nature, and even today many are extracted from plants. Some medicines are made in labs by mixing together a number of chemicals. Others, like penicillin, are byproducts of organisms such as fungus.
>he's never heard of manuka
just drink your cookies n cream whey, the adults are talking
Ok and that is good why?
>please spoonfeed me reasons why honey is different than sugar I am moronic
Here you go, anon:
TL;DR: Honey improves your blood sugar levels, lowers weight gain, and is even good for your teeth (all of which are the complete opposite of table sugar). It also has been shown to improve metabolic function and vascular health (arteries and veins), as well as increase vitamin concentrations.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30072671/
>Honey intake reduces blood sugar levels and prevents excessive weight gain.
>In addition, honey enhances insulin sensitivity that further stabilizes blood glucose levels and protects the pancreas from overstimulation brought on by insulin resistance.
>Lastly, honey protects the vasculature from endothelial dysfunction and remodelling.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19817641/
>The results of this study demonstrate that 8-week consumption of honey can provide beneficial effects on body weight and blood lipids of diabetic patients.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12935325/
>Honey increased blood vitamin C concentration by 47%,
>increased glutathione reductase by 7%.
>Honey markedly reduced fasting blood sugar by 5%.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2394949/
>Honey has a gentler effect on blood sugar levels on a per gram basis, and tastes sweeter than sucrose
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29568170/
>Honey-based mouthwash showed a promising antimicrobial effect on dental caries and plaque and gingival scores.
Haha you moron I'm not gonna open those links or read a single word you typed
I accept your concession.
Your TL;DR would make any researcher who isn’t desperate for grant money cringe. It shows why sometimes it’s better to just say nothing rather than simplifying data so much that it becomes completely misleading.
If most of your data is based on animal models or effect sizes so small they leave it out of the conclusion, please shut the frick up. God I am so tired of oblivious morons declaring things to be true with abysmally low evidence and having the gall to act like you’re somehow intellectually superior and “spoon-feeding” someone else your drivel
>If most of your data is based on animal models or effect sizes so small they leave it out of the conclusion
Did you mean to respond to me or someone else? I linked multi-week randomized controlled trials on humans and a review lmao.
>abysmally low evidence
There are around 1 billion studies on honey that all show it's a healthy food and different from sugar. This isn't really a niche field.
Anyway, did you actually want to respond to any of my studies and facts or just be angry at me lol.
Yeah don’t play coy, your review includes animal models as a substantial part of claiming honey prevents weight gain. The research on humans claiming it helps with weight loss and blood lipids doesn’t even provide an exact figure for how much in the conclusion, presumably because it’s not impressive. You conveniently leave out the note on hemoglobin rising.
This is the problem with citing insubstantial research like this, some person would have equal validity to claim honey increases CVD risk because of increased hemoglobin from this study. They would be moronic to do so, and it would make a lot more sense to simply pose the hypothesis and state we need more research, but that’s not what you did. “Honey lowers weight gain” is an extremely bold statement to make based on this evidence, and frankly it’s a claim that doesn’t even make sense. Honey lowers weight gain? Caloric foods don’t do that. They do that in comparison to other foods. “Oil causes weight gain” oh yeah? Does it? Even if I limit myself to 500 calories a day purely from oil? No, it fricking won’t
Yes Im splerging out, no I don’t care. Quit midwitting. Please be more cautious about the language you use, we have enough moronic ideas going around as it is
Based reply, however I am going to continue consuming honey because mommy said it's good for me when I was 6.
>increased hemoglobin is bad
lmao what. Some of us here exercise and don't want to be anemic like you.
>eating whole foods instead of junk foods doesn't "lower weight gain" because of CICO
You are moronic for this claim. The fact is, if you had 100 people eating junk food, and you replaced their diets with whole foods, you would have about 100 people lose weight.
>hurr I can eat 500 calories of oil!
Then frick off and eat 500 calories of oil, homosexual. No one cares. That's not how humans work.
>your review includes studies involving animal models
Yes, a review reviews research studies. The non-review studies I linked were multi-week randomized controlled trials on humans. Do you have any further questions?
based and this
Thank you for your service
Why would it reduce blood sugar levels?
Because it's a whole food and not processed junk food.
>eat junk food
>high blood sugar levels
>eat normal whole foods (including honey)
>lower blood sugar levels
>eat sugar from honey
>blood sugar drops
Is this bait? I don't know how to explain it any simpler. We're talking about a day-to-day basis, not a second-by-second basis obviously. That would be nonsensical and wouldn't lend itself to any practical discussion.
>eat junk food for a whole day
>have high, irregular blood sugar the whole day
>eat whole foods, including honey, the whole day
>have lower, well-controlled blood sugar the whole day
It really isn't that complicated.
if you are in caloric deficit or in ketosis your body coverts fat directly to glucose which will keep your blood sugar a little high (weirdly). If you eat sugar it will cause blood sugar to drop because that process stops. Makes no sense but I wore a blood glucose monitor for a month and saw it happen several times.
>Honey improves your blood sugar levels
Any sugar (with glucose, such as honey or table sugar) will increase glycemia (glucose in blood), aka "improving your blood sugar"
>lowers weight gain
Adding more calories into your diet will usually never lower weight gain
>is even good for your teeth
Ok so we're just making stuff up now, ok
>(all of which are the complete opposite of table sugar)
Wrong
>It also has been shown to improve metabolic function and vascular health (arteries and veins)
Just like any type of carbohydrate
>as well as increase vitamin concentrations
This actually just doesn't even mean anything. But let's assume it does and that the "study" is done with perfect subjects under near identical conditions. An increase in "vitamin concentration" would indicate that the body isn't using the vitamins, that would mean it's lowering metabolic function, which contradicts what's you've already said
Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you have any nutritional impact from the honey in your diet then you're simply having too much honey which would probably indicate an unhealthy diet. It wouldn't kill you to think once in a while
>food increases your blood sugar
You are intentionally being deceitful and ignoring how blood sugar is measured. I already explained this here:
.
>CICO coping
I already explained how replacing processed foods with whole foods causes you to lose weight here:
. You are delusional if you think eating healthy doesn't make fat people lose weight.
>making things up about teeth
I'm not going to repost the study about "honey-based mouthwash" but if you try a little harder and re-read the post you'll find it right there.
You ever meet someone who thinks they are smart but IQ is solidly in the room temperature range.
Explain how he is wrong? You don't even need a list of sources. Just use your eyes and brain.
I explained why he is wrong here and am awaiting a response:
Honey is one of the absolutely most healthy substances you can consume anon.
>honey and blueberries aren't bad for you despite their massive quantities of sugar that are more carb dense than fricking coca cola because they have a small amount of these healthy nutrients that are easily sourced from other vegetables and meats okay?!!!!
>honey and blueberries aren't bad for you
Yes, because they are both whole foods, as I explain in detail here
and here
.
"More carb dense than Coca Cola" doesn't make any sense because you can easily drink 700 calories of Coke throughout the day, and it would be pretty hard to eat 700 calories of honey or blueberries. I have literally never seen a diabetic eat honey or blueberries.
As a type 2 diabetic, I watched my Mom, a type 2 diabetic, eat pounds of blueberries while I would put raw honey on my carbs. Touch grass
is she still healthy? i doubt it
That's cool. Was this between meals of fast food washed down with 2 liters of sodas and microwave dinners with blue drink, you lying fat frick?
>i'm a type 2 diabetic
>touch grass
>Touch grass
You tell them, diabetus-kid!
Good point. I hadn't considered there are people putting effort into fricking themselves up.
Because it has lower glycemic index, mong.
Milk and honey.
>Raspberries or blueberries with greek yoghurt and a spoon of local honey for breakfast
>fish or meat and vegetables for lunch
>Proteinshake a few hours later
>nothing for dinnner becaue IF
nothing personal, just living to 150 in you're path.
>portein shake
yeah nah you asre fricking moronic
how often do i need to eat liver, and should I aim for specific one (pork,beef...)?
>how often do i need to eat liver
Just eat it when you crave it, you can poison yourself with heavy metal toxicity if you eat too many organs.
>you can poison yourself with heavy metal toxicity if you eat too many organs
That's not even a little bit true.
the job of the liver is to detox things coming in, so naturally some of those toxins will be stored in it. Go ahead and fill yourself up though, it's your funeral
>The liver filters toxins.
Lol, how does it feel to have an understanding of the liver of an 80 year old?
>so naturally some of those toxins will be stored in it
That's not at all how that works. Your liver doesn't "store toxins," because that would damage your liver. The body doesn't just hang on to things and wait for them to cause damage.
What "toxins" are you even talking about? Are you eating cows ingesting large amounts of arsenic and cyanide or something?
Not heavy metal poisoning, but copper zinc imbalance along with too much vitamin A
And this will only happen if you have a mental illness and force-feed yourself 8 oz of liver every day for months, ignoring all satiety mechanisms and common sense.
There's a difference between things that are "theoretically possible" and things that are "possible and dangerous." Overdosing on the vitamins found in liver is in the former group. You would know this if you ever put liver in your mouth. I don't even have to mention that 100% of Vitamin A poisoning cases in the modern era are due to supplements (aka 0% are due to liver consumption). I never looked into the epidemiology of Cu-Zn imbalances but I would bet it's the exact same.
>don't eat this food it has way too many nutrients!
God, what a moron.
>avoid ultra processed foods
simple as
Very antisemitic, please reconsider.
cuz he is rich
rice
beans
vegetables
meat
every meal all the time
>saturated fat is eaten for thousands of years
>no modern diseases
>veggie oils are consumed the last 100 years
>heart disease, obesity, diabetes etc etc
yeah yeah nice try ketotard
I love how it's only black and white for you morons
people for millennia weren't shoving lard and butter into their faces like keto morons are. modern idiots taking it to the extreme doesn't invalidate the point
>people that are not on keto dont eat fat
its a macro you fricking moron, everyone eats it.
sat fat from eggs/meat/diary is the best version of fat. my macro split is 40/40/20 pcf
have a nice day, Moxyte. Nobody likes you.
last night I got stoned and ate an entire bag of frozen blueberries with my hands. I didn't realize til after that my entire mouth and fingers were stained blue. so I went into work today looking like that. also the blueberries didn't make me feel better. they made me gassy all day and I've taken 4 Explosive shits so far
Hmmm. Pretty sure if you eat 1000x the normal amount of anything you're gonna feel like shit. Blueberries are like 1/2cup serving.
I think he feels like shit because he got extremely high and went to work disheveled and confused.
Surely it's not some other substance that is causing it.
full of tannins which dry you out and cause headaches the same as wine/tea can
lol diet cucks
Chad eats McDonalds and surfs all day
>unironically started eating exclusively this 3 weeks ago
>great strength, mood, bjj stamina, skin, sleep and energy
This is the best diet, hands down
The social media grifter diet
Funny how literally all of actual scientists say this is detrimental to your health but a few fake natties on social media tell you to eat this shit and then tell you to buy their book
Fricking morons
>Funny how literally all of actual scientists say this is detrimental to your health
You think "literally all" scientists unanimously agree that milk, honey, eggs, blueberries, and organ meat is bad for you...? That's an extremely bold claim, and obviously false.
>actual scientists
"Actual scientists" also told us the vax was harmless, that kids should transition and that climate change will kill us all 1000 times. Kys you fricking loser.
It’s not the fricking food that makes you feel good it’s the caloric deficit you put yourself into
You can eat Twinkies and lose weight it literally doesn’t matter
>It’s not the fricking food that makes you feel good it’s the caloric deficit you put yourself into
How does a caloric deficit make you feel good? Are you some kind of anorexic self hating twink?
Because 99.999999% of people arguing about le diets on the internet are fat people claiming their diet is the best because it let them lose 5lbs of water weight the quickest
Every single actual athlete knows it’s all calories
>the only measure of health is your weight
>the only way diet affects you is calories
How can someone be this stupid? Why don't you try eating "only Twinkies" for 2 weeks and see how it affects your exercise performance and mental health, moron.
Kys, right now, you are fricking stupid af
I hope that you get diabetes and never reproduce
Can someone red pill me on raw vs cooked liver?
cooked is better
>reason?
raw liver is fricking disgusting
I mean, if it is more nutritionally beneficial raw, then I'll figure out a way to get it down. When i started eating raw garlic, I almost threw up in the middle of chewing, but I figured out if I crushed the cloves, popped them in, i could just down a bunch of water and swallow them like pills. I could probably do the same with liver, but I'd like some non-bullshit explanation of any benefit raw would have over cooked.
>but I figured out if I crushed the cloves, popped them in,
I did this and just shat out crushed garlic cloves
Whenever I get a sick (which is never if I’m on my Vitamin D supplement), i brew up some honey and lemon and heat it up a bit. Think it does something.
Add ground beef and it’s literally all you need
Is there a single guy on IST who can post a pic of
>his real raw milk gallon
>a physique that isn't fat
I'm not even asking for a jacked body. I just know you guys are fat, baldies. Not one person has accepted the challenge.
Unfortunately I live in a state where it is extremely hard to acquire raw milk. It's bullshit. Nta btw
Yeah I knew it's a larp because the only people I actually see in real life obsessed this shit are fat boomers.
Berries and honey are unsustainable resources and prohibitively expensive.
Berries and honey have been around for like a billion years lmao
>expensive
Still cheaper than junk food.
>Berries and honey have been around for like a billion years
Like, maybe 100M. Tops.
That doesn't make them sustainable, though.
>Still cheaper than junk food.
And?
>And?
...and most people buy junk food, therefore they're not "prohibitively expensive." You have the attention span of an iPad kid lol.
>therefore they're not "prohibitively expensive.
Okay, stop. Are you talking about fast food, or junk food?
Junk food is still cheap as frick. Fast food though is prohibitively expensive and people who are still buying that crap are going to find themselves in dire straits soon.
In either case, there are way cheaper alternatives than either. Especially if you know how to cook.
>Junk food is still cheap as frick.
idk if you live in America but currently junk food prices are skyrocketing while the packages are getting smaller and smaller. A box of kid's cereal is more expensive, and obviously provides less nutrition, than whatever fruit is on sale. Eating healthy has always been cheaper than eating junk food, but the difference is only getting more stark.
>than whatever fruit is on sale.
I'm not talking about whatever fruit, I'm talking specifically about berries. And I'm talking about those specifically because they're substantially more expensive than most other fruit due to harvesting methods that scale poorly.
Berries go on sale at my grocery store sometimes. Honey doesn't, but I buy it from a local farmer for pretty cheap anyway.
>sometimes.
That's part of what I'm getting at.
I'm not saying don't buy it when it's cheap, but it's not a food item that you can expect everyone to eat regularly. They're fruits with relatively limited supply that can't match demand.
Limits including difficult harvest, quick expiration, poor travel, seasonal constraints, non-scalable farming, and steep water requirements.
Realistically, it's not something your ancestors were eating year round, but something they ate when it was available.
>Limits including difficult harvest, quick expiration, poor travel, seasonal constraints, non-scalable farming, and steep water requirements.
Thank goodness for modern technology and supply chains allowing for berries to arrive at my grocery store at a price I can reasonably afford despite all of these potential problems. I will continue to buy organic berries at a reasonable price from sustainable farms and prove you wrong.
>I will
>I
Yes. *You* will.
I'm telling you not to expect this of everyone.
Because that reasonable price will quickly go away.
These aren't "potential problems", they're problems already factored into their current price.
Berries are sustainable insofar as the demand remains low.
blueberries are aight
eggs are good
rest of your shit is a meme
Raw milk is actually incredible. If you use it to ferment some Kefir with colostrum powder added, you basically make a healing potion.
>milk and honey
>prized by humans for thousands of years
>helped early civilizations grow
>still prized by modern hunter gatherers
>specifically described in the Bible as based
>a meme
I think your opinion is worthless.
MUH HECKIN ANCESTERINOS AND THE BIBLE
Our ancestors diets, by the very definition of them being our ancestors is the correct one. Especially pre-agriculture.
Correct for what? Living the longest? Cause that's what I am interested in doing, rather than dying off once I become a burden to the tribe
I've never seen anyone dispute this that wasn't a redditor midwit.
>MUH HECKIN LIFESPAN
That was due to lack of modern medical science. People were seldom dying of lack of nutrition - they were dying of diseases that even the most modern IST person would keel over from without medical intervention. A majority of this is also attributed to high infant mortality rates bringing the average lifespan down.
Modern human and their pre-human ancestors for hundreds of thousands of years ate specific foods and those are ideal BY THEIR NATURE of them evolving to eat it over such a large period of time. Do you think humanity just spend 500,000 years being malnutrioned and sickly the whole time because mother nature made a fricky wucky, and was waiting for us to invent agriculture? Stop being fricking moronic.
this makes sense if you're a sub sarahan Black. are you a sub saharan Black?
Sub-Saharan hunter-gatherers/pastoralists today are actually much healthier than the average Westerner. They pretty much have perfect health—perfect teeth, very tall, no obesity, very active (obviously). They mostly die from hunting accidents.
This is obviously different than the more urban Africans living off of UN rations, who are notoriously unhealthy.
It makes sense local to wherever pre-agricultural humans (and their ancestors) were found, which is 99% of human history. We've only spend a relatively short amount of time on the evolutionary scale of eating food in a post-agricultural society. Our bodies worked perfectly fine prior to this, and by definition was the perfect diet. Your ebin post about locality actually makes no sense if you're talking about milk specifically. White people are generally not lactose intolerant, while most other groups are.
Agriculture allowed civilizational growth, but physiologically not much has changed. Modern nutritional science can hone in on some specific points, but ultimately whatever people were eating for that long of a time period is going to be ideal for you.
Okay, there are many ways in which a person could die in pre-civilization times, which would decrease the average lifespan. What Im having trouble grasping, in such a scenario, is an evolutionary pressure that would require diet to promote living to old age.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-evolution-of-grandparents-2012-12-07/
Thank you, I'll check this out and consider
Interesting, so Neanderthals didn't live past 30? I didn't know that. I was hoping to find evidence of old people in pre-history. Anyone know of such studies?
There is evidence. The period during the Industrial Revolution is a stupid gauge of how long humans used to live for several reasons. With that said, we have Inuit mortality records from a Russian expedition to Alaska. The Inuit were converted to Christianity but they retained their hunter-gatherer way of life and some individuals reached their 90s. Most deaths came from accidents, war and infectious diseases; the latter wouldn't have been as high if contact with the Russians hadn't been established.
https://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/mortality-and-lifespan-of-inuit.html
Inchstring, thanks b
You're welcome.
I just searched what 'foxo2' is; didn't you mean FOXO3? I don't know why it's relevant since very few Inuit lived to 90 and beyond. The point was just that the lifespan of at least one group of hunter-gatherers could extend to 90+.
Apart from that cluster inuits also have unique genes related to tolerating higher saturated fat diets. So unless you're an inuit I don't see a point in trying to replicate their diet especially in macros only and not the actual sources they ate.
Nothing said implies you should live or eat exactly like them. There certainly is something to be learned from them but they're very genetically unique like you implied. Basically all of them are at least carriers of an allele that impairs ketogenesis. I doubt there's something special about them concerning saturated fat and there seems to be an adaptation to deal with a high PUFA intake in those that lived near the coast.
Tokelauans have a diet rich in saturated fat, have the highest cholesterol levels recorded in a hunter-gatherer group and yet are free from heart disease, but this stops being the case once they migrate to industrialized places.
That's great but do you have the same foxo2 cluster as asians and indians? Because that's what makes or breaks longevity for most people.
Because malnutrition can also cause other diseases, or worsen existing ones. A good diet (especially one that involves milk and/or honey as discussed) can mean the difference between life and death if you get an infection. A man in his late 50's can technically still impregnate a woman if he is healthy, as most who lived to that age likely were. Is this what you were asking?
For the most part yeah, maybe looking a couple more decades down the line in the twilight of life, but then it's probably about enjoying what time you have left. Mostly thinking from the perspective of the young virile specimen that would be doing the most procreation.
>is an evolutionary pressure that would require diet to promote living to old age.
A diet that promotes longevity is the same diet that would make you a strong and virile young man. Why would they be any different?
>A diet that promotes longevity is the same diet that would make you a strong and virile young man. Why would they be any different?
This is indeed implicit in what I was calling into question. Perhaps it could be beneficial, for example, not to have a bunch of old geezers hanging around. So the same foods that strengthen a young man i.e. animals, could also over time manifest in cardiovascular degeneration to limit lifespan. Speculative, I know, but just a thought. I'm not about to write a book and go on Joe Rogan over it
>maybe the diet that makes you healthy makes you sick
That literally makes no sense. "Cardiovascular degeneration," if you mean atherosclerosis, is caused by metabolic dysfunction and widespread inflammation, by the way. Neither of which you would have as a healthy virile young man.
>redditor midwit
>talks about evolution
>God and evolution are mutually exclusive, c-choose a side!
It is by the grace of God alone that low IQ individuals like yourself can be sustained in our modern society. You wouldn't have made it back in the day, sorry.
that's not what I'm talking about at all. this weird ancestor worship shit is totally unscientific and impossible to verify. evolution science is largely based on conjecture but modern nutrition can be tested in a laboratory. the idea that "ancestors ate this so it's good" is an emotional, incredibly low iq argument.
OP isn't advocating for instinctual eating, he is arguing for eating ancient foods simply because that's what people used to eat. Two different things
Worked for me great-great-great.... gran, it will work for me. Simple as
your great great gran didn't lift weights either.
Sure, people just lived for hundreds of thousands of years vomiting all over each other, dying at age 13, and suffering from malnutrition because it's "impossible to verify" they didn't. You're a hair's width away from asking me for a "SOURCE???"
It's basic common sense. Humanity is still here obviously, because they weren't dropping like flies due to poor diets, much to the chagrin of argumentative redditors. Any species that has a consistent diet and lifestyle for hundreds of thousands of years is by its definition the "default" way that species should subsist. Evolutionary pressure and nature has adapted for it. Those who are still alive after all that time are the ones who it works for, as it is for literally every descendent of those ancestors with some regional exceptions like milk. You can say the same for any other species of animal. It's not "ancestor worship" you goober. Explain to me how anything to the contrary could possibly be true.
people died early in the past not because of food because of untreatable minor illnesses, tuberculosis, infection of wounds..stay moronic
>but modern nutrition can be tested in a laboratory
Uh yeah anything can be tested in a laboratory. That doesn't mean that it's solved. Modern nutritional science is pretty far from discovering perfect artificial replacements for nutrition.
It's not even currently good at counting the nutritional value of foods. For example, it doesn't adjust for bioavailability of proteins or nutrients in food. 50 grams of protein from steak is going to be absorbed and utilized much better than 50 grams of protein from seitan. An ounce of liver is going to have much more bioavailable nutrients utilized than vitamin-enriched corn cereal. But all you find on the nutrition label is "Protein: 50 grams" and "Vitamins: 100%." Also, Vitamin C content in meat isn't counted for whatever reason (yes, meat has Vitamin C).
lmao what? shut up homosexual you are so moronic.
beef liver is literally the most nutritious though
I actually feel great eating almost everything except fast food.
looks heart healthy to me
people who say we should feed this to children instead of natural fats should be shot into space in minecraft
Eating honey is stupid, it's literally liquid sugar.
I already discussed why this was wrong here:
.
Honey acts differently than "liquid sugar" at pretty much every level. Their similarities pretty much end at both being carbohydrates.
I used to do this as my bulk diet but with black berries instead.
Good stuff, not exactly gonna help you keep off the body fat though if you manage to stomach 3.5k calories a day worth of the stuff.
if you must have fruit eat cranberries they have the lowest fructose of any fruit
1.6 or something
lucky americans, they get all the fresh crans they want
near impossible to find without copious added sugar
allright but what kind of honey should i get
Local raw unfiltered
i have contacted my local beekeeper, what should i look for in the honey?
i mean, i've never looked at raw honey, and i dont think i could recognize raw from not.
also what do i ask? just raw, unfiltered? there's also non-centrifuged, whatever that means
If it's a local beekepeer, I honestly just go based off of vibes if I know it's raw and unfiltered, like I check the website or their Facebook or something. An extra thing you could do is compare local beekeepers and buy from one with the least pesticide content in the area, because some of that pesticide may end up in the honey. You'd do this by avoiding beekeepers surrounded by monocrop farmland. Don't overthink it, anon, any raw unfiltered honey will be delicious and great.
how the frick do i know which area has the least pesticides
>dont overthink it
>You'd do this by avoiding beekeepers surrounded by monocrop farmland
>tfw in a sea of dark blue and would have to travel hundreds of miles to get out of it
Raw, never pasteurized, not filtered.
Some producers do heat it up to 40C (104F) to prevent crystallization and still claim it's not pasteurized, because pasteurization temperature is 145°F (63°C).
This still degrades the product. Any honey that's been above 34C (93F) has degraded and lost a significant amount of enzymes and other properties.
If it doesn't crystallize when cold, it's not truly raw.
Apart from blueberries I don't think I can live on a diet made purely out of memes.
You guys are seething about honey and sugar. Just eat monk fruit. It beats honey low diff. I'm doing a body recomp, and actually gaining strength because of a bunch of herbs + monk fruit. Did 190 log press for 3 reps on Friday, all time PR, and I'm down about 5 lbs. this month.
I have been feeling like shit last 3 years and can't figure out what is wrong with me
>Inb4 the vaccine
I started feeling like shit before I take the first dose
>>I started feeling like shit before I take the first dose
you got airvaxxed
where the frick are the oats
Replaced as a source of nutritious and easily-digestible carbohydrates by blueberries and honey, which are actually nutritious and easily digestible.
based moron
what are you suggesting, a bucket of blueberries covered in honey?
What is this schizo post lol. I eat berries from a bowl and honey from a spoon. I also drink water from a glass and eat food from a plate. Do you have any other questions?
I agree about getting local honey. The people around me have been bee keepers for generations they take care of them and you can even visit the farms. The flowers the bees go to are never sprayed and they give the honey a unique taste. They also have royal jelly,bee pollen, honeycomb for a good price. At a farm near them they have eggs and meat from grass fed cows it’s actually a little cheaper than the store so I load up on honey, eggs and meat. I get raw milk sometimes if it’s available or goat milk.