Is meat healthy?

Nutritious? Yes. Healthy is a subjective word.

File: 1437597413052.jpg (17KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x500px

>>35060968
>healthy is a subjective word

>>35060961
Who knows.

I don't think a life without meat is a life worth living, though.

>>35061003

Eggs are nutritious. Doesn't mean they are healthy when you cover them in mayo for some shitty salad and eat 4k calories worth when your TDEE is 2200.

>>35061017
Why would eating other shit make something less of itself? Your logic baffles me. The line where something healthy becomes unhealthy is when you eat too much of it at once.

If you want to be pumped with artificial hormones and anti-biotics, sure.

>>35060968
>>35061003

I think relative is the better term,

Though certain 'foods' are objectively worse than others,

>>35060968
Meat is not nutritious and it is not healthy.

>>35061017

What the fuck kind of retarded point is that? Thats like saying water isn't healthy because if you drink 100000L a day you'll die. You can take anything to that extreme, by that standard literally nothing in the universe is healthy. Way to try and sound intelligent and end up showing you much of a retard you truly are.

>>35061384

Stop eating meat filled with those things then

>>35061402
You just proved his point. Healthy is relative. Good job dumbo

File: images (2).jpg (6KB, 205x246px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 205x246px

naw man it mixes together with all the other healthy shit in my stomach like the 4 SCOOPS i took earlier CMON!

It's okay if the animal had a good diet and wasn't medicated. Finding healthy meat is expensive and often impractical, however

>>35061427

Yes and the point i was making is saying its relative is fucking stupid. Everything is relative- why point that out? Thats like wanting people to treat you like an intellectual because you can spell your own name, its a moot point and is meaningless, who gives a fuck

>>35061869
The word healthy is meaningless in this context though.

Hell, sugar is healthy in that it'll keep you alive. It has calories and is nontoxic.

File: 14xgfg4.jpg (99KB, 469x600px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 469x600px

>>35061990
>dat semantics bickering

Wow, such profound. Much deep. You must be a riot on your elementary school playground, kid. Every non-autistic person can understand the context of the OP intuitively. Go be pseudo-intellectual somewhere else.

This is a poorly worded question, but:
Protein is good and there is a lot of protein in meat.

File: fit a natty walk 3.gif (2MB, 317x348px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 317x348px

I dunno anon; you should ask your mom.

>>35060961
>Is meat healthy?
No, it's dead.

Being dead is not healthy.
You can't eat healthy food - it stops being healthy once you start gnawing on it.

>>35061372
>>35061402
It's for dummies who don't understand that, and think
>'X' is healthy, so I'll just eat that 4 times a day!

File: cooking_mwthods.jpg (115KB, 754x934px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 754x934px

is it better if you boil the shit out of it? cause I eat red meat mostly in the form of meaty bones ...

_processed_ meat has received a lot of bad press lately

>>35061398
Shoo vegan.

>>35061398
tell that to all those vegan morons who got irreversible neural damage from lack of vitamin b12 just to name one

>>35064246
All the vegans I know take supplements for b12, and have no problems with it. Most of them have problems with iron though, no matter how much greens they eat. I guess it has to do with absortion and stuff. I had the same problem with iron during my vegan years, which is one of the reasons why liver is one of my favorite foods now. Low iron count sucks, and most non-meat diets will give end up with it in the long run.

>>35060961
Food science major here. All current research shows meat is healthy.
Research showing the opposite is based on weak causality and/or badly designed studies.
The unhealthy part is the additives put in processed food, dont confuse the two.

>>35064506
Thank you. Do you have a good online source to use in future discussions?

>>35061372
That's literally what too much means, you're being redundant as well as missing the point.

>>35062079
Says the guy bickering about semantic bickering.

Good job taking the moral highground on who's arguing right on 4chan

>>35060961
No it isn't. It causes heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, high blood pressure. Processed meat does definitively cause cancer. Red meat probably causes cancer.

It is shitty for your health in virtually every way. Eating animal products is akin to smoking or drinking alcohol; it is enjoyable, but detrimental to your overall health and performance.

>>35060961
Yeah, and great for gains

File: Hy-B12.jpg (41KB, 300x167px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 300x167px

>>35064246

B12 has historically been found in dirty drinking water and soil. In our clean environment you are correct, we need to supplement.

But animals are supplemented with it too so what's the difference? You are too retarded to take a 5 cent b12 pill so you could on the producer of the $10 steak supplementing it for you?

Seems like quite the pointless point you made.

Is veganism the ultimate gains goblin?

File: Outrun-t-rex-orig.jpg (4MB, 5315x3646px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 5315x3646px

>>35065563
Pretty much

Meat = gains

>>35060961
I'd be more so concerned with what the rest of your diet looks like. Meat should only make up a small portion of it, the rest should be filled with plants.

Arguably vegans have lower incidences of heart disease which is going to be down to avoidance of sat fats and cholesterol. Cancer rates seem to be lower in vegans as well, only by about 18% IIRC but it is still lower.

I wouldn't say lean meats in the context of a diet with plenty of fruit, veg, legumes and wholegrains would do much in the way of detrimental things. Not to mention stress, exercise, bf% and genetics play as much if not bigger role in pathology of disease.

All that said, a diet devoid of animal products would probably be "healthier". In the context of everything else that I mentioned how much by I have no idea.

FYI, I eat meat.

>>35065688
>Arguably vegans have lower incidences of heart disease

vegans have lower incidences of heart disease

ftfy

File: 1418056493881.png (198KB, 550x535px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 550x535px

>>35060961
Healthier than pasta.

>>35065711
That is what I said? Did I use arguably wrong?

>>35065718
I thought you were implying there was some debate to that fact.

>>35065727
Nah I meant an argument against eating meats would be vegan have lower heart disease and that.

My bad if my grammar was poor.

>>35065553
>B12 has historically been found in

meat.

>But animals are supplemented with it too

maybe in Jewmerica where industrial waste is sold as food. European farmers don't give their organic free range livestock anything like that.

>>35065716
FYI, pasta is healthier than rice

>vegans have a lower incidence of heart disease
>proof veganism is healthier than eating meat

A person who makes a serious dietary change is probably health conscious and does things like exercise as well.

It would be more logical to compare health conscious people of various diets than compare to vegans with everyone since the majority of people in western nations are sedentary and eat unhealthy crap in large amounts.

>>35065832
Source?

>>35065815

Nope. B12 dosing is micrograms. Animals need to get it from the same sources we do. That's why they are supplemented now, because they are living in sterile environments.

The only way a cow can get B12 is from dirt. So ya, Euro filth who keep their animals out in nature will not have a problem with B12 in their animals.

I am sure you filthy fucks will never have a problem with B12 because of your disgusting way of life. B12 is plentiful in human feces.

>>35065843

True, the bigger factor would be the complete 100 % absence of cholesterol in the diet though of course.

>>35064313
Did you take a combined b12 and iron supplement? I've been vegan for a couple of years now, and I've been doing pretty well on iron with a supplement for both. I've given blood a few times, and every time the dude who checks my iron is like "Wow, this is a lot of iron".

File: Euro Drinking Water.jpg (556KB, 1300x1390px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1300x1390px

>>35065891

>>35061384
I do actually. Free steroids and medicine? Sign me up pussy

>>35065912
How did your health, BMI, and athletic performance change during the transition? If at all...

>>35065897
That's sarcastic, right? You actually know how cholesterol works don't you?

>>35065832
>lectins and gluten
>healthier

>>35065941
When there's too much it in your circulatory system it builds up in the arteries causing atherosclerosis no?

>>35061017

>Eggs are nutritious.

Honestly they hardly are. They're no better than other foods

>>35061415
How? Isn't it all treated this way these days unless you hunt?

>>35065897
are there any studies that show the effects of adding and removing cholesterol from the diet of a healthy person who exercises?

You cant really compare a health conscious vegan with an amerifat who eats 2lbs of fatty meat a day along with sugary drinks and refined starches and say the main reason the vegan is healthier is that he doesn't consume cholesterol.

>>35065523
Source?

>>35065897
I'm not that nigger, but I wonder given how much shit lower cholesterol (soluble fiber and polys mainly) how much of an impact eating 500gs of chicken a day would do when the rest of your diet is in check.

Last time I checked 100mg = 2mg/dl increase of serum cholesterol. 500 grams of chicken breast = 450mg cholesterol, so that would only mean an increase of 9mg/dl. Which could quite easily be countered with a few portions of beans given their soluble fibre content and a handful of nuts.

Eggs are a different story, I generally avoid them.

>>35066022

What country do you live it?

You could just go to a farmer and get grass finished beef. Its far more expensive though. Also much leaner so it doesn't really taste as good.

I used to buy a quarter cow at a time before I stopped eating animal products.

>>35065934
For me it was weird, I'm not sure if I can give a good metric.

I was vegetarian for about a year and a half before during high school. Going vegetarian I felt better and started exercising and stopped being skinny fat, but it's pretty arguable that that was more because of puberty and introducing serious exercise than what I was eating.

I went vegan when I got jaw surgery, so I'm not sure how applicable that is to other people. So I was asleep for about a week straight and lost about 10 pounds. After that I couldn't really get back into exercising for a while, but once I did everything was pretty much back to where it was before. My mile time got to where I had it before and it improved a little, but arguably just as it would have had i not changed my diet. I never really fell into actual lifting, but I do a lot of calisthenics, and those are a little past where I was before.

I think I feel better, but it's a hard judgement. If you're thinking of trying it out veganism I'd say do it, it forces you to be a little more conscious of what you eat but it's pretty easy once you get an idea of what you're doing.

Sorry that was super long btw

>>35065843

>It would be more logical to compare health conscious people of various diets than compare to vegans with everyone since the majority of people in western nations are sedentary and eat unhealthy crap in large amounts.

Okay, let's do that

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/

>Vegetarian diets confer protection against cardiovascular diseases, cardiometabolic risk factors, some cancers and total mortality. Compared to lacto-ovo-vegetarian diets, vegan diets seem to offer additional protection for obesity, hypertension, type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular mortality.

>>35061398
care to post facts and not just your shitty vegan bait?

>>35065969
Welp, I take it back, I'm wrong you're right. I was going to say that your body needs some amount of cholesterol to function, so 100% lack of cholesterol in foods is bad, but now I'm reading that your body produces all the cholesterol it needs by itself.

That'll teach me. Sorry man

>>35066039
Yes, you can cherry pick ways to eat animal products that are relatively safe. But why not just not eat it?

There's a whole other subset of issues with eating chicken. Do some digging around and read about it. Phytotoxins concentrated in poultry through bio-accumulation have been shown to cause gyno in males and wreak havoc on your hormone balance.

There's simply no reason to eat animal products. Dicking around trying to be as safe as possible is even harder than eating vegan - which is actually quite easy.

File: bane.jpg (31KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 1280x720px

>>35066103

Takes a big guy to admit it

>>35066128
We were taking about heart disease...

All meats have similar cholesterol contents, with chicken being one of the highest. Sticking to the leanest cuts would avoid saturated fat for the most part. So how am I cherry picking?

File: 1338678548809.png (62KB, 300x244px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 300x244px

>>35061017
>eggs are not healthy when you add other things to it that are not healthy

GEEEE, GIVE THIS MAN A FUCKING NOBEL PRIZE.

>>35066148
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point. Yes, it is reasonable to assume that sticking to lean meats will mitigate your risk of heart disease.

File: egg research.png (372KB, 1980x1002px) Image search: [Google]

372KB, 1980x1002px

>>35066150

They're not healthy on their own either

>>35066165
What is this about chicken and male hormones though. You've have curious now.

>>35066184
*You have me curious now

>>35066089
Thats not reallg what i was looking for sorry. I couldnt really get it to work on my phone but isn't it only comparing people in a religious cult? Also I didnt see any mention of what exercise the people did and what their diet actually consisted of.

You cant just say *meat eater*, *vegan*, *lacto ovo*, diet is way more nuanced than that.


If i missed that stuff because of my shitty phone I'd love screencaps

>>35066181
Industrially produced eggs are not healthy.
Proper organic freerange eggs are healthy.
Just eat proper eggs you cheapskate. Or keep a pet chicken. They require less from you than a cat and they give you free breakfast.

>>35065958
Nothing is wrong with gluten unless you have celiacs you fucking moron. Opinion discarded

>>35066128

Why do others want to impose their views on the world?

If it's not athiests, it's the muslims or the vegans or the vigilante "justice" crowd.

Did nobody teach you about relativism friend?

I'm all for reasonable discourse, but when you want to impose your dogma on others, that's not working with others to move society forward, it's a power/control issue.

If you feel passionately about veganism, go do something productive about it. Produce great vegan food/products, help market those products, do research, etc...

Arguing with people on the internet may make you feel good, but it's gratuitous and self-serving and actually quite counter-productive.

>>35066184
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Urinary+metabolites+of+di%282-ethylhexyl%29+phthalate+are+associated+with+decreased+steroid+hormone+levels+in+adult+men.+J+Androl.+2009+May-Jun%3B30%283%29%3A287-97
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/1/e122.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920922/

Its not pleasant reading.


TL;DR Toxins accumulate to a far greater degree in animals than plants.

>>35066277
Lectins do shit for everyone.

That's how grains protect themselves from being killed. Also gluten is shit in the long run.

>>35066238

>I couldnt really get it to work on my phone but isn't it only comparing people in a religious cult?

It's a religious community, but more importantly it's a "blue zone" meaning the people there are considerably healthier than in other populations, making things less biased between diet groups and their possible lifestyle confounders.

>You cant just say *meat eater*, *vegan*, *lacto ovo*, diet is way more nuanced than that.

I agree that diet is more nuanced than that but it does give us an idea of how regular meat consumption, low meat consumption, no meat consumption, etc effects the health of a population, and the results are consistent enough that it's worth taking notes from

>>35066245

>special pleading

>>35066298

We are here to discuss this subject. I am not making any emotional appeals or other fallacies, I am debating the facts.

Take your straw man and get the fuck out of here.

>>35066181
They study was done on people with high cholesterol and it showed that eating eggs didnt really impact it.

Can you show me the health effects in healthy physically active people with a balanced diet who added eggs to their diet with no other changes?

>>35066356

>They study was done on people with high cholesterol and it showed that eating eggs didnt really impact it.

Exactly. In people with already high cholesterol, adding even more doesn't show as much of an effect. But when they removed the eggs and ate cholesterol-free egg substitute, their cholesterol dropped 18 points.

>Can you show me the health effects in healthy physically active people with a balanced diet who added eggs to their diet with no other changes?

Off-hand, I don't know any. I could take a look, but it's hard to find carefully controlled studies that look at the effect of egg consumption. Most studies are funded by the Egg Nutrition Center, and like that image shows they use a lot of tricks to try to make eggs look benign. If they hadn't used egg substitute in that study, you wouldn't be able to tell that avoiding eggs would lower your cholesterol.

>>35066181
Are you clinically retarded?

>people with high cholesterol who eat eggs stay the same (so no impact whatsoever)
>people with high cholesterol who stop eating sausage and cheese get better cholesterol

>>35066298

Said OP in every thread preaching:
athiesm
islam
wacky-rightwingerism
social justice
etc.....


Meat consumption isn't going to make much difference to anyone's health and all reasonable people know that. We actually have an entire field of science, and in the USA a very well funded and well educated government body devoted to figuring this stuff out, but if you think that arguing with some gym rats in \fit is a good use of your time, and that mainstream science/nutrition can't be trusted have at it.

But I think you're a dunce.

Not because of your alternative views on nutrition, but because you are in fact quite plainly a dunce.

>>35066298
>Why do others want to impose their views on the world?

why do others selfishly want to consume meat when the meat industry is doing its part in destroying our planet which we all share ?

File: 1439585369772.jpg (52KB, 450x472px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 450x472px

>>35066181
Are you fucking literally retarded?

>participants were randomly assigned to one of two sqeuences of a single dose of three medium hard boiled eggs and a sausage/cheese breakfast sandwich
>participants were then randomly assigned to one of two sequences of two medium hardboiled eggs and 1/2 cup of egg substitute

They KEPT the eggs and CHANGED THE SAUSAGE AND CHEESE for egg substitute and their cholesterol went down WHILE STILL EATING EGGS.

>>35066301
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Urinary+metabolites+of+di%282-ethylhexyl%29+phthalate+are+associated+with+decreased+steroid+hormone+levels+in+adult+men.+J+Androl.+2009+May-Jun%3B30%283%29%3A287-97

I only skimmed it, but a 4% reduction in test isn't that big of a deal.

>http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/1/e122.full

Pubertal gyno, dodged that bullet.

I suppose if your test levels were at the lower end of normal (~300ng/dl) then maybe there is a cause for concern. I wouldn't have said it leaves you with a limp dick.

Unless you have another study up your sleeve which suggests otherwise?

>>35062445
What if you only eat rotting food filled with parasites?

>>35066452
>Meat consumption isn't going to make much difference to anyone's health

>mainstream science/nutrition can't be trusted

What the fuck are you even talking about???

Mainstream science just aggregated the findings over over 800 studies and decided to classify processed meat as a class 1 carcinogen. Right along side asbestos, cigarettes, plutonium....Not even addressing the other deleterious effects on your body, just strictly focusing on the cancer aspect.

Your ignorance is truly astounding.

>>35066476

>cholesterol went down while still eating eggs

Compared to sausage and cheese with 3x more saturated fat. Compared to eggs, cholesterol-free egg substitute had a much larger cholesterol-lowering effect.

>>35066507

That's the nitrates used to preserve the meat you dunce.

And if you didn't know that processed meats, which are filled with nitrates and other shit, were bad for you than you're so uninformed as to make it almost pointless to talk to you. This is not new science, this is shit we've known for literally decades and it has nothing to do with animal protein and everything to do with preserving animal protein in specific ways.

BTW, you know that nitrates can and nowadays often do come from celery juice right?

>>35066477

At best you are finding ways to consume animal products that will have a minimal negative impact on your health - but its still negative. Its like arguing about the safest way to smoke. The easiest thing for me is just to not do it. If you are interested in the subject get comfy and watch these year in review videos. Then take your time, do your research and make your own decision. You have absolutely nothing to lose by making the switch for a few weeks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DCjwIVJmMw

>>35066587

>What is the positive association between red meat and cancer?

File: Steak.jpg (172KB, 1500x1125px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1500x1125px

I don't give a fuck when I can eat something like this.

Why wouldn't animal protein have literally the same health effects as plant proteins? Both get broken down by your body into exactlly the same amino acids.

>>35066615
>At best you are finding ways to consume animal products that will have a minimal negative impact on your health

I agree 100%, I said earlier I would imagine a vegan diet to be better than a omni diet.

For me anyways I don't think it is that bigger deal, I suppose I should take into account other people when I'm making an argument in the future.

>You have absolutely nothing to lose by making the switch for a few weeks.

I'm actually considering a switch soon, I would like to see what effects it has on my mood and energy levels.

Anyways veggie-brah, I'm off to workout. Take it easy, it has been nice talking (srs).

>>35066587
Actually the determination was that colon cancer is caused by sulfates from fermenting meat in your colon 'dunce.' And yes, 'mainstream science' has known for years that meat is detrimental to your health. What you've read on the back of your egg carton is not mainstream science.'

File: flavour country.jpg (8KB, 280x180px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 280x180px

>>35066644

I know right lol XD YOOOOLOOOO!

File: egg trial.png (79KB, 707x887px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 707x887px

>>35066438
>>35066476

They compared sausage/cheese, eggs, and egg substitute separately

>egg substitute led to a decrease in LDL and significantly improved endothelial function, as compared to sustained egg consumption

>>35066655
You too man...You're a smart guy, watch that fucking video breh!

>>35066646
>Why isn't the end of a chemical process the same as the start. I don't understand.

>>35066646

There is no difference. Plenty of bodybuilders, power-lifters, fighters to prove that point.

>>35066615

I try to consume at least 150 grams of complete protein per day. With meat this fairly easy. How much quinoa that would take? And quinoa ain't exactly cheap.

I'm already eating up to 4 cups of beans per day, I eat oats twice a day and a ton of nuts and high protein plant foods sources. It would be very hard to double or triple that for multiple reasons.

Also meat is fairly clean from chemicals, pesticides, naturally occurring toxins compared to produce. Arsenic and shit like that in anything that comes from the soil. Not an issue perhaps for someone eating 2k calories a day, but if you're eating 10x the plant foods as the average person, who knows what all that does to your body. Consider oxalates for instance.

So, there are a lot of reasons I eat exactly the way that I eat. I think most of the people on this board have spent more time thinking about diet and the impact of food on one's health than 99% of the vegans/vegetarians you're ever going to meet and that's a lot of the problem. There's this asinine assumption that non-vegetarians are fools and can't understand science. The inverse is actually more likely to be the case, at least when it comes to fitness enthusiasts.

>>35065688

>Arguably vegans have lower incidences of heart disease which is going to be down to avoidance of sat fats and cholesterol. Cancer rates seem to be lower in vegans as well, only by about 18% IIRC but it is still lower.

Having lower rates of heart disease and cancer is not because of a vegan diet. It's because the studies compare average peoplw to vegans. Your average person is not health concious; they probably smoke, exercise little, and don't care terribly about their health. Vegans, on the other hand, typically tend to be dumb hippies, so they'll be more likely to be health-concious, exercise, etc.

Compare a group of health-focused vegans with health-focused omnivores, and I bet you the omnivores will turn out better.

>>35066721
You didn't answer my question. I'm trying to say there are so many variables involved in the healthiness of a food, pesticides and the way it's prepared for example. I think it's pretty dumb to say all meat is unhealthy when that's the case.

>>35066750
Who?

>>35066764

See >>35066089

>>35066750
When you use steroids your diet becomes less important, anon.

>>35066773
Many types of protein, anon. No plant protein have complete structures, unlike the protein structures found in meat. It is difficult to get the full benefit from plant protein because of this.

>>35066658

I hate that I had to waste the time to look this nonsense up.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who

You may not be a dunce, but you're at best not a very good researcher and largely innumerate (because you don't understand the math behind the risks enough to put things in proper perspective).

Here's some information on sulfates that might help. It's directed at a lay audience, which I think will make it easier to grasp.
http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/sulfates-food-same-nitrates-3150.html

>>35066763

Quinoa, one of the more expensive grains is significant cheaper than beef. I doubt you need to consume 150 grams of protein, despite what optimum nutrition told you.

Meat is not clean from chemicals. I may eat 10 x the plant products as the average person, but a meat eater is consuming more toxins because of the bio-accumulation occurring in livestock as they are fed all these grains. Thus a meat eater may end up indirectly consuming the toxins of 1000x the plant products of the average vegan person.

Finally, I don't have that opinion about omnivores being fools. It may be safe to say that most vegans are vegans for compassionate reasons and know nothing about nutrition.

I do believe it is foolish to consume a class 1 carcinigan. I do not look down on people that smoke, drink, or otherwise fuck themselves up. But yes, if you believe it is safe to consume processed meat I do believe you are a fool.

File: what risks do you take.png (194KB, 687x923px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 687x923px

>>35066831

>you don't understand the math behind the risks enough to put things in proper perspective

dat tobacco industry logic

File: derek_tresize-again1.png (318KB, 480x720px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 480x720px

>>35066780
Bill McCarthy
Cam Awesome
Derek Tresize

Its more common than you think outside of burger land.

>>35066791
Yep, so? Its not as if the omnivores are natty...we are comparing apples to apples.

>>35066834
>I do believe it is foolish to consume a class 1 carcinigan
Sunlight is considered a carcinogen.

I guess going outside is foolish.

>>35066834

Only fools would consume the "sulfates" found in meats. You are a dunce.

I agree with the ethical vegans and have mad respect for them. It's a very socially conscious and noble thing that they do.

But to try and bring science into it is neuroticism at best (I justify my choices by bending the truth to match my beliefs), and charlattanism at worst.

>>35066889

>Sunlight causes cancer, asbestos is cheap...fuck it.

>>35066855

Literally, the true definition of ad hominem.

I've tried to help; I'm out. Time to hit the gym.

>>35066785
That article is still wrong though, because it's only considering the diet of the person, not the rest of the lifestyle. Correlation /= causation.

As I said before, a person who exercises, avoids processed foods, and abstains from drugs, is going to be healthier than the average person. People on vegan diets typically do other activities that influence health.

Are there any studies that compare vegan vs. non-vegan diets, while taking exercise, processed food consumption, and socio-economic status into consideration?

>>35066880
Like the average joe, I don't use roids, and it would be foolish for me to try to build strength on a vegan diet.

>>35066906
You're an idiot.

>>35060961
It really just depends on the source and how much of it you're eating. Factory farmed animals are not healthy and therefore the meat produced by them is not healthy. However, the brain is made of mostly cholesterol so to have healthy brain function meat is definitely a good thing. But that doesn't mean that your diet should be based around meat. It's best to buy locally sourced meat from good farmers if possible. You don't want that garbage chicken from tyson, for example.

>>35066834
>Quinoa, one of the more expensive grains is significant cheaper than beef
Only if you live in Bolivia.

>>35066927
Excellent retort

>>35066277
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16635908
Read up, dumb faggot.
Your welcome.

>>35066871
>Its more common than you think outside of burger land.
Two of your examples are from burger land..
And the brit is a old fat toad.

>>35066919

Despite what GNC says you don't actually need 300 grams of protein a day to build muscle. And if you do take a vegan protein powder...if you want.

>>35066972


I am not going to dig up a load of vegan athletes for you...it is perfectly common.

Those who make gains on an omnivore diet do so DESPITE being omnivores, not because of it.

One article says eggs are healthy, one says theyre unhealthy
One article says chocolate is healthy, one says its unhealthy
One article says bacon is horrible, another says that some lady got over 100 years old eating bacon every morning

Fuck food discussions Ill eat whatever I want, we all die anyways

>>35066984
You don't want to prove your statement....
And make another nonsensical statement....
Well done, pedo vegan.

>>35066992

Yes we do all die. Some would prefer to enjoy the extra 10 - 14 years on average a vegan lives.

There's not a lot of conflict out there. 800 studies were aggregated by the World Health Organization prompting them to declare that processed meat does cause cancer and red meat likely causes cancer. Its not that complicated.

File: diabetes.png (407KB, 1010x548px) Image search: [Google]

407KB, 1010x548px

>>35066916

>That article is still wrong though, because it's only considering the diet of the person, not the rest of the lifestyle

It can't be "wrong," it's just a compilation of evidence. It's unlikely that there would be significant data-breaking lifestyle differences within this tight-knit social group, especially when the studies already account for lifestyle factors like physical activity, alcohol intake, and smoking.

>As I said before, a person who exercises, avoids processed foods, and abstains from drugs, is going to be healthier than the average person.

Right, and that applies to all diet groups in that community. The average life expectancy there is several years higher than the rest of the country. Within the community though, vegetarians have better health than meat eaters, and vegans see even further benefit. In many cases, there's a step-wise improvement the less animal-sourced foods are in their diet.

>>35067000
God, make me reference some shitty website. Not every statement needs a citation you invalid.

http://www.greatveganathletes.com/strength

>>35067046

All that bad advice would have been much more damaging if it wasn't for the cancer, twice.

File: 235235.png (364KB, 469x620px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 469x620px

This thread is way too fucking influenced by vegan-nazi's. Why dont you go back lurking on vegan-gains channel

I bet you all look like yellow cancerpatients with flabby tits

>>35067033
Thank you for the link. That's all I asked for.
You still haven't backed up statement number two.
Pedo vegan fail.

>>35066946

Vegans, at the one in this thread, tend to be innumerate, so we'll have to help him.

quinoa: $7 a pound = 70 grams of protein

beef: $7 a pound = 130 grams of protein

And I can actually find beef as low as $4 per pound.

And beef is much better from a micro stand point and is cleaner than some grain which has been watered with shit water and processed on the floor of some dirty third world warehouse.

>>35067062

What's the point of making the thread if not to see two opposing opinions?

>>35060961
Layne Norton has a PhD and he says that meat is fine.

I think he has more credibility than the vegan nutjobs.

>>35067072

Quit projecting and do your own research. You don't have to go far, just read this thread.

Animal products have been demonstrated to cause heart disease and cancer. Its like smoking, if you can succeed as an athlete while smoking it is DESPITE it, not because of it. I am out of time, best wishes burger bra.

>>35067080
http://www.amazon.com/Red-Quinoa-10-Lb-Bag/dp/B000RHXKC6

Its a lot cheaper in store.

>>35067080
This.
I get grassfed beef for 2 USD a pound where I live, directly from the farmer. Quinoa cost 20 USD pr pound here, and I have to drive 45 minutes to get to that store.
Give me local nutritious food any day, and keep your imported grains for yourself.

>>35067113
>Animal products have been demonstrated to cause heart disease and cancer.
You forgot the word 'processed', pedo vegan, and that makes all the difference.

>>35067136
>nutritious food
>Class 2a carcinogen

>>35067159
A positive association has been shown between red meat and cancer

File: 1448202173193.jpg (87KB, 800x450px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x450px

>>35067113
>Animal products have been demonstrated to cause heart disease and cancer. Its like smoking

This guy may actually believe this.

He didn't even say processed meat, or even red meat. Flat out "animal products" cause cancer. Eggs, fish, honey, all that shit causes cancer?

This shows you how people can be blinded by ideology (in this case, muh poor animals). I wish the vegan nutjobs would go.

>>35067203
Go through the thread one more time faggot. Not once was muh animals mentioned. You have all the research you need here.

>>35067200
Not red meat in general. Beef in particular. More spesifically the casein protein.
Pedo vegan mentions animal products in general, not red meat in partical.
So still pedo vegan fail.

>>35067128

Not bad, even with the extra $10 or $12 for shipping it's only about $5 per pound.

Then I read the reviews:
"The price is reasonable, i get that. The problem is some of the seeds are not good quality and there are some black stuff (some are small stone) included, so watch out!"


You get what you pay for with plant foods and they don't have the same heavy level of scrutiny that meat does in terms of testing and whatnot, so I buy the bulk organic quinoa at whole foods. I think it's reasonably priced at about $7.

>>35067200
A positive association has been found between teen pregnancy and dropping out of high school.

Does that mean that dropping out causes pregnancy?

File: amaranth-fb[1].jpg (102KB, 1200x630px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 1200x630px

>>35067244
>>35067128
>>35067080
>>35066946
>>35066834

>wasting your money on quinoa when amaranth exists

$2.50 a pound locally

Worrying about amino acid profiles of individual foods is autistic though

>>35067278
There is no amaranth available where I live.
Quinoa is expensive here.
Dried peas on the other hand is dirt cheap, $1 for two pounds, and have a high protein count. Pea stew is awesome comfort food, especially if I cook it with good pork broth.
Inb4 vegans crying aaaaa poor dead pig.

>>35067269

The iron in red meat has been shown to be carcinogenic

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25592152

>>35067385
No, it hasn't.

>>35067080

>beef for four dollars a pound
>putting it in your body

RIP

>>35067396

>These results highlight the role of heme iron in the promotion of colon cancer by red meat and suggest that heme iron could initiate carcinogenesis through lipid peroxidation. .

>>35067430
>suggest
>could
Okay.

>>35067369

Split pea soup is great. I like a bit of hamhock in mine, but not too much. I don't want to die from meat toxicity, cause meat kills you lol.

And beans in general are a major dietary staple. Cheap, high in fiber, calorie dense and high in protein for a non-meat source.

But try to get 200 grams of protein from beans and split peas each day. As the vegan said, try it for a few weeks and just see for yourself.

>>35067445

So if the vegans feel it's sound logic to point to a few people as counterexamples, a handful of famous vegan bodybuilders, then it should be equally as persuasive if I point to a handful of famous bodybuilders who at a ton of red meat and did not develop cancer right?

I mean, if anecdotal proof is sufficient to disprove their opponents claims, then finding some people who at meat and didn't get cancer should also be sufficient to disprove those claims, right?

Am I just being to logical?

>>35067062
Jesus does that guy know what a bench press is

>>35067445
All studies are written like that, anon...

>>35067511
So?

>>35067445

That's what science sounds like

>>35060961
probably not, but like fuck i'm going to eat nothing but beans and tofu for the next 50 years.

>>35067467
Beans and peas are awesome and both staples in my house. More peas than beans because cheaper. I have no problem with vegan protein sources I just haven't found any proof that animal products in general are bad for you as long as they are high quality whole foods and not processed crap. The mercury count in mackerel caught near my house is almost non-existent, and the fish are free if you catch them yourself. The local meat, beef, goat and sheep, are all grass fed and have high omega 3 count. Venison is the same and free. People who live on meat heavy diets here live to be 90 and older. I'll follow their example rather than fashionable vegans. It makes more sense.

>>35067579

> as long as they are high quality whole foods and not processed crap

What does that mean?

>The local meat, beef, goat and sheep, are all grass fed and have high omega 3 count. Venison is the same and free

What is high to you, and how much do you think grass-fed local organic free-range meat differs from any other when it comes to health effects?

>>35067552
Just saying that criticizing a study because of the proper scientific language makes you look stupid as hell.

>>35067621
I was not critizicing the study, retard.

>>35067646
What the hell are you criticizing then?

>>35067025

>Yes we do all die. Some would prefer to enjoy the extra 10 - 14 years on average a vegan lives.

citation needed

>>35067604
You want a definition on processed foods?

I mentioned the omega 3 count because most if not all the research quoted is from meat raised on processed feed and not grass, and the nutritional content is very very different. It's an example that's all.. The health effects probably differs greatly because I see people have diets heavy in the local meat and yet there are none of the so called dangerous consequenses of eating meat. It depends on the source, not meat itself. It's not black and white, senpai.

>>35067701

>You want a definition on processed foods?

I want to know what you mean by the meat being "high quality whole foods." Anything that isn't cured, like bacon or deli meat? Or anything that has nice-sounding buzzwords attached, like "grass-fed" and "free-range"?

>I mentioned the omega 3 count because most if not all the research quoted is from meat raised on processed feed and not grass, and the nutritional content is very very different.

The nutritional content doesn't look very different at all to me. "Grass-fed" seems like more of a marketing phrase than anything. It's not like the difference between a processed grain and a whole grain where the health effects are clearly different.

The AICR says there are minor differences but that grass-fed isn't a major step up from grain-fed

http://preventcancer.aicr.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=14455&news_iv_ctrl=0&abbr=pr_hf_

>A switch from grain- to grass-fed beef does not resolve concerns about red meat, such as the high amount of heme iron found in red meat. Regardless of your choice, for now it makes sense to keep all the red meat you eat within the recommended 18-ounce per week limit.

>>35066691
what?

>>35067746
>"high quality whole foods." Anything that isn't cured, like bacon or deli meat?
Depends on how they cure it. Several curing salts have been connected to cancer. And even properly smoked meat (real wood smoke) gets carcinogenic elements from the smoke.

Processed foods usually refer to the god awful products which are undefinable and odd, but sure you can include high quality meat in there in a relative sense.. I used the word refering to the social category of processed foods, which means junk food and crap filled with additives.

>The nutritional content doesn't look very different at all to me
The nutritional content between one commercial definition and another is very different from the nutritional content of animals on local farms that get to graze on any plant they want. The term grass-fed is very relative and the studies done on huge farms where they 'grass-feed' and small local farms show a huge difference. It also depends on the area the animals graze. I live in a very fertile area and the animals benefit from the rich plant nutrients here. If an animal is grazed on a dry american plain the nutritional content in the meat will be very different.

>>35067832

Okay, then non-cured/smoked meats are high quality whole foods and you don't believe they would cause any negative health effects?

>I live in a very fertile area and the animals benefit from the rich plant nutrients here

Well that's convenient. Commercial grass-fed meat doesn't look noticebly better than non-grass-fed meat, but your own special local grass fed meat is surely amazing. I'm not trying to be a dick, but you can see how this special pleading is ineffective. It's just like this guy earlier >>35066245

Grass-fed, local, organic, free-range, small farm, etc, it means nothing when the food has inherent flaws that make it unhealthy. If there is a difference between grass and grain fed, it's not enough of a difference to matter. The best option is still to eat less of it.

>>35067385
azoxymethane is inducing the colon cancer here, iron is aggravating the lesions

>>35067905
People living on processed meat get obesity and cancers, even at a young age. People in my area who eat a lot of meat (an I mean a lot!), and live past 90. All the vegans I know (about 20 of them in total) struggle with deficits on their diet. That's all the information I need, really. I'm sorry if I don't have enough bro-science for you, but I'll probably live longer than you m8.

>>35067965

I like anecdotes as much as the next guy, but they're never "all the information I need." I like to base my decisions on science.

>>35067998
Lot of science on it, m8, but I don't have a J-stor account nor the wish to pirate publish here.
If you like anthropology then find the stats on groups above the polar circle where people live on meat-heavy diets. They live long lives.

File: 20150822083838!Vendiagram[1].gif (30KB, 600x389px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 600x389px

>>35068040

>Lot of science on it, m8

I can't be taking your word for it, bruh. Where do you live though? I'll look them up. I think of the "blue zones" when I think of long-living people. Meat usually once a week or less, small amounts at that, lots of whole grains, veg, legumes, and fruits.

>>35067905
>Okay, then non-cured/smoked meats are high quality whole foods and you don't believe they would cause any negative health effects?
I'm not the guy you're replying to, but I did post earlier about how less processed foods are healthier. And the answer to this question is no, but a good general rule of thumb is that the less processed the food is the better. You're right, meat will still come with it's health problems if you eat too much of it, but there is still a difference between prepackaged slices of chicken laced with preservatives and a naturally fed free range chicken you chopped up fresh yourself(although this option is impossible for most people). Let's not pretend all food is the same. If you found brocolli in a dumpster you probably wouldn't say it was just as healthy as fresh brocolli you grew yourself. The logic here is easy to follow and applies to all types of diets.

>>35068095
I respect your blue zones. My arguments go to meat in general, not the stuff you buy in supermarkets. Most people should be catious in terms of meat because they have little access to good quality products, but that doesn't mean animal products in themselves are bad.

I live in Lappland, Northern Scandinavia. Few people, very little pollution and animals get to graze on whatever they want.

>>35068110

>the less processed the food is the better.

I agree with that, but I don't quite agree that there's a big difference between conventional chicken and organic chicken you raised yourself from a chick and ate 10 minutes after slaughter. The latter might sound more wholesome and comforting and make us think of our grandparents and a field of a flowers in the countryside, but I don't see any reason to differentiate them like it's a game-changer the way you would differentiate them from obviously treated, processed meats that have more harmful things added to them like nitrates. With the broccoli analogy, yeah the half-rotten broccoli with dumpster juice all over it wouldn't be as healthy as fresh broccoli, but that has nothing to do with the actual broccoli. The same broccoli before it was thrown in the dumpster was perfectly healthy. Homegrown broccoli isn't going to be significantly healthier than normal storebought broccoli. It's not a difference worth noting. If one is bad, the other is bad. If one is good, the other is good.

>>35068177

>good quality products

This phrase is still fucking my head. I don't understand why you're focusing on whatever "quality" is supposed to mean when most of the harmful things associated with meat come from things that are inherent to the meat, regardless of the source. Like the AICR said, it doesn't resolve the problems.

>>35068295
>whatever "quality" is supposed to mean when most of the harmful things associated with meat come from things that are inherent to the meat
Most research is done on processed foods, which means the additives and process needs to be accounted for before the term 'meat'. Even the 'clean' meat that has been researched has come from factory farms (pig, chicken) or big ranches (cow) where they rely on processed feeds. There is very little consistent research on small farms with all the complicating factors included because there is no money or fame in that type or research. The research that come from the latter category is usually fashionable and lacking because it only represent a very small group or category or/and is only a small study.

>>35068403

>Most research is done on processed foods, which means the additives and process needs to be accounted for before the term 'meat'

As in deli meats and cured meats like we said before? What gave you that idea?

>Even the 'clean' meat that has been researched has come from factory farms (pig, chicken) or big ranches (cow) where they rely on processed feeds. There is very little consistent research on small farms with all the complicating factors included because there is no money or fame in that type or research

That needs some serious evidence to back it up though. I could just as well say "normal storebought cookies are bad but organic high-quality cookies made with the finest sugar grown in the highest mountains of Tibet are good for you, it's just that it hasn't been researched enough." It just sounds like a way of ignoring research, claiming anything studies find just isn't true for your special meat that you eat, with no adequate reason for why that would be true.

>>35068596
>processed foods. What gave you that idea?
well, facts.. Look at the laws that apply to the meat industry. I would define most if not all the products in the supermarkeds both in europe and america as processed.
>That needs some serious evidence to back it up though.
I'm a lot more sorry than you that this science doesn't exist on a consistent level. I'm not ignoring 'science', there are no proper studies done in my area or in similar conditions, at least that I'm aware of. If I knew of any, I would show you. I'm not trying to justify anything, I'm just saying that people around me have no bad effects of eating a diet heavy in meat, on the contrary. Yes this is spesific to my area (I don't know the stats on related cases) but people here live past 90 by default. They eat more than 2 pounds of meat a day, and have done so since they started registrating diet here, early 1900's.

>>35060961
Depends.
>Red meat
Healthy in small proportions
>Poultry
Healthy in any proportion

>>35068788

Consider some things inherent to meat, like saturated fat and cholesterol

http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112

They verifiably affect our blood cholesterol levels. What would lead you to believe that your meat is different? What research says that it's some other aspect of factory meat that causes this problem, that wouldn't apply to your meat?

>>35068818

Not even. Even poultry, though advised as a healthier alternative to red meat, is recommended that you not eat in large amounts. The USDA's DASH diet recommends no more than 6 ounces a day of the leanest possible poultry, with less being better.

>>35068853
>What research says that it's some other aspect of factory meat that causes this problem, that wouldn't apply to your meat?
I can not refer to science, like I have already stated. Have you read my previous posts?... I claim this because I see no evidence of this in the people I know who have a diet very heavy in meat (most people here). How often do I need to repeat this? Like I said, people live past 90, and most do so without any health problems at all.

>>35065727
>>35065711
What an insufferable little shit.

>>35068971

We can't really have much of a discussion then if your argument is based on anecdotes with no science to verify or explain it.

>>35069098
I gave you a direction with anthropology and J-store. Seems you're not familiar with either, so I can't help you when you force me to rely on heavily founded research with no objectivity.

>>35069199

>I gave you a direction with anthropology and J-store

"Go do research" isn't very helpful.

>heavily founded research with no objectivity

It's all of science versus "my grandpa is old and I can't explain why."

>>35069236
"Go do research"
I have no J-store account but this is where you find the stats. Used to have one so there is how I know where you can find them. How can you not know about J-store? A bit different to 'do research yourself'.
>All the research versus "my grandpa is old and I can't explain why."
No research from here. All the research from your area. Very objective indeed. Anthro research have many theories why but apparently that's not 'research' to you.

>>35069307

If you're aware of any specific research that gives support to your argument, point it out and I'll take a look.

>>35069380
Go on J-store...
Search lapp-land.
Do you need me to hold your hand while doing it?

>>35061435
whats his name again?

>>35069396

I guess you do need to hold my hand while I try to make your argument for you, because I'm not seeing anything that supports what you're saying

>>35066707
Just have, yeah that's pretty convincing. The alzheimer's stuff is interesting, I'm actually writing my dissertation on neurodegeneration, although it has nothing to do with diet.

I will probs switch after Christmas. Black beans and seitan for days.

>>35069508
In other words you don't have a J-store account. You should have said so. Do you have a college education? Not being sarcastic, just curious. The Aaron Swartz case is relevant in every country.

>>35069572

I don't have a J-store account but it looks like it gives samples of articles. Are there any samples that have anything to do with what you're saying? You say you don't have an account either, why do you think I'll find something on there that will support what you're saying? You've got a burden of proof but I'm doing my best to help you with it. It might be easier to just say you're probably wrong

>>35069625
Samples for non-members, actual articles for members. A world of difference.
I used to have an account (during uni) and used the articles in my Ma thesis. There's more than enough documentation on what I claimed there, in anthropological articles in particular. It's sad that knowledge tanks like that are closed off to public. I know I suffer, but it seems like you don't understand what it really represents. You didn't answer my question actually. Have you ever used J-store? Do you have a college degree? What think tanks (information sources if you want) did you use there?

>>35060961
>tfw you realize being vegan is objetively right.
There's no reason to eat meat desu.

>>35069692

>Samples for non-members, actual articles for members. A world of difference.

Samples would be good enough, we could talk about a sample, but I'm not seeing anything that refers to anything you're saying. Anthropology and nutrition science are also not nearly the same thing, but it would be something to talk about. Give me something to work with.

I used books.google and google scholar for most of my schooling. All I'm looking for at this point is for you to post anything, from anywhere, supporting anything you've said in this thread.

>>35069800
Anthropologists use nutriction science in their works. This is where my sources lie I'm afraid. If it helps most of the work is published through UIT. If you don't have access I can't help you. Try your local uni.
Google for schooling. Can I safely assume you don't have a degree? You use the word 'schooling'...
The Aaron Swartz argument still stands when it comes to posting. You do know what that means right?

i'd rather eat chicken to avoid trans fat

>>35069848
>The Aaron Swartz argument
I'm not the dude you're replying to, but I'm curious as to what that even means.

Also what is wrong with google scholar? Almost 50% of my references for my uni shizzle rely on getting full texts from it.

>>35067203
It takes two of them to carry a sub 50lb load of bananas.
Stay hungry skeletons.

>>35069856
>natural trans fats
>bad

you realize your gut bacteria make them too right?

>>35069863
No prob with google scholar in general, just the typical use of it. If you use the full texts in your academic texts thats good. My experience is that it gets abused as available 'science' without much backup. It's like saying wikipedia instead of using the sources the wikipedia article has to back up a statement.

>>35069912

It's practically the same thing as J-store.

>>35069912
I get you.

>>35069863
Aaron swartz got burnt trying to release J-store documents to the worlds because the science (research-papers) got hoarded there. A lot of money in limiting access of information to the world. Google his name. At least google is still free (even if they monitor your moves).

>>35069924
...How?

>>35069947
I never even heard of him until now, tbf I've been living in a bubble of studying, lifting and porn this past couple of years.

It's fucking annoying how a lot of the good stuff is hidden behind pay walls. Pharma companies as well, some of the shit they get away with. Not releasing papers which show failed drugs. I started Uni wanting to enter Big Pharma, now I'm thinking about academia.

Thanks anyways broski.

nothing bad with fish and chicken, familys

ITT bunch of phaggots copy-pasting text from internet with no experience

>>35069958

>type name of article or subject
>receive that article or articles on the subject

>>35070019
Part of google scholar is still free.
Nothing on J-store is free.
Very big difference.

>>35069998
It's fucking annoying how a lot of the good stuff is hidden behind pay walls
This a thousand times over. And the worst is that It's companies claiming the money, not scientists.

>>35070116
As much as it annoys me, some of the loopholes and costs you have to jump through to conduct a trial are insane as well. I would say the FDA and other regulatory bodies are as much to blame as the companies.

I can only really talk about the pharma stuff as that is what I've studied, but on average it costs £1.2 billion for a drug to be taken from discovery to marketing which takes about 10 years, not to mention patents are normally taken upon discovery meaning companies have only have about 10 years to make a profit.

More needs to be done on both sides of the coin, some of the stuff the FDA are doing with orphan drugs gives me a little hope.

But yeah, it's fucked up.

>>35062445
Woa

>>35062445
mind = /b/lown

What about this much sugar?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDRVXz0ft5s

>>35070013
>says the faggot adding absolutely nothing to this discussion

Clitoris

>>35066089

>seem to offer
>observational
>additional protection for obesity clearly implies there's some confounding variable like energy intake here which doesn't mean veganism is superior when the other group and the researches can easily controlled for that variable.
>actually taking observational data seriously when deciding which diet is better to prevent obesity
>not knowing higher protein intakes are directly linked with higher satiety, more fat loss and less weight regain at the end of a diet.

intothetrashitgoes.jpg

>>35066128

Plastic containers have been shown the same and caring this much about a food that at best will lead to small changes in hormonal levels is autistic.

Being vegan is quite easy if you're autistic and carefully watch your micros (and macros) to get sufficient intakes of essential nutrients that are harder to get from that fad diet.

Being a meat eater is easier since you're less likely to get deficiencies simply from not excluding a whole food group from your diet. Plus the health benefits and nutrients that come from them like high-quality protein, o-3, zinc, iron, calcium, etc.

And people who aren't autistic know that you can significantly cut down on processed and high-fat red meat as well as egg yolks and still enjoy plenty of animal products. That taking some saturated fat and cholesterol won't harm you, specially when the rest of your lifestyle is in check (high veggie/fruit intake, exercise, lean body comp, etc.). Even the researchers who found links between processed/red meat and cancer say meat has health benefits and doesn't need to be eliminated, but instead other changes can be protective against colon cancer (higher fiber, calcium and vitamin C intake, marinating meats).

tl;dr you and other vegans are retarded.

>>35069396
Hey man just ignore the guy you are talking to.
I know exactly what you are talking about.
I am also a finn but was not born in Finland/Europe.
And I know what you are talking about in terms of how people live in lappland and the culture etc...

All my family including myself are extremely strong, fit and healthy. And we all live long lives.

I dont think he would understand what you are talking about even if you showed him in real life.
I bet he probably thinks sauna is bad for you too :)

>>35064506
Apart from cholesterol

>>35065992
What's so bad about them?

>>35066065
>it forces you to be a little more conscious of what you eat but it's pretty easy once you get an idea of what you're doing.
This is my foremost motivation for transitioning to a vegetatian diet. It forces me to be aware of what I eat and how it makes me feel.

>>35066298
>Why do others want to impose their views on the world?
Because the more people there are who share a certain view, the easier life is for those who advocate said view.

>>35071054
underrated post

>>35065482
>moral highground
>arguing right

Pseudo-intellectual status confirmed. I'm merely making an observation. Don't gratify yourself by implying I would argue or bicker with a retard like you. Grow up and stop wasting time with edgy drivel.

>>35064506

>All current research

Start by posting any

>Researching showing the opposite is based on weak causality and/or badly designed studies

That's a pretty sweeping generalization. ALL of the ones that disagree with you are bad? What do good ones look like then?

>>35066834
Sunlight is a carcinogen. Is it stupid to go outside? Hydrazine in mushrooms are carcinogenic, do you not eat mushrooms? Aflatoxins in peanuts are carcinogenic, do you not eat those? Tannic acids are in everything from grapes to tea, do you not eat those since they're carcinogenic? Safrole is in spices and causes cancer, ochratoxin A in fungi causes cancer, and there's emerging research that several groups of phytotoxins in grains and legumes may be carcinogenic. "Vegan" won't save you from carcinogenic foods, and eating vegan to not eat carcinogenic foods shows you have no idea what's actually carcinogenic in your diet aside from what nutrition"facts".org has deigned to tell you.

This is seriously such a shitty argument from vegans, as are most "health" arguments from vegans. If you want to eat your kuck diet then go ahead, but don't cherry pick data and pretend it's better.

>>35077177

>eating less carcinogens in foods that also have anti-cancer properties isn't better than eating more carcinogens on purpose in foods with no health-promoting benefits whatsoever

>>35077216
>trying to pretend there's some magic unidentified anticarcinogen in these foods even when there's a proven and identified carcinogen so you can pretend you're not retarded
>Being so desperate that you'll lie about meat not having health benefits

I'd bet money you didn't even know what the things I named were.

>>35077257

>magic unidentified anticarcinogen

yes, science is magic

http://www.aicr.org/foods-that-fight-cancer/

>>35077264
>thinking that "anticancer" foods with carcinogenic agents somehow cancel out their carcinogenic effects

The vegan argument is always "eating angry carcinogenic foods doesn't cancel out carcinogenic ones", yet that's the exact argument you're fielding. I guess I'll keep eating my half pound to pound and a half of red meat daily and just include a few more "anticancer" foods in too.

>>35069902
>Having a stomach

It's a literal gains goblin

>>35077264
Also as far as I can see, the link never links exactly what compounds exhibit these anti carcinogenic properties. The groups it does list almost always include chemicals that are also carcinogenic, so saying "beneficial phytochemicals" is pretty much identical to "magic compounds we can't identify".

>>35074910
GET THE FUCK OUT YOU FUCKING RETARD

>>35077334

the difference is grapes and beans don't cause cancer, they've been shown to lower cancer risk. if you think they have carcinogens in them, apparently they're not nearly as powerful as the anti-carcinogens and can even stop things from becoming carcinogenic

http://www.aicr.org/reduce-your-cancer-risk/diet/elements_phytochemicals.html

with red meat, that's been linked to cancer and there's nothing redeeming about it that would help you not get cancer. it's a burden on the rest of your diet, you get no protection from it, even if other foods in your diet can help protect you, you still have the burden of the red meat working against it. it's something you could easily cut out of your diet and replace with better foods that actually improve your health.

>>35077355

above link has some but clicking the foods at the bottom takes you to a page that lists some compounds

So many stupid vegans ITT. Go back to your containment chamber, surely you have one somewhere on the internet. Perhaps the youtube comments section of a retarded vegan like yourselves?

sucking dick isnt healthy but people still do it

>>35077430

>open discussion makes me uncomfortable
>BAN IT

>>35077436
Says you it isn't.

>>35077441
>Open discussion = DUDE MEAT IS CANCER LMAO
90% of the vegan community relies on spreading FUD to further its popularity, when in reality there's no health reasons to completely avoid animal foods.

shoo shoo gains goblin

>>35069902
>everything your gut flora shits out must be good for you meme
They make all sorts of toxins and carcinogens. Natural trans fat is just as bad as industrial trans fat if not worse

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26561632

>>35077494

>any discussion about the health consequences of eating meat is fear mongering

you can agree that it's atleast a good idea to eat a diet low in meat and focus mainly on plant foods. that's a very mainstream point. it does nobody any good to deny the long-term consequences of eating meat, especially in the amount that most people on this board eat it.

>>35077410
>the difference is grapes and beans don't cause cancer

Riiiiight, they just have carcinogenic compounds in them, right? But that doesn't make them carcinogenic. Just like plant nitrates "don't" cause cancer.

>with red meat, that's been linked to cancer and there's nothing redeeming about it that would help you not get cancer

Foods can do more than not cause cancer to have positive qualities.

>>35077441
It bothers me since it has zero place here. Go to /ck/ or something.

>>35077562

>Riiiiight, they just have carcinogenic compounds in them, right? But that doesn't make them carcinogenic.

according to you they do, but show me any data on grapes and beans doing anything but lowering cancer risk. in a population, in a petri dish, anything. they're "foods that fight cancer" as the american institute for cancer research puts it.

>Just like plant nitrates "don't" cause cancer.

they don't. you're thinking of nitrosamines, which can form from nitrates when added to meats.

>Foods can do more than not cause cancer to have positive qualities.

red meat increases your cancer risk, your heart disease risk, and your diabetes risk. it must be amazing at something else to make it a redeemable food worth having in your diet.

>>35077634
>red meat increases your diabetes risk

Hahahahahahahaha holy fuck, I can't believe I wasted any time seriously talking to somebody so fucking far gone. Inb4 the stupid "study" with meat and potatoes that totally disregards caloric intake in insulin response and thinks more insulin = diabetes.

>>35077746

>hahahaha, this is ridiculous
>hahaha...
>ha....
>I-I'm gonna go now, h-hahaha....

>>35077860
>Being this delusional

>>35077746

how far gone is harvard university?

http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/01/a-diabetes-link-to-meat

File: MV5BMjMzNTIzMTkxOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwODc3MTY0MTE@._V1_SX214_CR0,0,214,317_AL_.jpg (10KB, 214x317px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 214x317px

>>35077968
>sodium, nitrites, and iron—are probably involved

File: 1293495531215.jpg (106KB, 489x400px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 489x400px

>>35077968
>>sodium, nitrites, and iron—are probably involved

File: 1329480519533.gif (2MB, 176x144px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 176x144px

>>35077968
>>sodium, nitrites, and iron—are probably involved
Brings retardation to a whole new level.

File: 1267738582982.jpg (17KB, 517x373px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 517x373px

>>35077968
>sodium, nitrites, and iron
>are probably involved
Reading this garbage is giving me diabetes.

File: 1346927827324.jpg (119KB, 390x390px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 390x390px

>>35077968
>sodium, nitrites, and iron—are probably involved

>>>/trash/

>>35077968
>muh appeal to authority
>observational study
>correlation
>links to an article and not the study

Into the trash it goes, along with virtually all other nutritional science.

>>35078105
>>35078124
>>35078140
>>35078167
>>35078180

Stop samefagging you moron.

>>35078105
>>35078124
>>35078140
>>35078167
>>35078180
>>35078215


>samefriend

>>35078215
>>35078224
samefag

there's 1-2 vegans ITT at most

>>35077968
>Harvard promotes the high carb low fat moderate protein diet


OBESITY AND TYPE 2 DIABETES ARE OUT OF CONTROL WE NEED AMERICANS EATING THE LEAST FILLING DIET THAT WILL FUCK WITH BLOOD SUGAR THE MOST.

>>35078270

Harvard actually promotes a higher fat diet with mono and poly fats, but the

>obesity and type 2 diabetes are rampant because everyone is eating peas and plums and nobody eats fatty foods or processed foods

thing is bullshit. Just a strawman attack used by wackos on the internet.

File: 1340048851502.jpg (45KB, 593x581px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 593x581px

>>35078270
>carbs cause diabetes and obesity

File: Screenshot_2015-11-29-11-09-48.png (152KB, 720x1280px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 720x1280px

>>35078224
You did see the part where I called out the other guy for samefagging, right? Or are you just completely retarded?

>>35078331
Wow, we've come full circle with vegan stupidity. They started just by demonizing meat products, but now they're just straight up lying about anything that makes veganism look bad. It's as cultish as scientology.

>>35078363

exactly what a samefag would do to throw off his trail

>>35078384

http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/making-healthy-food-choices/diabetes-superfoods.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/

Beans, fruits, sweet potatoes, whole grains. They help prevent diabetes, not cause it. That's not the least bit controversial or disputed.

>>35078331
REEEEEE NORMIE DRINK A GALLON OF COLA A DAY AND EAT A BOX OF KRAFT DIN DIN WITH EVERY MEAL AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS REEEEEEE.

THE KETO REVOLUTION HAS BEGUN CARBSWINE MEEEEET YOOOUUUR MAAAAAAKEEEERRRRR!!!!!

*HURLS 1,000 INSULIN NEEDLES INTO YOUR TUM TUM*
ENJOY YOUR CARBS IN HELL NORMALSLIME REEEEEEE REEEEURGH GAAAAARGGGGWWAAARG

>>35077968
You cant discredit an institution for this sort of thing. I've done light works in research methodology and even that was enough to get a grasp how lacking I am when evaluating papers.

I recognize some general problems people have when they quote papers to support their point of view, the sort of criminality that HM did with that article isnt far off from some other fitizens tend to do

critical appraisal in its basic form is quite an easy to learn skill. there are tonnes of resources on this floating around the web. its a very useful tool to guide you in making conclusion from reading papers and avoid the simpleton logic of using "just one paper" to support your point of view.

As per this particular magazine, I wont be surprised if a paper did found a correlation between diabetes and (sodium, nitrites, and iron). There are large studies including meta-analyses links statins to diabetes.

It could be positive correlation, could be negative. then you have to ask, how strong a correlation that is? does it stand alone in additive effect or is it a synergistic variable?

etc.

>>35078435
no, you're just a fucking huge faggot and the reason why some women are lesbian

>>35078467
whatever you say

>>35060961
>>35060961
Considering that it is the most important source of protein and has it has all 9 essential amino acids that make up complete proteins, being pretty much made of the latter as it is animal muscle, Yes. Now go eat a steak and stop asking stupid questions.

File: 199i91i2.jpg (76KB, 576x461px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 576x461px

>>35078943

pro EEEEEIN make helfy

a-- a--- MEENO assid....

>>35079056
Now this is shitposting.

>>35069408
Scoops Pinocchio

>>35079056
>I don't need the building blocks to life in my diet

vegans sure are getting desperate