VG is starting to win me over
I just realized I probably have anemia from consuming dairy and am worried about dietary fat and cholesterol
He posts real studies too
food cholesterol has nothing to do with blood cholesterol, they just lied for whatever reason
and someone tell that fucking retard Gooby that he can stop throwing out egg yolks, this is not the 80's anymore and all the memes he knows are wrong.
it's not just a good source, it's literally the most serious policy related newspaper in the world.
read the article, little moron, you're gonna learn something because it's very informative.
>it's not just a good source, it's literally the most serious policy related newspaper in the world.
who let the retard out of his cage?
>food cholesterol has nothing to do with blood cholesterol
They found a long time ago that the make up of bodily fat is similar to to make up of the fat you eat, so it was thought for a while that the metabolism of fat was quite simple when it isn't. This is also why a lot of educated people advocated low fat diets rather than just calorie restriction.
Guy can't post good reference links to save his life.
literally only one kind of animal couldn't deal with food cholesterol: rabbits.
but there were human trials debunking the cholesterol bad myth as far back as 1955, but they just disregarded it. scientists are tribal and memes can take over sometimes, despite facts.
OP why the fuck would you listen to anything this bigot has to say?
Just in youtube there are other guys speaking about vegan related shit who are not fucking mentally insane man childs, and you choose to listen to these peanut headed alien. I don't understand why people have given this cum gargling mofo the status of the oficial vegan spokesman. I could say I hate this faggot, and have nothing to do with him, not going to even mention his new video on furious pete, but shit, this kid is full retarded. Making all vegans look as retarded as his green fucking face.
Studies don't prove shit m8, you can find studies proving whatever the fuck you want senpai. I'm quite sure vast majority of people don't even read them, just see them flashing in the screen, read the title and think
>ooh how scientific and logical, a fuckeeen study proving what i want to believe
BE MORE CRITICAL FOR FUCKS SAKE
There are many other vegans on youtube and the interwebs that are more valid and reasonable that this bitch
Powers Of The Universe youtube channel
That roided mudslime Patrik Baboumian has some nice videos with q&a
even fuckin Hodgetwins m8 we can expect to see aaall kiiinds of vegan nigger related stuff soon from their channels
>Not bodybuilding shit but som intredasting tips and info
Freelee, i find her to be quite annoying and bigot too, but has a couple videos worth seeing
Bite Sized Vegan
Happy Healthy Vegan
Also I don't get why he dares to call himself vGAINS when he has a fucking pathetic curl bro bitch body after so many years working out, and there are so many other vegan bodybuilders that make him look small and skelly. Shit even I had more gains than him after 6 months lifting.
no, you haven't read it, little shit.
and you can't save face because it's not that kind of an article.
now realize that just because they let you in an academic institution once, you know fucking nothing about science and you're a retarded arrogant little twat who knows nothing.
VG has no formal education and can not properly interpret the studies he uses as sources. This video explains how VG comes to the exact opposite conclusion than what the researchers actually wrote.
Not to mention the fact that he can't even bench 2plt after years of training lmao.
but that's outdated and wrong, why don't you read the article??
are you aware that trans fats (margarine) were pushed as a healthy alternative to butter? now they're recognized as almost the biggest evil in nutrition, this is how things change.
>know fucking nothing about science
>retarded arrogant little twat
Stop projecting. That article is brain-dead simple and short, it's nothing so compelling. The papers on it are way more interesting, and those should be available even to high school juniors without uni database access. Usually these high school juniors are too busy namecalling and shitposting on anonymous korean boards anyway and are too lazy to find sources.
I noticed that it took you forever to reply, so now you probably read it.
but as I said, you can't save face because it's not a "science daily dot com" kinda article.
always glad to help a little arrogant know-nothing twat out, you're welcome.
Problem is academic papers are very hard to come by once you graduate college. Unless you want to pay out a lot of money for access to journals, you're stuck with abstracts or whatever gets put online for free.
In my country I'm *paid* to have access to academic papers after graduation. I know that in the Land Of the Free things are different, I'm sorry.
To my dismay, I'm not here to shitpost 24/7 like highschool juniors; the article is quite neutral, informative and written in a succinct way, I never proposed that it was Dr. Mercola tier. It's something that takes no more than 1 minute to be read, I really can't see the point of your blabbering. I did read the papers behind that article (and more) already some six months ago, given my interests in diets and fitness. The papers are something you should really look at if you want to grasp some scientific "truths".
I'm not interested in educating you (it's impossible, even if we are not on reddit you'll shitpost some meme tring to defend somehow your anonymous ignorance), it's a general rule everyone should always follow.
It's a 100% free site, with no ads, no sponsors, no agenda. Every video is accompanied with full list of sources: you've better try to fight it on merit rather than resorting at the usual rhetorical fallacies.
Great post. I assume you're joking. Bodybuilding.com is absolute garbage. You want to talk about agenda and clickbait? Bodybuilding.com couldnt have MORE of an agenda or more clickbait articles.
HERES STUDIES THAT SAY EGGS ARE GOOD (BTW HERES OUR EGG PROTEIN WE SELL)
HERES STUDIES THAT SAY WHEY IS GOOD (BTW BUY OUR WAY)
SIX WEEKS TO RIPPED WITH THIS NEW GIMMICK ROUTINE
Most of the egg controversy has to do with the saturated fats inside the yolk. No one industry has a monopoly on saturated fat sources, and especially not a supplement company.
That was a bad example, just saying.
And since you're a vegan who hates fat, especially saturated fat: I'm healthier than you, have more testosterone than you, and eat a boatload of saturated fat and unsaturated fat.
Deny me that.
Im not vegan. It's still clear eggs are not good for you. I dont understand why everyone gets so fucking defensive and throws a tantrum when other people put evidence in front of them against something theyre just used to believing. This board is /fit/... So you'd think people would want to know what's actually healthy or effective for making gains.
when this anon
please notice the "sources cited" button. Perhaps even skim a study or two.
Show me an article from bodybuilding.com, or maybe another website you think is better than nutritiondata, that has at least a few sources cited and concludes eggs are healthy. Hard mode, no Livestrong bullshit
True, that's why I included quite a long time and it depends on the individual. If they don't eat much red meat, donate blood, don't cook with iron pans, drink coffee/tea, or sweat intensely it can speed up the process.
Not a vegan. You're making assumptions. Didn't know this was an internet dick sizing contest about who was healthier. Trying to show how much more of a man you are by claiming you have more testosterone makes you seem self conscious and immature. You're like the dude that has to prove himself as tough by trying to get into fights at the bar.
Also I am healthier and have more testosterone than you
Watch VEGEN GEYNS on the Drunken Peasants Podcast, Live Right Now!
Youre right. The only thing that matters in a food is how "absorbent" a protein is. Care to explain what you mean by absorbent?
Do you understand how little that shit matters anyway? If we even look at amino acid scores normal chicken breast is better than egg. Amino acid profile is way more important IMO. Again, I'm not a vegan but it's stupid easy to get every amino acid if you don't just eat the same exact food every meal.
AND EVEN IF "most absorbent protein" mattered at all, how many fucking eggs are you gonna eat in a day? A normal large egg is like 6 grams of protein. Its barely fucking anything. Even if you ate FIVE eggs you're getting 30 grams of your *amazing* protein
we're talking about nutrition. What relevance does a workout routine or bio-mechanical advice on a lift have? Bodybuilding.com has shit video tutorials anyway.
I see you ignored the rest of my post. I am assuming you were unable to find any good articles or studies that support your side of the egg argument.
Biological value and PDCAAS
BV uses egg as a baseline because it was the highest until whey hit the market.
PDCAAS it is also a value of 1, (tied with whey).
So yes, Eggs are the highest form of non supplement protein there is. Bar none.
As for how many, who cares. Eating eggs whenever you want is good for gains as they are the best protein next to supplements on earth.
>good articles or studies that support your side of the egg argument.
Google the indicators of how good a protein is, and you will see: EGGs are the best natural protein there is. period.
Which makes eggs good for gains and good for /fit/.
>we're talking about nutrition
No you are talking about health.
And no one cares, just like on /gif/ no one cares about a porn star being incontinent from shoving a 12 inch dildo up her ass.
You are now the egg avenger.
I will take the fact you ignore what I say as a sign you are unable to cope with the fact someone has questioned something you have set in your mind.
I am only trying to help you understand eggs are not good for you, or your long term gains.
But I suppose some people can't be convinced. Continue eating eggs, I don't care. Carry on m8s
>I will take the fact you ignore what I say
>Care are to explain what you mean by absorbent?
>amino acid scores normal chicken breast is better than egg
Check and you are way fucking wrong.
>how many fucking eggs are you gonna eat in a day?
>we're talking about nutrition
Please tell me which parts I ignored.
Also nice argument for the fact that eggs are in fact the highest scoring proteins next to supplements on earth hurrdurr
Some decent info in the video but it didn't really give eggs a good case either. They mentioned the carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin which are contained within eggs and put it against spinach to show it is an inferior source of carotenoids yet doesn't mention that when consumed from eggs are much better absorbed than from plants http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/8/1887.short
They also seem to make the case that dietary cholesterol will in fact raise your total cholesterol levels when it actually has high interindividual differences and in some cases has very little effect https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16340654
And when confounding factors are controlled for, eggs don't seem to have any effect on CHD or stroke risk in healthy people https://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189529 Though there is an increased risk for those with T2D.
There IS a real risk of ingesting large amounts of Ox-LDL/PUFA's from overcooked eggs, but cooking them on medium heat and only for as long as necessary helps reduce that risk and doesn't seem relevant given the the previous meta anlysis.
He cited a study (Dietary cholesterol, serum cholesterol, and risks of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular diseases.) that has no abstract in the link he provided and in the video he quotes a discussion that only partly ABOUT the cited study, not the study itself without mentioning that the quote isn't from the study. He merely hijacked the authority of a scientific study to add heft his polemic against the egg industry.
Pic is another bite from the same discussion and the link is to the text of the discussion.
>In violation of federal law, the American Egg Board has made a longstanding effort, costing several million dollars, to change federal policies and make cholesterol appear to be safe. Approximately 90 percent of research studies on dietary cholesterol are now funded by the egg industry.
>Abundant scientific evidence shows that cholesterol is a significant contributor to cardiovascular disease, the leading killer of Americans. The DGAC’s recommendations are part of a 20-year attempt at a cholesterol image makeover based on research funded by USDA’s egg promotion program and designed specifically to increase egg consumption regardless of the health risks that may result from unlimited cholesterol ingestion
>Congress created ODPHP in 1976 to lead disease prevention and health promotion efforts in the United States. We’re part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health.
pic related is the good part
While the DGAC had that to say about dietary cholesterol, the Institute of Medicine and National Academy of Sciences still say that there's a clear, linear relationship between dietary cholesterol and LDL cholesterol in the blood, and that it, along with saturated fat, should be minimized in the diet
The problem with the DGAC's conclusions is that they're based on a review only looking at data published after 1998, while most of the objective, NIH-funded research on dietary cholesterol was done before that point, and since then more studies funded by egg producers had been published, which are typically designed in a way that obscures or weakens the relationship. Basically the worst time period they could have chose to look at data from, they chose.
I am starting to feel like a freak.
I've only been lifting for 1.5 years, and I can bench 6 reps of 225 lbs.
Is this really supposed to be that difficult for someone who trains consistently? Is it because I have a wide chest?
>They mentioned the carotenoids lutein and zeaxanthin which are contained within eggs and put it against spinach to show it is an inferior source of carotenoids yet doesn't mention that when consumed from eggs are much better absorbed than from plants http://jn.nutrition.org/content/134/8/1887.short
It's better absorbed from eggs than from spinach, but the study you posted is playing a bit of a trick by comparing 6mg of lutein from egg against 6mg of lutein from spinach. The point being made is that a spoonful of spinach has as much lutein as 9 eggs, so what sense would it make to compare them at the same dose as if both foods had an equal amount? 3 eggs were used in the study meal, so imagine them comparing 3 lutein-enriched eggs to a teaspoon of spinach and concluding that the eggs are a superior source because more lutein was absorbed. It's not practical data. This is why studies on eggs that are funded by the egg industry are usually best ignored.
>They also seem to make the case that dietary cholesterol will in fact raise your total cholesterol levels when it actually has high interindividual differences and in some cases has very little effect https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16340654
Maria Luz Fernandez, the author of this paper, is also affiliated with the American Egg Board. You have to take this stuff with a grain of salt.
I'm gonna read through the CHD/stroke paper later, but if it found increased risk for people with diabetes, that should be a red flag that it's detrimental to cardiovascular health. Diabetes is a risk factor for heart disease, and things that contribute to heart disease would be more obvious when studying diabetics. This would still apply to non-diabetics, even if the study isn't able to single out that association.
Oh yeah, and we should keep in mind that egg consumption in population studies, including that one, are measured in amounts like 1 a week, 2-3 a week, with 1 egg a day being a high egg consumption. Trying to study the effects of eggs at this level of consumption as one part of peoples' reported diets, especially when studying places that already have high rates of cardiovascular disease and high intake of cholesterol from other sources, can be hard to do accurately. This is where indirect data is more useful in establishing risk. The people who wrote this paper point this out as a flaw in their study.
>In controlled metabolic studies, ingestion of cholesterol by eating egg yolks or whole eggs raises serum total and LDL cholesterol levels.5- 7,42
>The equation derived by Keys and Parlin4 predicts that adding 1 egg to an average diet (assume 200 mg background cholesterol and 7560 kJ/d) will result in about a 4% increase in total serum cholesterol for a normocholesterolemic person (assume total blood cholesterol of 5.17 mmol/L [200 mg/dL]). If we assume that raising cholesterol levels is the only effect of egg consumption, this would translate into about an 8% increase in CHD risk,44 an effect generally too small to be detectable in this and most epidemiologic studies or clinical trials.
>One potential alternative explanation for the null finding is that background dietary cholesterol may be so high in the usual Western diet that adding somewhat more has little further effect on blood cholesterol
>we cannot exclude the possibility that egg consumption may increase the risk among participants with very low background cholesterol intake.