I love oatmeal, I eat it with bananas and it's great. Macro wise it's one of the most efficient sources of getting complex carbs (most carbs per calorie). It's a fantastic bulk food when eaten with milk.
Also, you can mix oatmeal, casein, milk and cocoa powder for a really good and protein rich pudding.
my favorite part about oatmeal is that people will put honey, bananas, peanut butter and chocolate chips in them but won't have a bowl of cheerios because cereals are bad for you
Yes you dunning kruger uneducated homosexual
EVERYTHING has poison
EVERYTHING is poison
THE DOSE DETERMINES IF IT MATTERS
THERE IS NO PURE FOOD
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Yes you dunning kruger uneducated homosexual >i read the wikipedia page, therefore im smart
congratulations bro you can read >EVERYTHING has poison
no lol
And? You homosexuals gobble down supplements pushed by chiropractors on YouTube but are afraid of trace residue of the safest weed killer man has ever invented. Peak schizo shit.
Normal cheerios have the same macros and micros as oats because they're essentially torus shaped oats, with a bit of corn starch for texture, sugar and salt. I'll give you that it's a bit of a minefield because the industry will present the lemon cheesecake cheerios and the triple caramel fudge cheerios as similar when they're not. >SUGAR!!!
bananas, honey, pb, etc. will make your oats worse sugar wise than cheerios
Also KFC breast pieces have good macros. The only bad thing about them is the canola oil and TBHQ. And the wheat flour if you're one of these people
cheerios are infinitesimally inferior to oats, because of the ingredients, which are essentially the same, until you add a bunch of sugar and fat to your oats, which makes them worse. >I actually eat oats with water and nothing else
good for you
Normal cheerios have the same macros and micros as oats because they're essentially torus shaped oats, with a bit of corn starch for texture, sugar and salt. I'll give you that it's a bit of a minefield because the industry will present the lemon cheesecake cheerios and the triple caramel fudge cheerios as similar when they're not. >SUGAR!!!
bananas, honey, pb, etc. will make your oats worse sugar wise than cheerios
Also KFC breast pieces have good macros. The only bad thing about them is the canola oil and TBHQ. And the wheat flour if you're one of these people
cheerios are infinitesimally inferior to oats, because of the ingredients, which are essentially the same, until you add a bunch of sugar and fat to your oats, which makes them worse. >I actually eat oats with water and nothing else
good for you
cheerios are ultra-processed foods. all ultra-processed foods put shit stuff in the mixture and you cant tell.
its food that must literally been given shape, because its made from a mixed paste of stuff.
oats are an ingredient.
honey is an ingredient.
peanut butter is an ingredient.
bananas are an ingredient.
you can buy good quality ingredients. you cannot buy good quality ultra-processed foods.
i know where my oats come from, where bananas come from, where honey comes from and i only buy 100% peanut butter that is from my same region.
you can possibly get similar macros, yes; but micros? and all the other shit added to ultra-processed that literally isnt even food?
you're wrong. stop eating fake food targeted for kids. you'll feel better.
glyphosate is being sprayed also on almost every other grain ,fruit and vegetable.
inb4 carnivore , yea m8 sure but the meat we consume ate those glyphosate sprayed grains also+ bunch of other shit.
For the vast, vast, VAST majority of human existence, we lived as hunter-gatherers. Agriculture is an extremely recent innovation (roughly 10,000 years old) against the roughly 300,000 year existence of anatomically modern humans, or the millions of years of existence of closely related species.
What does this mean? It means that we spent 99% of our existence, including all the periods where our bodies were evolving and adapting to our environment and diet, eating food that could be gathered naturally, i.e. without the requirement of agriculture.
Things we ate: >fruit >tubers >wild vegetables >meat >honey >nuts
Things we didn't eat: >grains >grains >grains
A simple rule of thumb for determining if a food is good for you or not is to simply ask >would a human living 50,000 years ago have access to this food?
If the answer is no then it's probably not good for you. There are always exceptions; some natural foods aren't good for you and some modern foods aren't too terribly bad but for the most part, you can work out a pretty good diet using this rule.
And before someone shows up with a bunch of cope, we have very clear and undeniable evidence in the form of skeletal remains to prove that the transition from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists caused a massive decline in overall human health.
Because hunter gatherers are objectively the healthiest humans.
https://i.imgur.com/wTEdcPW.jpg
>would a human living 50,000 years ago have access to this food?
You're a fricking moron: so monstrously, aggressively pseudointellectual that it necessitates the employ of violence inasmuch as you might trick morons into falling for your drivelous sophistry.
Your faculty of reason has fundamental and irreparable flaws so I will waste no time in attempting to dissuade you or right your path;. Instead, I will speak to those who might be unsure of the truth by stating that the lens wherethrough you view what is and is not a proper diet, what might or might not allow you to reach the greatest heights of humanity, should not be barbarous but, as your objective implies, quintessentially human: philosophy (i.e. high level academic pursuits) and fitness. Thankfully, this means wherethrough might achieve this has been known for approximately 2500 years; Plato, via Timeaus and Republic, shows us what the ancients once considered obvious:
"...a moderate and thus a healthy diet, consists of cereals, legumes, fruits, milk, honey and fish. However, [other] meat, confectionery and wine should be consumed only in moderate quantities. Excesses in food lead to ailments and therefore should be avoided."
The pinnacle of mankind, those whose very existence differentiated will differentiate us from mere animals for all eternity, are worth of emulation; barbarous cavemen riddled with parasites are very manifestly not. The minds and bodies of our quintessentially human ancestors were build primarily by legumes and grains and animal-based protein was achieved via the consumption of fish. This is a fact and is incontrovertible. Meat was also not a meal of the aristocrats; for aristocratic fancy in both antiquity's Mediterranean and Renaissance Europe was comprised of dishes whose primary component was barley meal and wheat.
I will once more emphasize that venerating cavemen is fricking monstrously moronic and emulating their diet is akin to emulating the diet of a maggot
Aside from the hilarious claim that the ancient Greeks were "the pinnacle of mankind", if you're trying to disprove my claim that pre-agricultural humans were healthier then appealing to a society that was fully agricultural is not the best method. Ok! Time to stop with the theories and get down to the science. Hunter-gatherers have been proven to have objectively superior (stronger, healthier, more powerful) bodies than those of agriculturalists.
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418646112 >We found that bone strength in the hip joint of human foragers is comparable to similarly sized nonhuman primates, and is significantly more robust than sedentary agriculturalists.
As a result of both lifestyle and diet: >http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411696112 >“Modern human skeletons have shifted quite recently towards lighter-more fragile, if you like-bodies. It started when we adopted agriculture. Our diets changed. Our levels of activity changed,” says study co-author Habiba Chirchir, an anthropologist in the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program.
You can see for yourself the varying bone densities in this pic. For more detailed reading on the complex changes that came with the Neolithic revolution, you can read this paper: >https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=nebanthro >Skeletal analyses of human remains from early agricultural centers throughout the world indicate that this revolution significantly affected overall human health. This paper will address some of the drastic effects of this transition as evidenced by craniofacial changes related to masticatory function, declines in oral health, increased spread of pathogens, infectious disease, and zoonoses, as well as a variety of ailments which have been linked to nutritional deficiencies and increased physical stress on the human body.
>Because hunter gatherers are objectively the healthiest humans.
You have zero evidence except rose colored glasses
8 months ago
Anonymous
>You have zero evidence
Except the literal evidence I just posted, I guess? My son, if you don't have a rebuttal then just close the thread. We're all anonymous here and there's no shame in just not responding. Choosing to respond with dumb shit like this just makes you look like a fool.
Maybe you just didn't read the studies I posted? Reading is hard, I know. Here, I'll give you the tl;dr version: >analysis of human skeletons before and after the development of agriculture proves that after agriculture, humans suffered declines in oral health, increased spread of pathogens, infectious disease, and zoonoses, as well as a variety of ailments which have been linked to nutritional deficiencies
Cavities are 99% diet and were relatively rare in hunter-gatherer societies.
>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/tooth-decay-archaeology/4307319/ >During the early years of human history, dentists wouldn't have had much business. Earlier research shows that ancient hunter-gathers had cavities in at most 14% of their teeth, and some had almost no cavities at all. Then, roughly 10,000 years ago, humans learned to farm. Grain and other carbohydrates took over the plate, making the human mouth a haven for bacteria that destroy tooth enamel. Ancient farmers had cavities in up to 48% of their teeth, leading scientists to assume that a human jaw with lots of cavities probably came from a farming society.
And nutritional deficiencies became common after the neolithic revolution:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21507735/ >empirical studies of societies shifting subsistence from foraging to primary food production have found evidence for deteriorating health from an increase in infectious and dental disease and a rise in nutritional deficiencies.
Which resulted in a consistent decrease in height. Regardless of where on the globe it took place, whenever a society transitioned from a foraging lifestyle to an agricultural one, the population turned into manlets: >The impact of agriculture, accompanied by increasing population density and a rise in infectious disease, was observed to decrease stature in populations from across the entire globe and regardless of the temporal period during which agriculture was adopted, including Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America, and North America.
Agriculture turns people from tall, healthy chads with dense bones and no disease into parasite and cavity-ridded manlets. Literal, undeniable fact.
Anyway, I've posted a lot of proof and none of the guys responding to me have done the same so I'm not going to respond to anyone else unless they bring some evidence along.
Post body
Post argument
8 months ago
Anonymous
>no body posted
Opinion disregarded
8 months ago
Anonymous
Post body
>take a picture of yourself for me i-it's for the thread i swear
i understand why there are so many literal gays on IST but i wish they could at least be less thirsty
makes me cringe every time i see some homosexual begging for anons to post jerkoff material for him
8 months ago
Anonymous
>very lose association
We literally have human RCT'S that show high whole grain and fiber diets greatly improve life expectancy and lower risks of disease.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I've posted a lot of proof and none of the guys responding to me have done the same so I'm not going to respond to anyone else unless they bring some evidence along.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Look at bone density of shaolin monks
Shifu yan lei has had tests on him and he eats mostly carbs
Weston A. Price - Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.
don't speak until you've read this book.
8 months ago
Anonymous
What makes you think I haven't? My first post in the thread was
Extremely high in phytic acid. Eating them regularly is one of the best ways to destroy your teeth.
8 months ago
Anonymous
then you would know it's not agriculture that destroys health.
8 months ago
Anonymous
What is it, then? Because I'm pretty sure I remember Price contrasting the teeth of African pastoralists with those of grain-eating Westerners. What you should keep in mind with Price is that he and especially his foundation after his death are making compromises in order to reach a wider audience.
Example: he'll go on about the evils of phytic acid but rather than take the most obvious step of avoiding foods that contain it, he (or the foundation, I admit I sometimes forget what exactly is an original Price theory and what is moronic shit from Sally Fallon, who is a brainless c**t) recommend instead going through extensive preparation of these foods in order to reduce the phytic acid content.
But all these "traditional" grain preparation methods are things that people would have been doing thousands of years ago and as we see from the studies I posted
Cavities are 99% diet and were relatively rare in hunter-gatherer societies.
>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/tooth-decay-archaeology/4307319/ >During the early years of human history, dentists wouldn't have had much business. Earlier research shows that ancient hunter-gathers had cavities in at most 14% of their teeth, and some had almost no cavities at all. Then, roughly 10,000 years ago, humans learned to farm. Grain and other carbohydrates took over the plate, making the human mouth a haven for bacteria that destroy tooth enamel. Ancient farmers had cavities in up to 48% of their teeth, leading scientists to assume that a human jaw with lots of cavities probably came from a farming society.
And nutritional deficiencies became common after the neolithic revolution:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21507735/ >empirical studies of societies shifting subsistence from foraging to primary food production have found evidence for deteriorating health from an increase in infectious and dental disease and a rise in nutritional deficiencies.
Which resulted in a consistent decrease in height. Regardless of where on the globe it took place, whenever a society transitioned from a foraging lifestyle to an agricultural one, the population turned into manlets: >The impact of agriculture, accompanied by increasing population density and a rise in infectious disease, was observed to decrease stature in populations from across the entire globe and regardless of the temporal period during which agriculture was adopted, including Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America, and North America.
Agriculture turns people from tall, healthy chads with dense bones and no disease into parasite and cavity-ridded manlets. Literal, undeniable fact.
Anyway, I've posted a lot of proof and none of the guys responding to me have done the same so I'm not going to respond to anyone else unless they bring some evidence along.
[...]
Post argument
https://i.imgur.com/nKANdqo.png
Because hunter gatherers are objectively the healthiest humans.
[...]
Aside from the hilarious claim that the ancient Greeks were "the pinnacle of mankind", if you're trying to disprove my claim that pre-agricultural humans were healthier then appealing to a society that was fully agricultural is not the best method. Ok! Time to stop with the theories and get down to the science. Hunter-gatherers have been proven to have objectively superior (stronger, healthier, more powerful) bodies than those of agriculturalists.
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418646112 >We found that bone strength in the hip joint of human foragers is comparable to similarly sized nonhuman primates, and is significantly more robust than sedentary agriculturalists.
As a result of both lifestyle and diet: >http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411696112 >“Modern human skeletons have shifted quite recently towards lighter-more fragile, if you like-bodies. It started when we adopted agriculture. Our diets changed. Our levels of activity changed,” says study co-author Habiba Chirchir, an anthropologist in the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program.
You can see for yourself the varying bone densities in this pic. For more detailed reading on the complex changes that came with the Neolithic revolution, you can read this paper: >https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=nebanthro >Skeletal analyses of human remains from early agricultural centers throughout the world indicate that this revolution significantly affected overall human health. This paper will address some of the drastic effects of this transition as evidenced by craniofacial changes related to masticatory function, declines in oral health, increased spread of pathogens, infectious disease, and zoonoses, as well as a variety of ailments which have been linked to nutritional deficiencies and increased physical stress on the human body.
they still weren't enough to mitigate the damage caused by grains. If you're determined to eat corn regularly then nixtamalization is absolutely a beneficial and necessary step but a better solution is avoiding it altogether. You can pump yourself full of cod liver oil and butter and go a long way toward healing the harm caused by a grain-heavy diet, but why not just cut out the grains? There's absolutely nothing in them that you need, nutritionally. Every nutrient found in grain can be found in healthier sources.
8 months ago
Anonymous
everything you think you know is an extraction from fat pigs like Fallon that are trying to make money off his work.
it's simply the processed bleached flour and lack of micronutrients. nothing to do with agriculture.
I'm sure you're aware of Pottenger's Cats as well then?
?si=k2mtw6NT_l2JPoR5
what about the countless other studies, both animal and human (like Price's book) where it only takes a generation to alter genes?
8 months ago
Anonymous
We've learned quite a lot in the past 100 years and Price is just a piece of the puzzle. Consider the context of what Price was seeing - people eating traditional diets were healthier than those eating highly processed ones. But this is like an experiment where you take a bunch of people and make two groups - one eating grains traditionally and one eating processed grains. The traditional group looks healthier, sure, but this is all taking place in a context where everyone is eating grains. For a proper comparison you need a group not eating grains, and we have that comparison via skeletal remains.
Lamarckism is nonsense so no I'm not impressed by Pottenger. What you should take from his studies is that animals thrive eating their natural diets, those they evolved to eat. For cats, that's raw meat. For humans, that's a diet that excludes grains. The idea that we've developed some genetic adaptation to be able to prefer grains is nonsense.
>Because hunter gatherers are objectively the healthiest humans.
Conflating bone density and physical strength with human health is disgraceful. You physiologic epistemology is insulting to anyone that has actually studied medicine and your interpretation of sources in general is indicative of why plebs shouldn't be allowed access to studies as they lack the formal education to parse them with a modicum of reason. Let us first begin by stating that health for mankind is defined by two markers---one greater and one lesser. The greater marker is neurological health which manifests directly as ratiocinative capacity and by extension in the resulting production of cultural artefacts (the apogee of which is philosophy). Cultures that have produced a greater quantity or, at in some cases, particularly profound cultural artefacts/philosophy are cultures bestowed heightened ratiocinative capacities upon their populace. We choose ratiocinative prowess as indicative of human health insofar as it is that which makes humans unique. Health, for mankind, biologically speaking, is health for our brains. The human body was literally forced to devolve and become a primitive vessel by evolution whereby the brain and its energy consumption has atrophied non-essential systems by choice to keep our sufficiently advanced brain alive. A chimpanzee's health is measured by their force output perhaps but the exact opposite is true for mankind. Mankind's prosperity has been defined and ushered in by our brains at the expense of our strength dictated by literal evolution.
The second marker is longevity and the large-scale civilization blessed with the greatest degree of longevity by a significant margin (Japan) is a civilization that consumes an asinine amount of grains and fish. This is even more impressive inasmuch as they remain blessed with inflated lifespans and low Alzheimer's incidence rates despite being afflicted by the various diseases of modernity and industrialization
>Conflating bone density and physical strength with human health is disgraceful.
Responding to a post you didn't read is disgraceful. If you had actually read my post, you'd see that the evidence is not limited to bone density but includes (and I'm literally just repeating the contents of my post here, but maybe you'll actually read it this time): >weaker jaws >worse oral health (400% increased incidence of cavities if not more) >increased susceptibility to pathogenic disease >increased susceptibility to infectious disease >increased susceptibility to zoonotic disease >nutritional deficiencies of many types
Listen, you seem to consider yourself a smart guy so I'm sure you can at least manage to read the abstract of >https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=nebanthro
Go ahead and read the entire thing, it's only 8 pages. You have a lot to learn on this issue so now's a good time to make a start.
8 months ago
Anonymous
Once again, you did not read your very own studies; moreover, not a single one of these posts
[...] >to summarize, we have two criteria for human health: brain health and longevity
It's interesting to see pseuds go so hard on topics they don't understand. Tell me, how would we gauge brain health? Are there any physical characteristics we could use, or are you basing this purely on culture?
>Grains and the consumption thereof have no negative affect on aerobic capacity but consumption of wholegrains literally does the opposite.
imagine trying so hard to be le internet professor only to top it off by recommending that everyone be a good goy grain eater
constitutes an argument that I have no already refuted. Your studies do not support your argument which leads me to believe you are either moronic or possess a tenuous grasp of the English language. In the two studies I linked, trabecular density quite literally THE ONLY thing studied; moreover, the article you linked is discontinuous with your argument. >increased susceptibility to pathogenic disease >increased susceptibility to infectious disease >increased susceptibility to zoonotic disease
Are all attributable primarily to increased population density primarily. At the very least, they CANNOT be viewed in a vacuum as stated IN YOUR VERY OWN STUDY (Armelagos et al. 1991). Of the most important micronutrients that promote immune system regulation (iron, zinc and vitamins A/E, B6 and B12), B12 is the only one that MUST be attained from an animal source. Another contributor according to your study is porotic hyperostosis which can be attributed to
infection from intestinal parasites gained via consumption of animal production and faulty methods of sanitation and secondarily via nutritional deficiency. (Ulijaszek 1991). >weaker jaws >worse oral health (400% increased incidence of cavities if not more)
According to your own studies, trabecular bone health and jaw density increases with stress during ones lifetime (a fact which you are conveniently admitting). The study you linked only indicates that sticky starches and softer food correlate to increases in cavities/caries. The author notes that oral health is particularly poor amongst the sticky starch/maize eating American peoples but recognizes that there are studies that stated a decrease in oral attrition and periodontal disease in Neolithic agriculturalists of the Levant.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>I've posted a lot of proof and none of the guys responding to me have done the same so I'm not going to respond to anyone else unless they bring some evidence along.
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159235/ > Intake of whole grains is associated with decreased body weight
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24158434/ > Whole grain intake is associated with decreased risk of Type 2 Diabetes and refined grains are NOT associated with increased risk of Type 2 Diabetes
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32552292/ > Increasing tertiles of fiber intake were significantly associated with 3% lowered risk MetS in adolescents age 13-18 years. Additionally, increasing intake tertiles of fiber were associated with reduced risk elevated cholesterol (5-11% reduction), elevated diastolic blood pressure (10-23% reduction) in adolescents age 13-18 years, and risk of obesity (3-5% reduction) in children and adolescent age 2-18 years. Increasing tertiles of whole grain intake were only associated with reduced risk of elevated triglycerides (52% risk reduction) in adolescents age 13-18 years.
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31301131/ > Whole grain intake does not increase inflammation and may decrease inflammation
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29378044/ >Prospective cohort studies clearly indicate that diets high in insoluble cereal DF and whole grains might significantly reduce diabetes risk.
>Because hunter gatherers are objectively the healthiest humans.
Conflating bone density and physical strength with human health is disgraceful. You physiologic epistemology is insulting to anyone that has actually studied medicine and your interpretation of sources in general is indicative of why plebs shouldn't be allowed access to studies as they lack the formal education to parse them with a modicum of reason. Let us first begin by stating that health for mankind is defined by two markers---one greater and one lesser. The greater marker is neurological health which manifests directly as ratiocinative capacity and by extension in the resulting production of cultural artefacts (the apogee of which is philosophy). Cultures that have produced a greater quantity or, at in some cases, particularly profound cultural artefacts/philosophy are cultures bestowed heightened ratiocinative capacities upon their populace. We choose ratiocinative prowess as indicative of human health insofar as it is that which makes humans unique. Health, for mankind, biologically speaking, is health for our brains. The human body was literally forced to devolve and become a primitive vessel by evolution whereby the brain and its energy consumption has atrophied non-essential systems by choice to keep our sufficiently advanced brain alive. A chimpanzee's health is measured by their force output perhaps but the exact opposite is true for mankind. Mankind's prosperity has been defined and ushered in by our brains at the expense of our strength dictated by literal evolution.
The second marker is longevity and the large-scale civilization blessed with the greatest degree of longevity by a significant margin (Japan) is a civilization that consumes an asinine amount of grains and fish. This is even more impressive inasmuch as they remain blessed with inflated lifespans and low Alzheimer's incidence rates despite being afflicted by the various diseases of modernity and industrialization
8 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/moLeaXe.jpg
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418646112 >>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411696112
Also I read your first two studies and, once again, plebs shouldn't be allowed access to studies as they lack the formal education to parse them with a modicum of reason. Read a basic human biology book detailing what how the internal structure of bones works, what they're impacted by and how it forms (like the book the other anon mentioned or literally any med school textbook). Trabecular density, the primary "facts" your studies utilize, fluctuates within ones; the head of the femur literally shifts to accommodate this. The relationship between trabecular density and load bearing activities (obviously in conjunction with diets conducive to bone growth). The recordable density itself is not so much inherited as it is determined by the physical activity one does in their life as trabeculae shift and grow in response to stress. Trabecular moreover shares no correlation to mental health or longevity. Physical strength has no correlation to mental health or longevity albeit cardiovascular prowess/aerobic capacity both do. Grains and the consumption thereof have no negative affect on aerobic capacity but consumption of wholegrains literally does the opposite.
This is me
[...]
and to summarize, we have two criteria for human health: brain health and longevity. The primary detractor from longevity and brain health is heart disease. The populated civilization with the greatest longevity consumes primarily grains, fish, and vegetables. Trabecular density is not a touchstone for human health. Diets worth emulating are of cultures that produced a large degree or profound cultural artefacts and the crowing achievement of a culture is profound philosophy (which the Greeks of classical antiquity did better than literally anyone else in human history). You are monstrously moronic, read a book.
>to summarize, we have two criteria for human health: brain health and longevity
It's interesting to see pseuds go so hard on topics they don't understand. Tell me, how would we gauge brain health? Are there any physical characteristics we could use, or are you basing this purely on culture?
8 months ago
Anonymous
I seriously recommend reading your studies before you post them. One of the things you learn when you write dissertation in uni is the necessity of correctly parsing the data of your own studies and, naturally, of examining the sources quoted in the article you're quoting. I'm not going to make fun of you anymore since its obvious you're ESL and probably haven't went to uni and thus do not know your way around academic literature. It's super embarrassing when you quote literature only for the sources and sub-sources to disagree with your argument and also to talk of health but not understand where the modern human stands in the homosexual sapien dietrary continuum. Nobody else will notice because they won't read your sophomoric conjecture but I'm here to tell you to apply yourself and learn to read. You don't have to thank me.
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418646112 >>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411696112
Also I read your first two studies and, once again, plebs shouldn't be allowed access to studies as they lack the formal education to parse them with a modicum of reason. Read a basic human biology book detailing what how the internal structure of bones works, what they're impacted by and how it forms (like the book the other anon mentioned or literally any med school textbook). Trabecular density, the primary "facts" your studies utilize, fluctuates within ones; the head of the femur literally shifts to accommodate this. The relationship between trabecular density and load bearing activities (obviously in conjunction with diets conducive to bone growth). The recordable density itself is not so much inherited as it is determined by the physical activity one does in their life as trabeculae shift and grow in response to stress. Trabecular moreover shares no correlation to mental health or longevity. Physical strength has no correlation to mental health or longevity albeit cardiovascular prowess/aerobic capacity both do. Grains and the consumption thereof have no negative affect on aerobic capacity but consumption of wholegrains literally does the opposite.
This is me
>Because hunter gatherers are objectively the healthiest humans.
Conflating bone density and physical strength with human health is disgraceful. You physiologic epistemology is insulting to anyone that has actually studied medicine and your interpretation of sources in general is indicative of why plebs shouldn't be allowed access to studies as they lack the formal education to parse them with a modicum of reason. Let us first begin by stating that health for mankind is defined by two markers---one greater and one lesser. The greater marker is neurological health which manifests directly as ratiocinative capacity and by extension in the resulting production of cultural artefacts (the apogee of which is philosophy). Cultures that have produced a greater quantity or, at in some cases, particularly profound cultural artefacts/philosophy are cultures bestowed heightened ratiocinative capacities upon their populace. We choose ratiocinative prowess as indicative of human health insofar as it is that which makes humans unique. Health, for mankind, biologically speaking, is health for our brains. The human body was literally forced to devolve and become a primitive vessel by evolution whereby the brain and its energy consumption has atrophied non-essential systems by choice to keep our sufficiently advanced brain alive. A chimpanzee's health is measured by their force output perhaps but the exact opposite is true for mankind. Mankind's prosperity has been defined and ushered in by our brains at the expense of our strength dictated by literal evolution.
The second marker is longevity and the large-scale civilization blessed with the greatest degree of longevity by a significant margin (Japan) is a civilization that consumes an asinine amount of grains and fish. This is even more impressive inasmuch as they remain blessed with inflated lifespans and low Alzheimer's incidence rates despite being afflicted by the various diseases of modernity and industrialization
and to summarize, we have two criteria for human health: brain health and longevity. The primary detractor from longevity and brain health is heart disease. The populated civilization with the greatest longevity consumes primarily grains, fish, and vegetables. Trabecular density is not a touchstone for human health. Diets worth emulating are of cultures that produced a large degree or profound cultural artefacts and the crowing achievement of a culture is profound philosophy (which the Greeks of classical antiquity did better than literally anyone else in human history). You are monstrously moronic, read a book.
8 months ago
Anonymous
>Grains and the consumption thereof have no negative affect on aerobic capacity but consumption of wholegrains literally does the opposite.
imagine trying so hard to be le internet professor only to top it off by recommending that everyone be a good goy grain eater
>would a human living 50,000 years ago have access to this food?
You're a fricking moron: so monstrously, aggressively pseudointellectual that it necessitates the employ of violence inasmuch as you might trick morons into falling for your drivelous sophistry.
Your faculty of reason has fundamental and irreparable flaws so I will waste no time in attempting to dissuade you or right your path;. Instead, I will speak to those who might be unsure of the truth by stating that the lens wherethrough you view what is and is not a proper diet, what might or might not allow you to reach the greatest heights of humanity, should not be barbarous but, as your objective implies, quintessentially human: philosophy (i.e. high level academic pursuits) and fitness. Thankfully, this means wherethrough might achieve this has been known for approximately 2500 years; Plato, via Timeaus and Republic, shows us what the ancients once considered obvious:
"...a moderate and thus a healthy diet, consists of cereals, legumes, fruits, milk, honey and fish. However, [other] meat, confectionery and wine should be consumed only in moderate quantities. Excesses in food lead to ailments and therefore should be avoided."
The pinnacle of mankind, those whose very existence differentiated will differentiate us from mere animals for all eternity, are worth of emulation; barbarous cavemen riddled with parasites are very manifestly not. The minds and bodies of our quintessentially human ancestors were build primarily by legumes and grains and animal-based protein was achieved via the consumption of fish. This is a fact and is incontrovertible. Meat was also not a meal of the aristocrats; for aristocratic fancy in both antiquity's Mediterranean and Renaissance Europe was comprised of dishes whose primary component was barley meal and wheat.
I will once more emphasize that venerating cavemen is fricking monstrously moronic and emulating their diet is akin to emulating the diet of a maggot
>"...a moderate and thus a healthy diet, consists of cereals, legumes, fruits, milk, honey and fish. However, [other] meat, confectionery and wine should be consumed only in moderate quantities.
lol isn't this literally the food pyramid?
interesting to see that even thousands of years ago, there were beta cucks like plato trying to to convince people to poison themselves
>meat's totally bad for you, eat these nice lentils and barley instead mmm so healthy
And for the vast majority of human history we didn't drink milk. Yet within a handful of generations within more or less recent human history we became lactose tolerant and is a staple of most people's diets.
You don't need to constantly live so far in the past, dipshit.
>he thinks milk is good for you
o man i am laffin
i think dairy is beyond the scope of this thread but if you drink milk you're a moronic cuck
i dont care how many memes you read that make you think it's a sign of manliness or whiteness or some shit
listen
animal husbandry is even more recent than agriculture
prior to that, the only way someone was getting milk was by grabbing a lactating animal and either massaging it's breasts or literally sucking on them
that's furry shit, straight up
imagine some chad caveman coming home from a hunt, got a deer slung over his shoulders and all that
turns the corner and here's some guy holding down a goat while he sucks on a goat titty >bro it tastes so good you gotta try it!
that freak sucking goat breasts? that's your ancestor
miss me with that
and for the vast majority of human existence people didn't post on image boards
frick off now larper
>and for the vast majority of human existence people didn't post on image boards
That's right, and we know that sitting in front of a pc or phone is not healthy. See how that works?
>imagine some chad caveman coming home from a hunt, got a deer slung over his shoulders and all that >turns the corner and here's some guy holding down a goat while he sucks on a goat titty
moron. People began drinking milk during times of drought since it was the only way to survive. Hence why most Black folk are lactose intolerant, because they were too dumb to realise a nutritious drink right in front of them. You sound like a lactose intolerant "person".
8 months ago
Anonymous
>People began drinking milk during times of drought since it was the only way to survive
What a moronic concept. You really think that people would be dying of thirst while surrounded by animals and their first idea would be to try to track down one that was lactating in order to drink milk?
#1 in drought the animals would be suffering too and the first thing a lactating animal would do when dehydrated is stop lactating
#2 rather than look for a lactating female, why wouldn't they just kill literally anything they can find and drink its blood?
There are plenty of documented cases of people being shipwrecked on small islands with no fresh water and surviving by drinking the blood of sea birds and turtles. There are literally no documented cases of people surviving droughts by sucking on goat breasts.
>You sound like a lactose intolerant "person".
Jesus christ, you people are fragile. Imagine being so insecure that you need to turn drinking milk into a point of racial pride. Africans never developed adult lactose tolerance because they never had a need to, simple as. Isolated groups in Africa that did find a need for lactose tolerance developed it just fine, as in the case of the Maasai, who are pastoralists whose traditional diet was extremely high in milk.
>carnivore and primordialgays constantly make appeals to humanity's past when discussing the healthiest human diet >eat literal fricking sticks of butter, a product unavailable and downright inedible until human domesticated animals long enough to become tolerant to the lactose in their milk >beyond that, ignore all medical advice saying that's generally a bad idea for a healthy diet, and that all doctors are liars
These people need to be fricking institutionalized.
Too little protein, i only eat oatmeal for breakfast when i will be doing actual physical labor, the complex carbs are amazing for that. I'm a Software developer, to keep in shape i run 3 times a week and do some calisthenics so i don't look like a starved homosexual, so i usually skip breakfast, i would say in a year 80% of the days i don't eat breakfast. When i have actual work to do, like digging, gardening or wheelbarrow shit out of the barn, whatever, if i'm gonna be working, i make sure i eat oatmeal with whole milk and honey, that shit gives me so much energy i can do a lot of work on that before i have any lunch.. Just a couple of days ago i went to help a friend harvest his grapes, i worked from 7:30 to 15:00 without lunch, just on a bowl of oats, and i wasn't even that hungry by the time i got to eat lunch. So i would say it isn't a weight lost meal, it isn't a bulking meal either because it has little protein, but it definitively gives you energy to put in work. If you are gonna be working out a lot oat meal is literally diesel for your body, you are going to get a lot of miles out of that bowl. Also makes my shits feel good.
>too little protein
Just mix in a scope of protein powder. I usually do: >1 dl oats >2 dl water >pinch of salt >some cinnamon >microwave for 1-2 min >mix in a scoop of vanilla protein
Done. You can sweeten it a bit with honey or maple syrup, but I find the powder to sweeten things sufficiently. It doesn't taste fricking amazing or anything, but it's serviceable.
May I enlighten you on savory oats. >oats >2 eggs over easy/medium >bacon finely chopped >salt and pepper to taste >put it in a bowl and mix it all up
Unironically perfect macros
i have 100g plain oats w skim milk on workout days because otherwise i dont get enough carbs. i hate eating them because its like eating soggy cardboard but i dont know what else to do
For me its 100g oats, 100-150g quark, milk, scoop of whey, cinnamon, crushed banana and a big scoop of peanut butter. Around 900kcal 60g protein and keeps you satiated for a long time.
oats are mainly empty calories, decent fiber, a small amount of protein, but a far lower protein to calorie ratio than beans
there is nothing wrong with them but nothing great either, if you were an impoverished peasant they'd be great, but you are a rich modern american in 2023 so you can afford a better diet
>everyone saying that oats are slop or slave feed and to not go near them
I had the worst, most debilitating hemorrhoids you can possibly imagine until I started having a bowl of oatmeal every morning. Nothing worked before that.
Anyone who tells me to stop eating oatmeal can literally go catch AIDS.
>I had the worst, most debilitating hemorrhoids you can possibly imagine
And you had a massively fricked up diet in the first place in order to reach that point. You traded a completely moronic diet for one that's slightly less moronic. I'm happy for you but the best option is to not be moronic at all.
Here's one more: cavemen are not worth emulating because they were not healthy in any way that matters to humans. Your physiologic epistemology exists only in relationship to chimpanzees (aka illiterate mentally moronic manlets). Get fricked, eat shit, case closed.
I always get a metallic taste in my mouth accompanied by premature ventricular contractions after eating oatmeal, but I like it for its convenience and flexibility. I'll mix in peanut butter, protein powder or almond milk or just eat it plain. Either way it, it takes all of two minutes in the microwave with minimal clean-up.
Papathanasiou, another source used in often in the papers, also states that it is impossible to view the anemia-PH pipeline in a vacuum and conclude that it was solely due to nutritional deficiencies as the primary contributor is the prevalence of intestinal parasites due, once again, to poor sanitation when handling ANIMAL products. Your argument stands only inasmuch as the individual's diet is vegan and primarily grain based at that. Your correctly ascertain that meat consumption is conducive to decreases in nutritional deficiency but fail to recognize that improper handling of animal products were the primary contributor to parasite propagation and therethrough nutritional deficiencies. Immune system failures amongst Neolithic peoples were due to a coalescence of factors as stated in your very own study: improper handling of animal products, increased population density, increased proximity to animals, and nutritional deficiency caused by (first and foremost) intestinal parasites and (secondarily) diet.
Let's recap, I'll greentext so your stunted brain can actually parse this time: >We have two criteria for human health: brain health and longevity. >The primary detractor from longevity and brain health is heart disease. >The populated civilization with the greatest longevity consumes primarily grains, fish, and vegetables. >Trabecular density is not a touchstone for human health. >Diets worth emulating are of cultures that produced a large degree or profound cultural artefacts and the crowing achievement of a culture is profound philosophy (which the Greeks of classical antiquity did better than literally anyone else in human history). >Eating meat/animal products is essential for nutrient cultivation but the necessary quantity is minimal in proportion to other types of foods >Eating meat/animal incurs a negative cardiovascular externality mitigated by the consumption of other types of foods >The primary detractor to longevity is heart disease, a slow and insidious killer which is occurs as a result of the consumption of meat/animal products over one's lifetime >Negative health effects associated with decreased life-expectancies in antiquity including pathogenic/zoonotic/infectious disease susceptibility as well as worse oral health have been overcome due to contemporary food preparation methods, varied diets, and medicine; the primary cause of mortality in modernity is heart disease borne from a massively increased consumption of saturated fats and it follows logical that, in modernity, we must be concerned with saturated fat consumption and its effect on cholesterol/lipid profile in blood >One's diet, insofar as longevity and brain health are concerned, should be composed primarily of "cereals, legumes, fruits, milk, honey and fish. However, [other] meat, confectionery and wine should be consumed only in moderate quantities. Excesses in food lead to ailments and therefore should be avoided."
An addendum:
Your argument only stands insofar as the individual's diet is vegan and primarily grain based and the individuals environment is one with heightened population density, increased proximity of farm animals, lack of modern medicine, and lack of animal product sanitation. Your argument has absolutely no basis in reality lest the individual in question be 100% vegan and consumes almost solely grains and even then the only true deficiency is B12. Proper neurological development necessitates the consumption of cereals and grains whose carbohydrates are essential in pediatric development for neurons at large and oligodendrocytes. Cereals and grains in plant foods were essential to meet the substantially increased metabolic demands of our enlarged brains. Raw starches are only poorly digested by salivary amylases, but their energy-yielding potential is substantially increased when. After cooking became widespread, starch digestion became the rate-limiting step in starch utilization, and the coevolution of cooking and (CNV) in various genes and increased availability of preformed dietary glucose, permitting the acceleration in brain size increase can be observed from the Middle Pleistocene onward.
No but the macros suck. Ideal for only bulking or if you’re a braindead vegan.
just fricking EAT gayboy
If it's with milk and with a couple of hard boiled eggs it's a good breakfast.
Read my mind
Gives me gas. Pass
>t. Genetic dead end
literal horse food
not for human consumption
Horses are strong as frick
>he doesn’t horsemaxx
Ngmi
Neighsayers BTFO yet again.
>hasn't left humanity behind
ngmi.
Exactly. These frickers are jacked as hell
>not for human consumption
Not what your girl said
I love oatmeal, I eat it with bananas and it's great. Macro wise it's one of the most efficient sources of getting complex carbs (most carbs per calorie). It's a fantastic bulk food when eaten with milk.
Also, you can mix oatmeal, casein, milk and cocoa powder for a really good and protein rich pudding.
my favorite part about oatmeal is that people will put honey, bananas, peanut butter and chocolate chips in them but won't have a bowl of cheerios because cereals are bad for you
Plain Cheerios with a banana cut up into it is heavenly. I've been adding chia seeds to it too lately.
Glyphosate
I don't know what that has to do with what I wrote?
Harmless in small doses like literally every form of poison
oh why didnt you say so sooner
yea sprinkle some poison on my cereals, but just a bit he he
fricking moron low iq Black person
Yes you dunning kruger uneducated homosexual
EVERYTHING has poison
EVERYTHING is poison
THE DOSE DETERMINES IF IT MATTERS
THERE IS NO PURE FOOD
>Yes you dunning kruger uneducated homosexual
>i read the wikipedia page, therefore im smart
congratulations bro you can read
>EVERYTHING has poison
no lol
+1 fricking low iq moron Black person
'like every poison'
yeah, unless your poison shows dose accumulation or causes cancer
What glyphosphate is in Cheerios, bananas, or chia seeds?
The glyphosphate sprayed on the grains while it's still growing in the field.
And? You homosexuals gobble down supplements pushed by chiropractors on YouTube but are afraid of trace residue of the safest weed killer man has ever invented. Peak schizo shit.
So you like chicken? Then why don't you eat KFC every day?
Normal cheerios have the same macros and micros as oats because they're essentially torus shaped oats, with a bit of corn starch for texture, sugar and salt. I'll give you that it's a bit of a minefield because the industry will present the lemon cheesecake cheerios and the triple caramel fudge cheerios as similar when they're not.
>SUGAR!!!
bananas, honey, pb, etc. will make your oats worse sugar wise than cheerios
Also KFC breast pieces have good macros. The only bad thing about them is the canola oil and TBHQ. And the wheat flour if you're one of these people
cheerios are inferior to oats. because of the ingredients, as you've listed most of them.
cheerios are infinitesimally inferior to oats, because of the ingredients, which are essentially the same, until you add a bunch of sugar and fat to your oats, which makes them worse.
>I actually eat oats with water and nothing else
good for you
sugar isn't bad. not all fats are bad. you're a moron.
cheerios are ultra-processed foods. all ultra-processed foods put shit stuff in the mixture and you cant tell.
its food that must literally been given shape, because its made from a mixed paste of stuff.
oats are an ingredient.
honey is an ingredient.
peanut butter is an ingredient.
bananas are an ingredient.
you can buy good quality ingredients. you cannot buy good quality ultra-processed foods.
i know where my oats come from, where bananas come from, where honey comes from and i only buy 100% peanut butter that is from my same region.
you can possibly get similar macros, yes; but micros? and all the other shit added to ultra-processed that literally isnt even food?
you're wrong. stop eating fake food targeted for kids. you'll feel better.
>you cannot buy good quality ultra-processed foods.
What is water
Glyphosate
glyphosate is being sprayed also on almost every other grain ,fruit and vegetable.
inb4 carnivore , yea m8 sure but the meat we consume ate those glyphosate sprayed grains also+ bunch of other shit.
Third world problem.
The correct answer is phytic acid and that's only a problem if you eat too much of it and not enough zinc
phytic acid is beneficial
>t. monsanto
Not a problem in europe
I've been on an eternal cut and eat oatmeal and 2 eggs or breakfast every day
Are oats just for bulking? My breakfast is prob like 650 cals
I want carbs so badly right now
Extremely high in phytic acid. Eating them regularly is one of the best ways to destroy your teeth.
what the frick is a man supposed to eat this is so tiring
For the vast, vast, VAST majority of human existence, we lived as hunter-gatherers. Agriculture is an extremely recent innovation (roughly 10,000 years old) against the roughly 300,000 year existence of anatomically modern humans, or the millions of years of existence of closely related species.
What does this mean? It means that we spent 99% of our existence, including all the periods where our bodies were evolving and adapting to our environment and diet, eating food that could be gathered naturally, i.e. without the requirement of agriculture.
Things we ate:
>fruit
>tubers
>wild vegetables
>meat
>honey
>nuts
Things we didn't eat:
>grains
>grains
>grains
A simple rule of thumb for determining if a food is good for you or not is to simply ask
>would a human living 50,000 years ago have access to this food?
If the answer is no then it's probably not good for you. There are always exceptions; some natural foods aren't good for you and some modern foods aren't too terribly bad but for the most part, you can work out a pretty good diet using this rule.
And before someone shows up with a bunch of cope, we have very clear and undeniable evidence in the form of skeletal remains to prove that the transition from hunter-gatherers to agriculturalists caused a massive decline in overall human health.
Post body
You aren't a hunter gatherer. Why would you eat like one.
Because hunter gatherers are objectively the healthiest humans.
Aside from the hilarious claim that the ancient Greeks were "the pinnacle of mankind", if you're trying to disprove my claim that pre-agricultural humans were healthier then appealing to a society that was fully agricultural is not the best method. Ok! Time to stop with the theories and get down to the science. Hunter-gatherers have been proven to have objectively superior (stronger, healthier, more powerful) bodies than those of agriculturalists.
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418646112
>We found that bone strength in the hip joint of human foragers is comparable to similarly sized nonhuman primates, and is significantly more robust than sedentary agriculturalists.
As a result of both lifestyle and diet:
>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411696112
>“Modern human skeletons have shifted quite recently towards lighter-more fragile, if you like-bodies. It started when we adopted agriculture. Our diets changed. Our levels of activity changed,” says study co-author Habiba Chirchir, an anthropologist in the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program.
You can see for yourself the varying bone densities in this pic. For more detailed reading on the complex changes that came with the Neolithic revolution, you can read this paper:
>https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=nebanthro
>Skeletal analyses of human remains from early agricultural centers throughout the world indicate that this revolution significantly affected overall human health. This paper will address some of the drastic effects of this transition as evidenced by craniofacial changes related to masticatory function, declines in oral health, increased spread of pathogens, infectious disease, and zoonoses, as well as a variety of ailments which have been linked to nutritional deficiencies and increased physical stress on the human body.
>Because hunter gatherers are objectively the healthiest humans.
You have zero evidence except rose colored glasses
>You have zero evidence
Except the literal evidence I just posted, I guess? My son, if you don't have a rebuttal then just close the thread. We're all anonymous here and there's no shame in just not responding. Choosing to respond with dumb shit like this just makes you look like a fool.
Maybe you just didn't read the studies I posted? Reading is hard, I know. Here, I'll give you the tl;dr version:
>analysis of human skeletons before and after the development of agriculture proves that after agriculture, humans suffered declines in oral health, increased spread of pathogens, infectious disease, and zoonoses, as well as a variety of ailments which have been linked to nutritional deficiencies
That is like 99% lifestyle and 1% diet.
Cavities are 99% diet and were relatively rare in hunter-gatherer societies.
>https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/06/tooth-decay-archaeology/4307319/
>During the early years of human history, dentists wouldn't have had much business. Earlier research shows that ancient hunter-gathers had cavities in at most 14% of their teeth, and some had almost no cavities at all. Then, roughly 10,000 years ago, humans learned to farm. Grain and other carbohydrates took over the plate, making the human mouth a haven for bacteria that destroy tooth enamel. Ancient farmers had cavities in up to 48% of their teeth, leading scientists to assume that a human jaw with lots of cavities probably came from a farming society.
And nutritional deficiencies became common after the neolithic revolution:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21507735/
>empirical studies of societies shifting subsistence from foraging to primary food production have found evidence for deteriorating health from an increase in infectious and dental disease and a rise in nutritional deficiencies.
Which resulted in a consistent decrease in height. Regardless of where on the globe it took place, whenever a society transitioned from a foraging lifestyle to an agricultural one, the population turned into manlets:
>The impact of agriculture, accompanied by increasing population density and a rise in infectious disease, was observed to decrease stature in populations from across the entire globe and regardless of the temporal period during which agriculture was adopted, including Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Asia, South America, and North America.
Agriculture turns people from tall, healthy chads with dense bones and no disease into parasite and cavity-ridded manlets. Literal, undeniable fact.
Anyway, I've posted a lot of proof and none of the guys responding to me have done the same so I'm not going to respond to anyone else unless they bring some evidence along.
Post argument
>no body posted
Opinion disregarded
>take a picture of yourself for me i-it's for the thread i swear
i understand why there are so many literal gays on IST but i wish they could at least be less thirsty
makes me cringe every time i see some homosexual begging for anons to post jerkoff material for him
>very lose association
We literally have human RCT'S that show high whole grain and fiber diets greatly improve life expectancy and lower risks of disease.
>I've posted a lot of proof and none of the guys responding to me have done the same so I'm not going to respond to anyone else unless they bring some evidence along.
Look at bone density of shaolin monks
Shifu yan lei has had tests on him and he eats mostly carbs
Post body
Weston A. Price - Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.
don't speak until you've read this book.
What makes you think I haven't? My first post in the thread was
then you would know it's not agriculture that destroys health.
What is it, then? Because I'm pretty sure I remember Price contrasting the teeth of African pastoralists with those of grain-eating Westerners. What you should keep in mind with Price is that he and especially his foundation after his death are making compromises in order to reach a wider audience.
Example: he'll go on about the evils of phytic acid but rather than take the most obvious step of avoiding foods that contain it, he (or the foundation, I admit I sometimes forget what exactly is an original Price theory and what is moronic shit from Sally Fallon, who is a brainless c**t) recommend instead going through extensive preparation of these foods in order to reduce the phytic acid content.
But all these "traditional" grain preparation methods are things that people would have been doing thousands of years ago and as we see from the studies I posted
they still weren't enough to mitigate the damage caused by grains. If you're determined to eat corn regularly then nixtamalization is absolutely a beneficial and necessary step but a better solution is avoiding it altogether. You can pump yourself full of cod liver oil and butter and go a long way toward healing the harm caused by a grain-heavy diet, but why not just cut out the grains? There's absolutely nothing in them that you need, nutritionally. Every nutrient found in grain can be found in healthier sources.
everything you think you know is an extraction from fat pigs like Fallon that are trying to make money off his work.
it's simply the processed bleached flour and lack of micronutrients. nothing to do with agriculture.
I'm sure you're aware of Pottenger's Cats as well then?
?si=k2mtw6NT_l2JPoR5
what about the countless other studies, both animal and human (like Price's book) where it only takes a generation to alter genes?
We've learned quite a lot in the past 100 years and Price is just a piece of the puzzle. Consider the context of what Price was seeing - people eating traditional diets were healthier than those eating highly processed ones. But this is like an experiment where you take a bunch of people and make two groups - one eating grains traditionally and one eating processed grains. The traditional group looks healthier, sure, but this is all taking place in a context where everyone is eating grains. For a proper comparison you need a group not eating grains, and we have that comparison via skeletal remains.
Lamarckism is nonsense so no I'm not impressed by Pottenger. What you should take from his studies is that animals thrive eating their natural diets, those they evolved to eat. For cats, that's raw meat. For humans, that's a diet that excludes grains. The idea that we've developed some genetic adaptation to be able to prefer grains is nonsense.
>Conflating bone density and physical strength with human health is disgraceful.
Responding to a post you didn't read is disgraceful. If you had actually read my post, you'd see that the evidence is not limited to bone density but includes (and I'm literally just repeating the contents of my post here, but maybe you'll actually read it this time):
>weaker jaws
>worse oral health (400% increased incidence of cavities if not more)
>increased susceptibility to pathogenic disease
>increased susceptibility to infectious disease
>increased susceptibility to zoonotic disease
>nutritional deficiencies of many types
Listen, you seem to consider yourself a smart guy so I'm sure you can at least manage to read the abstract of
>https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1186&context=nebanthro
Go ahead and read the entire thing, it's only 8 pages. You have a lot to learn on this issue so now's a good time to make a start.
Once again, you did not read your very own studies; moreover, not a single one of these posts
constitutes an argument that I have no already refuted. Your studies do not support your argument which leads me to believe you are either moronic or possess a tenuous grasp of the English language. In the two studies I linked, trabecular density quite literally THE ONLY thing studied; moreover, the article you linked is discontinuous with your argument.
>increased susceptibility to pathogenic disease
>increased susceptibility to infectious disease
>increased susceptibility to zoonotic disease
Are all attributable primarily to increased population density primarily. At the very least, they CANNOT be viewed in a vacuum as stated IN YOUR VERY OWN STUDY (Armelagos et al. 1991). Of the most important micronutrients that promote immune system regulation (iron, zinc and vitamins A/E, B6 and B12), B12 is the only one that MUST be attained from an animal source. Another contributor according to your study is porotic hyperostosis which can be attributed to
infection from intestinal parasites gained via consumption of animal production and faulty methods of sanitation and secondarily via nutritional deficiency. (Ulijaszek 1991).
>weaker jaws
>worse oral health (400% increased incidence of cavities if not more)
According to your own studies, trabecular bone health and jaw density increases with stress during ones lifetime (a fact which you are conveniently admitting). The study you linked only indicates that sticky starches and softer food correlate to increases in cavities/caries. The author notes that oral health is particularly poor amongst the sticky starch/maize eating American peoples but recognizes that there are studies that stated a decrease in oral attrition and periodontal disease in Neolithic agriculturalists of the Levant.
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31159235/
> Intake of whole grains is associated with decreased body weight
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24158434/
> Whole grain intake is associated with decreased risk of Type 2 Diabetes and refined grains are NOT associated with increased risk of Type 2 Diabetes
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32552292/
> Increasing tertiles of fiber intake were significantly associated with 3% lowered risk MetS in adolescents age 13-18 years. Additionally, increasing intake tertiles of fiber were associated with reduced risk elevated cholesterol (5-11% reduction), elevated diastolic blood pressure (10-23% reduction) in adolescents age 13-18 years, and risk of obesity (3-5% reduction) in children and adolescent age 2-18 years. Increasing tertiles of whole grain intake were only associated with reduced risk of elevated triglycerides (52% risk reduction) in adolescents age 13-18 years.
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31301131/
> Whole grain intake does not increase inflammation and may decrease inflammation
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29378044/
>Prospective cohort studies clearly indicate that diets high in insoluble cereal DF and whole grains might significantly reduce diabetes risk.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30166965/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35918724/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26711548/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34770068/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10188715/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34854791/
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35954465/
>Because hunter gatherers are objectively the healthiest humans.
Conflating bone density and physical strength with human health is disgraceful. You physiologic epistemology is insulting to anyone that has actually studied medicine and your interpretation of sources in general is indicative of why plebs shouldn't be allowed access to studies as they lack the formal education to parse them with a modicum of reason. Let us first begin by stating that health for mankind is defined by two markers---one greater and one lesser. The greater marker is neurological health which manifests directly as ratiocinative capacity and by extension in the resulting production of cultural artefacts (the apogee of which is philosophy). Cultures that have produced a greater quantity or, at in some cases, particularly profound cultural artefacts/philosophy are cultures bestowed heightened ratiocinative capacities upon their populace. We choose ratiocinative prowess as indicative of human health insofar as it is that which makes humans unique. Health, for mankind, biologically speaking, is health for our brains. The human body was literally forced to devolve and become a primitive vessel by evolution whereby the brain and its energy consumption has atrophied non-essential systems by choice to keep our sufficiently advanced brain alive. A chimpanzee's health is measured by their force output perhaps but the exact opposite is true for mankind. Mankind's prosperity has been defined and ushered in by our brains at the expense of our strength dictated by literal evolution.
The second marker is longevity and the large-scale civilization blessed with the greatest degree of longevity by a significant margin (Japan) is a civilization that consumes an asinine amount of grains and fish. This is even more impressive inasmuch as they remain blessed with inflated lifespans and low Alzheimer's incidence rates despite being afflicted by the various diseases of modernity and industrialization
>to summarize, we have two criteria for human health: brain health and longevity
It's interesting to see pseuds go so hard on topics they don't understand. Tell me, how would we gauge brain health? Are there any physical characteristics we could use, or are you basing this purely on culture?
I seriously recommend reading your studies before you post them. One of the things you learn when you write dissertation in uni is the necessity of correctly parsing the data of your own studies and, naturally, of examining the sources quoted in the article you're quoting. I'm not going to make fun of you anymore since its obvious you're ESL and probably haven't went to uni and thus do not know your way around academic literature. It's super embarrassing when you quote literature only for the sources and sub-sources to disagree with your argument and also to talk of health but not understand where the modern human stands in the homosexual sapien dietrary continuum. Nobody else will notice because they won't read your sophomoric conjecture but I'm here to tell you to apply yourself and learn to read. You don't have to thank me.
>https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1418646112
>>http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1411696112
Also I read your first two studies and, once again, plebs shouldn't be allowed access to studies as they lack the formal education to parse them with a modicum of reason. Read a basic human biology book detailing what how the internal structure of bones works, what they're impacted by and how it forms (like the book the other anon mentioned or literally any med school textbook). Trabecular density, the primary "facts" your studies utilize, fluctuates within ones; the head of the femur literally shifts to accommodate this. The relationship between trabecular density and load bearing activities (obviously in conjunction with diets conducive to bone growth). The recordable density itself is not so much inherited as it is determined by the physical activity one does in their life as trabeculae shift and grow in response to stress. Trabecular moreover shares no correlation to mental health or longevity. Physical strength has no correlation to mental health or longevity albeit cardiovascular prowess/aerobic capacity both do. Grains and the consumption thereof have no negative affect on aerobic capacity but consumption of wholegrains literally does the opposite.
This is me
and to summarize, we have two criteria for human health: brain health and longevity. The primary detractor from longevity and brain health is heart disease. The populated civilization with the greatest longevity consumes primarily grains, fish, and vegetables. Trabecular density is not a touchstone for human health. Diets worth emulating are of cultures that produced a large degree or profound cultural artefacts and the crowing achievement of a culture is profound philosophy (which the Greeks of classical antiquity did better than literally anyone else in human history). You are monstrously moronic, read a book.
>Grains and the consumption thereof have no negative affect on aerobic capacity but consumption of wholegrains literally does the opposite.
imagine trying so hard to be le internet professor only to top it off by recommending that everyone be a good goy grain eater
>would a human living 50,000 years ago have access to this food?
You're a fricking moron: so monstrously, aggressively pseudointellectual that it necessitates the employ of violence inasmuch as you might trick morons into falling for your drivelous sophistry.
Your faculty of reason has fundamental and irreparable flaws so I will waste no time in attempting to dissuade you or right your path;. Instead, I will speak to those who might be unsure of the truth by stating that the lens wherethrough you view what is and is not a proper diet, what might or might not allow you to reach the greatest heights of humanity, should not be barbarous but, as your objective implies, quintessentially human: philosophy (i.e. high level academic pursuits) and fitness. Thankfully, this means wherethrough might achieve this has been known for approximately 2500 years; Plato, via Timeaus and Republic, shows us what the ancients once considered obvious:
"...a moderate and thus a healthy diet, consists of cereals, legumes, fruits, milk, honey and fish. However, [other] meat, confectionery and wine should be consumed only in moderate quantities. Excesses in food lead to ailments and therefore should be avoided."
The pinnacle of mankind, those whose very existence differentiated will differentiate us from mere animals for all eternity, are worth of emulation; barbarous cavemen riddled with parasites are very manifestly not. The minds and bodies of our quintessentially human ancestors were build primarily by legumes and grains and animal-based protein was achieved via the consumption of fish. This is a fact and is incontrovertible. Meat was also not a meal of the aristocrats; for aristocratic fancy in both antiquity's Mediterranean and Renaissance Europe was comprised of dishes whose primary component was barley meal and wheat.
I will once more emphasize that venerating cavemen is fricking monstrously moronic and emulating their diet is akin to emulating the diet of a maggot
>A modern healthy diet consists of cereals
BAHAHAHAHA. No, i wont be eating those or goy oils. Frick off now moische thanks.
>goy goy goy goy goy
How to spot a braindead pol nignog
>"...a moderate and thus a healthy diet, consists of cereals, legumes, fruits, milk, honey and fish. However, [other] meat, confectionery and wine should be consumed only in moderate quantities.
lol isn't this literally the food pyramid?
interesting to see that even thousands of years ago, there were beta cucks like plato trying to to convince people to poison themselves
>meat's totally bad for you, eat these nice lentils and barley instead mmm so healthy
fricking moron. there's countless experiments where genetics are changed within a single generation. you think we can't change after 10,000+ years?
and for the vast majority of human existence people didn't post on image boards
frick off now larper
And for the vast majority of human history we didn't drink milk. Yet within a handful of generations within more or less recent human history we became lactose tolerant and is a staple of most people's diets.
You don't need to constantly live so far in the past, dipshit.
>he thinks milk is good for you
o man i am laffin
i think dairy is beyond the scope of this thread but if you drink milk you're a moronic cuck
i dont care how many memes you read that make you think it's a sign of manliness or whiteness or some shit
listen
animal husbandry is even more recent than agriculture
prior to that, the only way someone was getting milk was by grabbing a lactating animal and either massaging it's breasts or literally sucking on them
that's furry shit, straight up
imagine some chad caveman coming home from a hunt, got a deer slung over his shoulders and all that
turns the corner and here's some guy holding down a goat while he sucks on a goat titty
>bro it tastes so good you gotta try it!
that freak sucking goat breasts? that's your ancestor
miss me with that
>and for the vast majority of human existence people didn't post on image boards
That's right, and we know that sitting in front of a pc or phone is not healthy. See how that works?
stfu gay
>t. goat tittysucker
>imagine some chad caveman coming home from a hunt, got a deer slung over his shoulders and all that
>turns the corner and here's some guy holding down a goat while he sucks on a goat titty
moron. People began drinking milk during times of drought since it was the only way to survive. Hence why most Black folk are lactose intolerant, because they were too dumb to realise a nutritious drink right in front of them. You sound like a lactose intolerant "person".
>People began drinking milk during times of drought since it was the only way to survive
What a moronic concept. You really think that people would be dying of thirst while surrounded by animals and their first idea would be to try to track down one that was lactating in order to drink milk?
#1 in drought the animals would be suffering too and the first thing a lactating animal would do when dehydrated is stop lactating
#2 rather than look for a lactating female, why wouldn't they just kill literally anything they can find and drink its blood?
There are plenty of documented cases of people being shipwrecked on small islands with no fresh water and surviving by drinking the blood of sea birds and turtles. There are literally no documented cases of people surviving droughts by sucking on goat breasts.
>You sound like a lactose intolerant "person".
Jesus christ, you people are fragile. Imagine being so insecure that you need to turn drinking milk into a point of racial pride. Africans never developed adult lactose tolerance because they never had a need to, simple as. Isolated groups in Africa that did find a need for lactose tolerance developed it just fine, as in the case of the Maasai, who are pastoralists whose traditional diet was extremely high in milk.
>carnivore and primordialgays constantly make appeals to humanity's past when discussing the healthiest human diet
>eat literal fricking sticks of butter, a product unavailable and downright inedible until human domesticated animals long enough to become tolerant to the lactose in their milk
>beyond that, ignore all medical advice saying that's generally a bad idea for a healthy diet, and that all doctors are liars
These people need to be fricking institutionalized.
yes but post body
> gruel
Advertisers and the media have fooled people into thinking this is bad.
Savoury oats with bacon are best oats
Too little protein, i only eat oatmeal for breakfast when i will be doing actual physical labor, the complex carbs are amazing for that. I'm a Software developer, to keep in shape i run 3 times a week and do some calisthenics so i don't look like a starved homosexual, so i usually skip breakfast, i would say in a year 80% of the days i don't eat breakfast. When i have actual work to do, like digging, gardening or wheelbarrow shit out of the barn, whatever, if i'm gonna be working, i make sure i eat oatmeal with whole milk and honey, that shit gives me so much energy i can do a lot of work on that before i have any lunch.. Just a couple of days ago i went to help a friend harvest his grapes, i worked from 7:30 to 15:00 without lunch, just on a bowl of oats, and i wasn't even that hungry by the time i got to eat lunch. So i would say it isn't a weight lost meal, it isn't a bulking meal either because it has little protein, but it definitively gives you energy to put in work. If you are gonna be working out a lot oat meal is literally diesel for your body, you are going to get a lot of miles out of that bowl. Also makes my shits feel good.
>too little protein
Just mix in a scope of protein powder. I usually do:
>1 dl oats
>2 dl water
>pinch of salt
>some cinnamon
>microwave for 1-2 min
>mix in a scoop of vanilla protein
Done. You can sweeten it a bit with honey or maple syrup, but I find the powder to sweeten things sufficiently. It doesn't taste fricking amazing or anything, but it's serviceable.
May I enlighten you on savory oats.
>oats
>2 eggs over easy/medium
>bacon finely chopped
>salt and pepper to taste
>put it in a bowl and mix it all up
Unironically perfect macros
>salty oats
Is it really a thing? Never tried it but it sounds sus
i have 100g plain oats w skim milk on workout days because otherwise i dont get enough carbs. i hate eating them because its like eating soggy cardboard but i dont know what else to do
frick the skim milk, this few grams of fat wont do shit and improve taste
>grof/gros
horrible taste
How much oats do you guys do per meal usually? I do 60-80g, I need to use more milk though.
1 cup oats, 1.5 cup milk
I do 60g with 100g of fat free yogurt and a protein scoop
I eat it for fiber.
For me its 100g oats, 100-150g quark, milk, scoop of whey, cinnamon, crushed banana and a big scoop of peanut butter. Around 900kcal 60g protein and keeps you satiated for a long time.
Prefer oats soaked in cold milk
I eat oatmeal for breakfast every morning
oats are mainly empty calories, decent fiber, a small amount of protein, but a far lower protein to calorie ratio than beans
there is nothing wrong with them but nothing great either, if you were an impoverished peasant they'd be great, but you are a rich modern american in 2023 so you can afford a better diet
The best diet food tbh, one cup keeps you full for a while with all its carbs and fiber and it's only 300 kcal
>muh protein
Just eat eggs homie
>high calories
Tastes disgusting,
Gluten frick my guts, my ass and makes me feel letargic.
So I eat corn bread instead,
mmmm yummy poison in my tummy wummies
capitalism owndie wowndies
>everyone saying that oats are slop or slave feed and to not go near them
I had the worst, most debilitating hemorrhoids you can possibly imagine until I started having a bowl of oatmeal every morning. Nothing worked before that.
Anyone who tells me to stop eating oatmeal can literally go catch AIDS.
>I had the worst, most debilitating hemorrhoids you can possibly imagine
And you had a massively fricked up diet in the first place in order to reach that point. You traded a completely moronic diet for one that's slightly less moronic. I'm happy for you but the best option is to not be moronic at all.
Here's one more: cavemen are not worth emulating because they were not healthy in any way that matters to humans. Your physiologic epistemology exists only in relationship to chimpanzees (aka illiterate mentally moronic manlets). Get fricked, eat shit, case closed.
I always get a metallic taste in my mouth accompanied by premature ventricular contractions after eating oatmeal, but I like it for its convenience and flexibility. I'll mix in peanut butter, protein powder or almond milk or just eat it plain. Either way it, it takes all of two minutes in the microwave with minimal clean-up.
Papathanasiou, another source used in often in the papers, also states that it is impossible to view the anemia-PH pipeline in a vacuum and conclude that it was solely due to nutritional deficiencies as the primary contributor is the prevalence of intestinal parasites due, once again, to poor sanitation when handling ANIMAL products. Your argument stands only inasmuch as the individual's diet is vegan and primarily grain based at that. Your correctly ascertain that meat consumption is conducive to decreases in nutritional deficiency but fail to recognize that improper handling of animal products were the primary contributor to parasite propagation and therethrough nutritional deficiencies. Immune system failures amongst Neolithic peoples were due to a coalescence of factors as stated in your very own study: improper handling of animal products, increased population density, increased proximity to animals, and nutritional deficiency caused by (first and foremost) intestinal parasites and (secondarily) diet.
Let's recap, I'll greentext so your stunted brain can actually parse this time:
>We have two criteria for human health: brain health and longevity.
>The primary detractor from longevity and brain health is heart disease.
>The populated civilization with the greatest longevity consumes primarily grains, fish, and vegetables.
>Trabecular density is not a touchstone for human health.
>Diets worth emulating are of cultures that produced a large degree or profound cultural artefacts and the crowing achievement of a culture is profound philosophy (which the Greeks of classical antiquity did better than literally anyone else in human history).
>Eating meat/animal products is essential for nutrient cultivation but the necessary quantity is minimal in proportion to other types of foods
>Eating meat/animal incurs a negative cardiovascular externality mitigated by the consumption of other types of foods
>The primary detractor to longevity is heart disease, a slow and insidious killer which is occurs as a result of the consumption of meat/animal products over one's lifetime
>Negative health effects associated with decreased life-expectancies in antiquity including pathogenic/zoonotic/infectious disease susceptibility as well as worse oral health have been overcome due to contemporary food preparation methods, varied diets, and medicine; the primary cause of mortality in modernity is heart disease borne from a massively increased consumption of saturated fats and it follows logical that, in modernity, we must be concerned with saturated fat consumption and its effect on cholesterol/lipid profile in blood
>One's diet, insofar as longevity and brain health are concerned, should be composed primarily of "cereals, legumes, fruits, milk, honey and fish. However, [other] meat, confectionery and wine should be consumed only in moderate quantities. Excesses in food lead to ailments and therefore should be avoided."
An addendum:
Your argument only stands insofar as the individual's diet is vegan and primarily grain based and the individuals environment is one with heightened population density, increased proximity of farm animals, lack of modern medicine, and lack of animal product sanitation. Your argument has absolutely no basis in reality lest the individual in question be 100% vegan and consumes almost solely grains and even then the only true deficiency is B12. Proper neurological development necessitates the consumption of cereals and grains whose carbohydrates are essential in pediatric development for neurons at large and oligodendrocytes. Cereals and grains in plant foods were essential to meet the substantially increased metabolic demands of our enlarged brains. Raw starches are only poorly digested by salivary amylases, but their energy-yielding potential is substantially increased when. After cooking became widespread, starch digestion became the rate-limiting step in starch utilization, and the coevolution of cooking and (CNV) in various genes and increased availability of preformed dietary glucose, permitting the acceleration in brain size increase can be observed from the Middle Pleistocene onward.