Vegan

do wahtevre u want to do fggt

>>38948008
>image.png
Do not reply to the shitposting redditor.

>>38948008
FUCK OFF. Vegans are fucking terrible human beings and need to be slaughtered and no vegans look good at all

>inb4 vegans post roid munchers that have been vegan for 2 months

>>38948008
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-best.html
>http://chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html

Sage.
That being said, for anyone actually thinking about the question: it's obviously more ethical to not pay people to kill animals purely for a better meal than rice and beans.
I know a lot of people will say this is stupid or faggoty, but I say it's cowardly to do something you know is wrong, not matter how minor or seemingly unimportant.

Your individual contribution to animal welfare by not eating meat accounts for hundreds of animal lives saved per year. Your actions influence others in ways you can't really measure. Don't be a bitch, do the best you can. You're gonna have to man up and deal with the fact that you're 1 of 7 billion human fuckers on this planet and nothing you do is going to change the whole world all of a sudden. The important thing is that as far as you are concerned, you are the center of your universe and it doesn't matter how many people are out there.

One goddamn YouTuber? I could get on YouTube and make you believe whatever? Do some research. You can eat vegan and be healthy and strong as fuck. Look up Patrik Baboumian to be your inspiration to get fucking huge on a vegan diet. HUGE.

>>38948171
Stop spamming this shit

>>38948008

What youtube channel was it?

>tfw getting closer to girl but find our she's vegan

Fuck

lol vegans

File: 1468001668264.gif (363KB, 500x384px) Image search: [Google]

363KB, 500x384px

>vegetarians
worse than angry right wing caucasians

>>38950065
iktf

>One youtuber vs the World Health Organization

Red meat consumption linked to early mortality
Red meat consumption is associated with early deaths and increased mortality from cardiovascular diseases and cancer, scientists say.

The study, published in the Archives of Internal Medicine last month, also suggests that replacing red meat with other sources of protein lowers the risk of early death.

In the USA-based study, of 37 698 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (1986–2008) and 83 644 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (1980–2008), scientists investigated the association between red meat intake and cause-specific and total mortality.

After adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio of total mortality for a one-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.07–1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (95% CI: 1.15–1.24) for processed red meat.

Previously, several studies have suggested that vegetarians have greater longevity compared with non-vegetarians, but this might not be ascribed to the absence of red meat only. http:// archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/ archinternmed.2011.2287

>>38952531
>YFW the WHO declared cell phones a class 1 carcinogen.
>MFW you care what they think

>>38948008
>Me not having slaves isn't going to change shit and 95% of the world will never be abolitionit so what's the point?

Not comparing the two, just illustrating that you could literally say the above about most ethical issues. Most people are arseholes and unlikely to behave ethically unless compelled by society. This is not an excuse to be an arsehole but work even harder to do good.

Whether you consider eating animals wrong or right is the real question. If you're OK with it then do it. If not then stand by your principles and don't look for excuses.

>>38949743
Then don't post bullshit pseudoscience

>>38948008
>be normal, rational human
>have bad diet, never really think about nutrition, but then decide to focus on it to improve myself
>take in data from government agencies who set out dietary guidelines
>start reading things from research institutes
>from universities
>on various benefits and negatives
>slowly start to eat clean
>incorporate all kinds of foods from various sources of evidence
>get a clean diet, without GMO's, with all of my macro's and feel healthy, am healthy because of it (with provable metrics related to cholesterol, resting heart rate, blood pressure etc.)

>be dumb normie feelgood cuck
>dont like to hurt things
>"awww cute bunny"
>"how can I make this feeling of cuteness and bunnies the single focus of my life"
>"I know, lets forgo everything rational and sane and only pick those things that confirm with my "awwww cute bunny" lifestyle
>proceeds then to get deficiencies
>proceeds then to go to the internet and pretend that is not insane
>spouting dribble
>and not just mentioning the driving force behind the insanity

neat

>>38952961

I have been vegan for 1 year, have no deficiencies and am healthy (with provable metrics related to cholesterol, resting heart rate, blood pressure etc.)

>>38952988
>continue to deny your insanity in favor of "aww cute bunny" feelings
>them b12
>them lower testosterone because meat eaters have more test

PROVABLE METRICS

How do I combat the "mass meat production is terrible for the environment" argument? It has me stumped

>>38953003

Can't argue about B12, but i don't have lower test levels, provable by my last blood exam (1 month ago)

>allowing life decisions to be dictated by random youtubers
>not coming to your own conclusions
Kill yourself my man

>>38953042
>muh anecdotal evidence

In general, vegans and vegetarians have lower test levels than meat eaters. Doesnt matter what you personally have right now, individual variation exists within the mean.

But those metrics do prove that if you were to have a meat diet, your test would be even higher than now.

>>38953062
>dyels actually believe such tiny changes in test are even noticeable when natty lifting
Lol

>>38953070
>implying there is even a need to take the risk of losing a little bit
>muh "awww cute bunny focus"

Those of us who do not shy away from eating bunnies, see evidence for meat being pro testosterone by up to 30%.

Dietary fat helps, some other stuff in meat helps as well. Eggs especially help.

The only reason why you dont eat meat is not because of health concerns. Its because you are a cuck.

>>38953070
>tiny changes
Those changes are fairly substantial.

>>38953101
>shy away from eating bunnies
if you encounter a bunny in the wild you wouldn't come to the conclusion to eat it, would you? you don't eat bunnies because they're bunnies, but because you never thought about your nutrition and our meat industry is able to make bunnies cheap as fuck and it's all comfortable in the freezer of the store.

>>38953239
>if you encounter a bunny in the wild you wouldn't come to the conclusion to eat it, would you?
Our ancestor's did and if I was hungry I would.

>>38953239
>muh hunting is a social construct meme

I salivate when I smell meat, and when I am hungry enough I look at animals as things to eat.

But you wouldnt understand since you are a filthy r selected nu male.

>>38953257
nigga, we are on the mars in a few years and you talk about our stone age. tell me we take bunnies, cows and pigs onto the mars, because they are so important for our nutrition.

>>38953297
I'm not sayin humans can't eat meat and don't see food in certain animals. I'm sayin that internet warriors like you couldn't kill a cow and prepare it. look at the kid from "into the wild", he killed a moose but was not able to get anything edible out of it. tell me how it would be any different with you. you eat meat because the industry made it convenient enough for you to eat way too much of it.

>>38953310
No, we will grind and freeze dry powder and paste from meat. In time we will create Agri-Dome things for crops, which will have fish stock introduced for symbiotic nutrient exchange. Eventually as terraforming continues heard based animals that give milk will be brought up.

Beef farming takes a huge amount of farm land so those fuckers can wander around - that will be generations from now.

But it doesn't change the fact that dense, preprocessed meat will still be shipped for protein and vitamin needs.

>>38953343
Thats a pretty moot and unresearched point anon. The only thing that matters is training. Its a skill that moot with the industry, but it doesnt mean that I cant cultivate it again. There are no metrics apart from anecdotal evidence of "into the wild" that say that we can or cannot do it.

Its more like poisonous thinking to suggest that we are one. But then again, you are a poisonous nu cuck male.

>>38953397
Explain how it would be sustainable if everyone hunted and ate their own meat. There would be no way to sustain the populations of animals required, that is why we have resorted to factory farming.

To take it further, there would be no way to sustain even "freerange" meat, because we simply don't have the land resources for that.

That leaves you with no ethical way to eat meat. You either knowingly contribute to ethically objectionable practices, or you can forgo meat altogether.

The cuck is you my friend, cucked by the meat industry into shilling for them, so addicted to meat you can't fathom a life without it

>>38953481
>this nu cuck male unraveling his nu cuckness

God why do you guys try, havent you been btfo plenty of times already here?

I dont want to reply to you. But you are such a huge cuck, jesus fuck. Arent you embarrassed to type out here on this board?

let me iterate this for you

There is enough place for meat production. The only worry for you dumb cuck males is the exploding nigger population.

But we dont have to feed them. There is no need to feed them. In europe, we are stable, there is enough place to feed everyone meat.

The unsustainable pest from abroad does not play into the consideration of my diet.

You see, when I said that you were an r selected male. I already knew what kind of creature you were, your values encompass the plague that is the negro. Mine do not.

>there is enough place for meat production in europe and the us
>meat is healthy for humans to consume
>the endlessly breeding niggers and lower races are not more important than my nutrition

Because nobody needs niggers.

>>38953542
2edgy4me desu.

>>38953619
>I dont agree with things and thus I must use meme thing
>some crude semblance of being part of the community in the same way that the monster spammer is doing

Kek. I am going to eat meat, and I am going to keep laughing at you cuck guys.

But in all honesty, I do feel sorry for you. For you will never be able to get the good feeling being K selected. Though I feel like you may not even be a guy.

>>38953639
you seem very insecure.

>>38953542
>>38953639
6/10 nice shitpost

>>38953648
>>38953657
>this level of butthurt

kek

>>38953542
>>38953639
>>38953663
>hurr don't feed the niggers
>muh superior genetics
>keep getting butthurt beta cucks xD
that's nice, but perhaps you can offer up some actual arguments? No? I think we're done here. Let me show you the door >>>/pol/

>>38953687
why dont YOU offer some arguments FOR feeding them.

or rather, you know what. I think il go out to train some since I dont usually reply this long to low quality posters.

So my main question is, do non processed meats, mostly chicken have any bad health effects on humans? Or does it just seem this way because most fucks are fat and unhealthy and most vegans care more about there health and arnt killing themselves by being fat and unhealthy?

>>38948008
Hey friend,
It depends very much on your diet. Vegan diets can be very very beneficial for your overall health. They can even revers cardiovascular disease and help to prevent cancer and diabetes.
YOu can of course also have a very very unhealthy vegan diet. If you eat shit like mock meat and Oreos all day long you will be a fat and unhealthy person.

Simple steps to a healthy vegan diets:
1. Take a B12 supplement (seriously, I fucking hate vegans that tell me they don't need it)
2. Eat green leafy vegetables (they are very nutrient dense)
3. Eat beans and lentils every day
4. Eat berries
5. Go nuts (aim for half a cup of nuts and seeds a day, they will give you healthy fats, protien, minerals....
6. Eat onions, garlic and spices (makes your food taste great and gives you good nutrients)
7. Eat mushrooms (they are aweesome)
8. Be self confident about it.

May be check out the youtube chanal of Doctor Greger: He promotes plant based diets as a healthy lifestyle to achieve overall health and longevity
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCddn8dUxYdgJz3Qr5mjADtA

>>38953736
>So my main question is, do non processed meats, mostly chicken have any bad health effects on humans?
Yes, they still contain a lot of saturated fat, cholesterol and hormones. Milk and eggs are not really a healthy alternative. Compared to plant based protein they are less healthy.

>>38953542
Please kill yourself!

These shit threads are so predictable.

>>38948234
Good thing morals are relative and what you think has no bearing over reality.

>>38952531
Correlation =/=causation, even if that's all vegans have to go on.

>>38953542
Obvious vegan false flag.

>>38953848
>unironically recommending Geiger as a legitimate source

>>38954272
>Don't hate him for speaking the truth
The guy has a PhD in clinical nutrition and he reads almost all studies published in major medical journals. He is not as biased as people think, he also points out the dangers of a plant-based diet. I don't know what your problem is with him. He is one of the most knowledgeable people in the field of nutrition.

>>38954380
>MD = PhD
and now we know you have no idea what you're talking about, stopped reading there

>>38954426
> Oh jeah, I am not really familiar with the American system for doctors and degrees. Makes me a fucking retard I guess.

>>38948008
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqKNfyUPzoU

>>38954380
>not even knowing what degree he has while still making an argument t from authority

Can't make this shit up.

>He is not as biased as people think

Kinda sad that you can't even tell when a vegan is trolling or serious.

>>38953961
The dose makes the poison, you retard.

>>38948008
Yea, it's bullshit. I could understand somebody not eating meat because they don't like the taste or whatever, but doing so for "moral" reasons is extremely misleading. For me, a single person has more worth than entire world's stock of farm animals and game. I find it much more moral to support many people's living, so they can feed their families, no matter if they farm animals or plants.
No animal will be ever grateful to me for working towards their "rights".

>>38948030
this

>>38954258

>Correlation =/=causation

But causation causes correlations. The reasons why meat can cause cancer and/or heart disease have been well studied for decades. The cholesterol link explains heart disease very well, and the strongest evidence for colon cancer is probably the heme iron, which has shown to be directly carcinogenic.

>>38954272

What's wrong with Michael Greger? No vague criticism like "he cherry picks"

>>38954272

Nutritionfacts is probably the most comprehensive and well-researched nutrition resource on the internet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK_I7z7ZELk

File: 1474072740597.webm (3MB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x480px

I catch my own fish and eat them. Am I ethically wrong because I feel nothing about the fish's life? If I don't catch the fish, they will be swept into the open sea where they will be eaten by larger fish.

I also eat new born baby mice. I first had it in China when I was still a kid and I love the taste. It's not something that I can have all the time because I don't live in China anymore but the guy from my university lab gives me a box of newborns every now and again when they have an oversupply. If I didn't eat them, they would have just been flushed down the toilet or grown up to become test subjects. I think flash boiling and eating them is more ethical.

But do whatever the fuck you wanna do op. I couldn't care less.

>>38956407
>But causation causes correlations

You have this wholly backwards. Correlation can be used in tandem with proven causation to help establish some reasoning behind a phenomenon. An excellent example of this is the greenhouse effect; this is easily provable on a micro scale, so it's a safe bet to use the correlation of greenhouse gas concentrations with temperature due to the proven causation. There is none of this for meat. Not a single study without study breaking methodological errors has ever proven meat to cause anything negative. So a weak correlation without any causation means nothing. It's quite easy to match two increasing or decreasing trends in a correlative fashion, but that means nothing without causation being proven prior.

You learn this shit in the first semester of stats or any hard science course.

>The cholesterol link

Dietary cholesterol has almost no effect on serum cholesterol in most of the population. This is old science based off of bad studies, just like most things vegans claim as fact.

>the strongest evidence for colon cancer is probably the heme iron, which has shown to be directly carcinogenic.

"There is an association between high intake of heme iron sourced from meat and increased risk of colon cancer;[13] however, there is no solid evidence that this is a causal relationship"

Yet more weak correlation without any proven causation.

Face it, you have utterly nothing substantial to bring to this discussion. If there was then veganism wouldn't be regarded as a cult and a joke globally.

>>38956407
>The cholesterol link explains heart disease very well
85g of red meat a day doesn't impact cholesterol sufficiently for that

>and the strongest evidence for colon cancer is probably the heme iron, which has shown to be directly carcinogenic
No it's been shown (at very highly unrealistic doses in a few animals with poor heme iron absorption) to aggravate development in the presence of other carcinogens, ie a co-carcinogen

>>38956447
He DOES cherry pick. He intentionally excludes any and all science that calls into question his claims, all while pretending to be a legit scientific source. This holds true for just about every subject he touches on.

Greger makes fantastic claims about veganism curing diabetes and cancer, which is malicious at worst and negligent at best. He doesn't care though, because his goal is to convert, not to give sound medical advice.

He's funded in part by PETA and is ridiculously biased towards veganism.

He has his MD and has no basis to discuss actual nutritional science studies. That's like a fucking doctor of history giving you medical advice, but people eat it up because he banks on you being too ignorant to know how unqualified he is.

The dude is about as qualified as Doctor Oz.

>>38956711

>Correlation can be used in tandem with proven causation to help establish some reasoning behind a phenomenon.

Which is what has happened.

>Dietary cholesterol has almost no effect on serum cholesterol in most of the population

Yes it does, but that's not what I meant by the cholesterol link. I'm talking about serum cholesterol, which both animal fat and dietary cholesterol increase. It's not "old science" whatever that's supposed to mean, it's the basis of modern cardiology.

>
"There is an association between high intake of heme iron sourced from meat and increased risk of colon cancer;[13] however, there is no solid evidence that this is a causal relationship"


Nice wikipedia quote, but they didn't even bother to provide a reference for the second part.

>>38948008
>Ya eating meat can be seen as morally wrong and bad for the environment

Only numales, cucks, sjws, and femenists think this
Kindly go back to dumblr and kys pls

>>38956632
>new born baby mice
>eating mice in general

Fugg, Chinese are truly hardcore in terms of food they eat. Dogs, cats, mice... I know you have experience, so tell me about other... "exotic" cuisine you have. Bugs? Flies?

>>38956751

>He intentionally excludes any and all science that calls into question his claims, all while pretending to be a legit scientific source

Completely untrue. He has several videos talking about claims that are contrary to what he says.

Here's one about eggs not being bad for heart health

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-and-arterial-function/

Here's one about the inuit and their supposed lack of heart disease

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fish-tale/

Here's one about the french paradox

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/what-explains-the-french-paradox/

He believes honestly that the most health-promoting diet is the most plant-based diet, and doesn't say that this necessarily means a vegan diet. People like you mischaracterize him because your whole identity revolves around eating meat, and you take "maybe lentils are healthier than beef" as a personal attack on your way of life.

>>38956796

Insects are a good source of protein

>>38956771
>Which is what has happened.

No, no it has not. At no point in time has a study free from methodological errors proven meat causes anything negative. Feel free to post a source and I'll point out where it says the opposite of your claim or has flaws that render the study worthless.

>I'm talking about serum cholesterol, which both animal fat and dietary cholesterol increase.

Recent science says that the effect is minimal to nonexistent for most. Serum cholesterol is moderated by your body, not diet.

>Nice wikipedia quote, but they didn't even bother to provide a reference for the second part.

Nothing wrong with wikipedia. If you bothered to look yourself, you'd see that all parts of that quote or referenced from source 13.

I know I'm wasting my time because you not only don't understand any of the science, but you clearly get what little you do know from veganshills.org.

>>38948008
Why do you have to pick a side
I sometimes spend a few days eating vegan then eat heavy meat dishes for a few days depending on my mood and shit
You don't have to live and a black or white world, just do what makes you feel best

>>38956887

Let's start with heart disease since the biomarkers are much more clear. When you feed meat to someone, it raises the amount of cholesterol, particularly LDL cholesterol, circulating in their blood

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7019459

This is because dietary saturated fat and dietary cholesterol raise the amount of cholesterol circulating in your blood, as hundreds of studies have confirmed.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006469

Assuming I don't have to also convince you that serum cholesterol is a risk factor for heart disease, which would put you even more on the fringe of science, how do you deny then that meat consumption can't lead to heart disease? That's causation that clearly explains correlations.

>>38956884
I know that. Still, I don't know if I'm up for fried mosquitoes and flies. Not to mention grasshoppers and ants.

>>38956887
I really hope this is bait. The level of delusion is a new all-time low for /fit/.

>>38956897
That's right. Humans are omnivores by nature and so, there's nothing wrong in getting the best of two worlds.

>>38957023

*deny that meat consumption can lead to heart disease

>>38957107
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

>>38957119
So, you're saying we're not omnivores? It's confirmed by science and evolutionary history. The only one falling in logic is you, stopping yourself from thinking and instead serving "pre-cooked" responses.

File: Omnivore.jpg (1MB, 1265x1302px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1265x1302px

>>38957167

He's saying that just saying "it's natural, therefore good/ideal" is a fallacy. We have the option to do a lot of things nature has allowed us to do, but we don't consider it all good. Also, being behavioral omnivores doesn't really mean anything. Being omnivorous doesn't mean you require all types of food or even that all foods are equally healthy for you.

File: 1475434093314.jpg (81KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 785x757px

>>38957107
> Humans are omnivores by nature
That's why dietary cholesterol clogs our arteries instead of being regulated like true omni/carnivores

>>38957509
That's like saying we aren't meant to eat plants because we can't digest fiber. Also

>actually claiming humans aren't omnivores

Vegans are such a fucking joke m8.

>>38957607

>That's like saying we aren't meant to eat plants because we can't digest fiber

The bacteria in our gut can. Fiber is also crucial to our species' health.

>>38957640
The bacteria can to a limited extent, and we derive little to no caloric value from it. So that doesn't negate anything I said; WE can't digest fiber, and we sure as hell can't digest fiber for a significant amount of calories. You're intentionally moving the goalposts here.

>fiber is crucial to our species health

So is creatine, carnitine, b12, retinol, and collagen.

>>38957855

Not all herbivores rely on fiber for calories. Humans evolved from fruit-eating primates. All animals with high fiber diets like those that live on grasses also do so by using bacteria to break the fiber down.

>So is creatine, carnitine, b12, retinol, and collagen.

4 out of 5 of those, our bodies make on their own. B12 is produced by bacteria and in nature is obtained through environmental exposure.

>>38957509
Name 5 cultures/tribes/cicilizations from presence back to 50000 b.c. where people are/were vegan/vegetarian

>>38957210
I'm not saying it's ideal. There are no ideal things in the world of imperfect beings. Therefore, seeking for perfect diet will never work, as everything, be it meat or plants, possess compounds that can influence your health in a bad way, and you will only find out when you're dying. Then you realize, what's bad for you, isn't bad for another person (a good example are allergies).
There's quite vast genetic difference among people and so, if you're interested in science, then you know well enough drugs affect differently two members of the same ethnic group, let alone different races. There's no reason to think, that food isn't the same, as it is too, made of chemical compounds. Look at the longest-lived people, many of them are Asian and they do not stay away from meat. Actually, it's a major part of their cuisine.
>>38957509
It is regulated. Dietary cholesterol acts inhibitory on cholesterol synthesized. Check Google. The two systems remains in balance, which is why saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods are STILL subjects of controversy. Let me remind you, that phytosterols aren't good either. They may decrease cholesterol, but they carry risks of their own, see phytosterolemia.
>>38958077
This guy is right. Many of you are downplaying the role symbiotic bacteria have in your lives. It's extremely important to the health of everybody, since those bacteria not only break down stuff we can't, and synthesize vitamins we cannot (like vitamin K), but also act competitive against bacterial invaders.
Vegans are extremely misguided people - and I'm saying this only due to all evidence available.

File: egg yolk on and off.png (76KB, 716x390px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 716x390px

>>38958171

> Dietary cholesterol acts inhibitory on cholesterol synthesized. Check Google

Experiments contradict that idea

http://www.ibcmt.com/2009-03-16-EffectsOfDietaryCholesterolOnSerumCholesterol-PaulHopkins.pdf

>which is why saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods are STILL subjects of controversy

It's not controversial though. There's a consensus among the world's scientists. Journalists trying to get hits by misreporting research findings and fad diet quacks trying to sell low carb/paleo eating plans aren't significant enough to say there is controversy.

>they carry risks of their own, see phytosterolemia.

A rare genetic disorder that's been reported only 80 times worldwide?

>>38957509
>talking out of your ass hole

>>38958263
Not at all. this is just one study, but there are others that contradict the idea. Many studies contradict each other, therefore, as of now, they cannot be trusted.
Increased absorption of phytosterols. yes, it's a genetic disease. But removing cholesterol from your diet, and replacing it with phytosterols will have the same effect. It's not like your body can shut those off from reaching the bloodstream. The reason it isn't build upon, is that absolute majority of the world doesn't eat only plants. Only those living in the richer countries can be picky.
>There's a consensus among the world's scientists.
There's not and never has been. A good example is salt - first they advocated for very low intakes, but then it was revealed that low intake is far more dangerous than high intake.
And, like I said, many long-lived people eat normal diets. Where's your vegan science now, when it's predicting heavy disease when there's none in reality? Around here, in Poland, where white bread and meat is staple, I see people dying over 90 years old. The only ones suffering from food-related diseases are fatties.

>>38958369

>this is just one study

It's a meta-analysis of studies. The effects are replicable.

>Many studies contradict each other, therefore, as of now, they cannot be trusted.

That's a terrible way to attempt science. If you get contradictory results, you investigate why one study said something and another study said something else. With you not even posting a contradictory study, I'll point to the first video in this post that explains this nicely >>38956847

>There's not and never has been. A good example is salt - first they advocated for very low intakes, but then it was revealed that low intake is far more dangerous than high intake.

When did this happen? Limiting salt/sodium intake is still a globally agreed upon diet recommendation, just like limiting saturated fat intake.

smoke 420 much weed mano, must drink alcohol through ass get in trouble buddy you fucking whitte nigger dont even talk to me you didnt even take your scoops, be careful yeah, sure bye

Thank you for solving the last problem in the theory of relativity. Now we can finally ascend to the 5th dimension.

>>38953481

Your argument is immediately invalidated by the fact we're at population numbers high enough to have to resort to factory farming as a result of that hunting process and general interest in a continuous meat supply.

>>38958457
Sodium is a major electrolyte. Low intake leads to arrhythmia and dysfunction across the entire organism, while high intake increases blood pressure.

>>38958593

And? Sodium deficiency isn't a likely condition to be caused by diet, even if you don't salt your food.

>>38958581
You're right. But the main issue here, as I see it, is why eating meat is bad. How about Inuit, that live on fully animal diet. Europeans that were received by them noted the lack of deleterious effects, not only upon the Inuit, but also themselves. Mind you, during the time of arctic explorers, any rescue that came, took a long amount of time, even years. That's plenty of time to observe.
>>38958636
Not really. If you cut sodium that hard, you're going to see the sides. Sodium is one of the elements we need the most. Healthy kidneys deal easily with the increased levels. Only older people or those with kidney diseases need to closely watch their intake.

>>38948171
>expecting people to believe blog posts

>>38958726

>How about Inuit, that live on fully animal diet

Second video >>38956847

The inuit were not a healthy group of people.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749

>>38958787
Not really. The reason why they had increased mortality from diseases and stuff like pregnancy was because of lack of proper healthcare. Now, that they do... yeah. Show me an evaluation as of now.

>>38958827

That paper is talking about cardiovascular disease

>>38958827
May I add, Inuit still in their wandering ways and primitive medicine lived longer than Europeans in equal situation. Makes you think. I mean, remember how to be considered an "elder" in Greece you had to be over 30? Not many lived that long, well, mainly due to continuous wars between city-states.
>>38958868
Which is not a problem among Inuit, except the older ones - but then, it's a worldwide problem among older people, since the once capable systems become less and less effective. Now, like I said, look at Japanese, who have quite a few life-length records. You won't find vegans there.

>>38958892

>May I add, Inuit still in their wandering ways and primitive medicine lived longer than Europeans in equal situation

Where's the evidence?

>Which is not a problem among Inuit, except the older ones - but then, it's a worldwide problem among older people

And it's a diet-related disease that Inuits have been known to develop at high rates. Why'd you bring up the Inuit then? They have low life expectancies whether we're talking back then or currently, and the diet-related disease we're discussing was common in their society.

>>38958263
>http://www.ibcmt.com/2009-03-16-EffectsOfDietaryCholesterolOnSerumCholesterol-PaulHopkins.pdf
What a terrible inclusion criteria. Most of the people are given short-term highly refined diets deficient in unsaturated fat and fiber. It's asking too much from the body's cholesterol excretion mechanisms to work under that.

>>38958892

> look at Japanese, who have quite a few life-length records. You won't find vegans there.

Look at the actual diets associated with longevity

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-okinawa-diet-living-to-100/
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/do-flexitarians-live-longer/

>>38958979
Easy. Just read about the Northern Expeditions.

Is it really? They can sustain themselves on pure meat for longer than many of /fit/ goers would like to live for, so how is meat so bad? If they didn't eat meat, they'd die. Like I said earlier, you can dislike meat for the taste or anything, but don't try to feed me bullshit about morality or health. When it was meat that accompanied us most of our history and look at us now. We rule the world and all living beings in it. They are to serve us.
>>38958997
Yep, nutritionfacts.org sure sounds like a sound scientific source. There are so many "insert-name-here" diets, but the question is - why are there so many different ones? You'd think proper diet would be singular and simple.

>>38958077
>Humans evolved from fruit-eating primates

That doesn't make us fruit eating primates any more than dogs are carnivorous pack predators.

>B12 is produced by bacteria and in nature is obtained through environmental exposure.

Nice meme. Let me guess, you're the type who thinks humans ate their shit for b12, aren't you?

File: di2.jpg (43KB, 666x579px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 666x579px

>>38958077
Even primates with predominantly frugivorous diets like chimpanzees derive a significant portion of their calories from fibers in wild fruits and have bigger fermentative chambers to show for it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=6GDELypdTUcC&lpg=PA61&pg=PA66#v=onepage&q&f=false

>4 out of 5 of those, our bodies make on their own
Which says very little about amounts needed for optimal health. Take the non-essential amino acid glycine for example

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20093739

>and in nature is obtained through environmental exposure
What's that mean?

>>38959144
B12 deficiency, which caused anemia, claimed numerous lives before it was realized. While bacteria do produce B12, the weight of the molecule basically forbids it from being absorbed. Normally, humans and other animals use intrinsic factor, secreted by stomach cells, to absorb vitamin B12.
Huge doses of vitamin B12 available to vegans are not based on need, but rather, counting on passive transport. Using a great enough dose, you assure that at least 5% is absorbed by passive transport, while the rest is shit out. So, regarding B12 supps, you can easily imagine you are pissing/shitting away the absolute majority of what you paid.

>>38956796
>>38957024
I ate cooked "cheese crickets" once

>>38958892
>Not many lived that long
The whole ancient people died early, is a meme. Ancient people could and did live well into old age as we do now.

>>38958754
>Bitching when truth anything other tha bullshit based in pseudoscience is posted

>>38958787
They're not going back far enough, by using 1900s eskimos that are (partly) westernized

http://openheart.bmj.com/content/3/2/e000444.full

>>38959370
Not at all. While I agree that, potentially, they could live as long, wars, diseases and poisonings by metals or plant chemicals they didn't yet know were deadly (such as use lead acetate [sugar of lead] as a wine sweetener or mercury compounds for mirrors). Diet was not at all a problem in light of things I've mentioned, which ACTUALLY have consensus among the scientists regarding their toxicity, and even if you don't believe them, you're free to try some and report on your feels after.

>>38959429
Those blog posts don't reference any peer reviewed papers with mechanistic data, just clickbait bullshit and paleo books

>>38959598
>Those blog posts don't reference any peer reviewed papers with mechanistic data, just clickbait bullshit and paleo books
>I didn't look at the sources.
I has plenty enough information for the debunkment of veganism/vegetariasnism and if you really need papers and data about how bullshit the aforementioned two are, go research all the ones on biology and nutrition proving meat consumption perfectly healthy and good for and telling vegans/vegetarians to shove their shill claims and memes back up their asses

>>38956632

Wew

>>38957607
>That's like saying we aren't meant to eat plants because we can't digest fiber.
Dude! Stop! It just does not make any sense what you are saying....

>>38957035
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/
Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2).

>So why so we get Atherosclerosis?

>>38959200

And then you have humans, who evolved to produce more amylase and make starches their major source of calories.

>>38959074
>When it was meat that accompanied us most of our history and look at us now. We rule the world and all living beings in it. They are to serve us.

May I use your logic for a second:
>We are just living because our ancestors raped women. ALL of us have an ancestor that once was raped and then got a child! We humans are doing awesome with raping, so we should go on and keep on raping women if we want to. ALL LAWS AGAINST RAPE ARE INHUMANE!!!!

OK I stop here....

>>38960024
Your logic is wrong, since you apply interhuman violence as equal to interspecies violence. We know that the second one is widespread among all worlds, be it plants, fungi or animals.

Animals and lower creatures are either our pets, our food or pests to slay. I'm really baffled by the retards that advocate rights of someone that doesn't care about them.

>>38960024
Wow... you're insane.

>>38959890
>Dude! Stop! It just does not make any sense what you are saying....

It's a comparison, I don't actually think we can't eat plants. That was pretty damn obvious.

>>38959920
Us being able to digest starch with amylase doesn't mean we're meant to make carbs our main source of energy. We can and do use fats very well for energy, and even protein can be our main source of calories in a pinch. The human body is incredibly adaptable, so saying we're "meant" to eat a certain way us incredibly ignorant.

>>38960062
>Animals and lower creatures are either our pets, our food or pests to slay. I'm really baffled by the retards that advocate rights of someone that doesn't care about them.
What exactly do you mean by lower creatures? Are you a fucking retarded theist that belives some magic wizard that you call God Allah or whatever has created man as the highest species on this planet? There is no such thing as HIGH and LOW species. Just because you have a better developed brain does not mean you have the fucking right to enslave animals because you like their taste.
> It has been proven that animals do feel pain and suffer! In this sense they are very similar to humans. Why would I support an industy that makes their money from breading crippled animals and raising them until they can be killed?

>>38960374
No, I'm agnostic, actually. You can see yourself, those creatures, through millions of years have done nothing to improve themselves, instead the only thing that brought change among them were random genetic mutations and then pressure from humans, that have domesticated many of the most useful ones.
Who says we don't have the right to do with them as we please? What right says so?

>>38960374
Also, what if they feel pain? Well then, support the fastest way of killing, as otherwise, there's no reason to keep them alive. Also like I said, I'd rather support humans that work for their upkeep, than some dumb fucking cows.

>>38960436

On the other hand, humans are so obsessed with technological advancement that we're rapidly destroying the planet we live on, possibly making it uninhabitable to all life if we don't cut that shit out.

>>38960220
>The human body is incredibly adaptable, so saying we're "meant" to eat a certain way us incredibly ignorant.
Why are you putting words in his mouth? He's talking about evolution.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/682587

>>38960564
And evolutionarily we aren't "meant" to eat anything in particular. Humans adapted to eat pretty much anything we could cram in our mouths, and the only constants with that is that it's included boh plants and animals for the whole existence of our species. Saying anything beyond that is not only intelligent design tier stupidity, but has no scientific support. Your link doesn't change that in the slightest.

>>38960436
>No, I'm agnostic, actually.
OK, could be worse, I am an atheist
>those creatures, through millions of years have done nothing to improve themselves,
They have not "improved" themselves. I guess you mean adapt to evolutionary pressures? It is not really called self-improvement. But yeah, they dis obviously adapt.
>instead the only thing that brought change among them were random genetic mutations
No, there are other drivers of evolution: Genetic drift or natural selection for example.
>and then pressure from humans, that have domesticated many of the most useful ones.
This is called SELECTIVE BREEDING, humans are selecting the animals or plants that favour their needs.
>Who says we don't have the right to do with them as we please? What right says so?
In my country there is a law that prohibits animal cruelty. There is an exeption for animals that are slaughterd and eaten. I personally believe that this is not a good excuse for animal cruelty. Everything inside me says no to that industry. I believe we should just move on and make a plant-based, balanced diet the standard diet where it is possible.

I was vegetarian for six years, vegan for like six months. Mainly for ethical reasons (factory farming and what not).

Just finished chowing down on a ground beef and mushroom dish flavored with thai peanut sauce.

This is gonna sound cringey, but listening to Joe Rogan got me off vegetarianism. His perspective that we shouldn't feel guilty for being at the top of the food chain, and his promotion of hunting for meat resonated with me.

I still feel like factory farming causes a lot of undue harm to animals; one of my goals over the next 3 years is to start hunting for my meat. I think that's probably the most ethical (not to mention ecological) way to get your protein.

Until then though, I gotta go take my chicken out of the freezer. Stuffed peppers for dinner tonight.

>>38960622
I fully agree with you. The question that I ask myself when it comes to nutrition is: What is the optimal nutrition to live along and happy life?
I believe a mostly plant based diet is the best achieve overall health and longevity. A vegan diet is a pretty good option for that. Sure, you maybe have to take some B12 supplements and maybe even more in some stages of your life. Still, taking supplements is better than taking medicine to lower your cholesterol, diabetes, blood pressure......
So my personal conclusion is that a vegan diet is pretty awesome when it comes to living a long and happy life. I think if you eat really small amounts of animal products it may not be harmful for your health. But this would be like 200 gramms a week.

>>38960762
Fair enough. I have no issue with people's personal choices, but a lot of the moral and logical arguments made for veganism needle me, which is why I commented.

For me, nobody in 4+ generations on any blood related side of my family has died before 85 despite smoking, drinking, and having a terrible diet. And all of them were healthy and ambulatory up until maybe a week before dying, so they weren't crippled or dementia or anything. So even if all of the correlative science is actually true through some unknown causative relationship and veganism could get me another two or three years, I legitimately don't care. I personally don't think that's the case, but it's highly unlikely I'm going to get die or sick regardless of how I eat. My healthy omnivorous diet with exercise is already a huge improvement over what most of my family does and did in their lives.

Combine that with the minimal increases that even the most p hacked studies return on eating meat, and I think I'll be just fine.

>>38960692

VG has a few response videos to Joe Rogan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hW-zav-ESo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-ChzhgFaro
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZezBCqsBRF0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duqcbJbElo4

>>38960824

> So even if all of the correlative science is actually true through some unknown causative relationship

Did you not read the thread?

>>38960622
>And evolutionarily we aren't "meant" to eat anything in particular.
Why continue the straw man? Are you hallucinating someone other than yourself introducing that word or do you actually believe these facebook tier platitudes are deep and insightful enough to post here regardless?

>Saying anything beyond that is not only intelligent design tier stupidity, but has no scientific support.

>eat protein as "main source of calories"
>develop rabbit starvation syndrome and death in 2-3 weeks from exceeding the amino acid metabolic capacity of kidneys and liver

>eat fat as "main source of calories"
>develop stunted growth, impaired reproductive, renal, immune, and cognitive function

Humans sure are adapted to eat "pretty much anything"

>>38960692
>His perspective that we shouldn't feel guilty for being at the top of the food chain, and his promotion of hunting for meat resonated with me.
Humans are on top of "the food chain"? That sounds like 1950's. if you believe that there is "a food chain" that leads to humans in the end, you are just wrong.

>>38960882

By "food chain" I mean that a modern human can hunt and kill ANY animal in ANY biome.

>>38960824
Yeah, I don't tell people what to eat. I generally gave up telling people what to do. Usually they don't listen or don't want to hear what I have to say. I don't need constant reassureance of what I am doing. I have read enough scientific studies to make a concious decision what I eat.
>nobody in 4+ generations on any blood related side of my family has died before 85 despite smoking, drinking, and having a terrible diet.
Maybe you have good genes or your ancestors were lucky. I does not have to mean that you will be just as healthy as them

>>38960854
There's been nothing posted that showed causation without massive methodological errors. That's one of the biggest failings of nutrition science; ethics prevent getting trustworthy results.

>>38960855
What are you even talking about? I quoted the wording of the guy I replied to.

Neither of the things you said are true m8, unless you stupidly thought "main source of calories" meant "nothing but that macro". Though using protein as 50%+ of your daily kcal probably isn't the best idea long term. But who knows, as there isn't enough data for any reputable organization to declare an upper protein intake limit.

It's funny, because like most vegan rebuttals, you failed to actually prove me wrong in any capacity.

File: Food chain.jpg (49KB, 320x399px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 320x399px

>>38960914
So this is how it looks in your brain now after you listened to Joe Rogan
> You funny troll

>>38960951
Maybe, but I have no doubt that my diet and lifestyle is already perfectly happy. I have no intention of switching to veganism in my lifetime. You do you man.

>>38961051

>There's been nothing posted that showed causation without massive methodological errors.

How about this post that got no response >>38957023

>>38961053

Nah, more like one deer/elk for a whole year of meat.

Nice meme though.

>>38961051
>What are you even talking about? I quoted the wording of the guy I replied to.
Nobody in this quote cascade used the word "meant" but you.

>Neither of the things you said are true m8, unless you stupidly thought "main source of calories" meant "nothing but that macro".
Perhaps you should quantify what it means in English then instead of stupidly expecting everyone to understand your vague autism lexicon.

>But who knows, as there isn't enough data for any reputable organization to declare an upper protein intake limit.
The IOM's AMDR for protein maxes out at 35% of calories; definitely not "main source of calories" in any non-sophistic semantics. Stuff like

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/19/12/2922

is suggestive.

>>38961088
It was probably ignored because it didn't address anything like was requested.

>>38957023
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7019459

Single study, small sample size, short study length, and only correlative results. Also doesn't address any of the other factors that would be important, such as actual diet composition and method of reporting that could have substantial effects on results. Don't have the whole study to get more in depth, but just from that small abstract there are huge errors with the study, and doesn't actually satisfy my request for causative proof.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006469

This has all of the issues of the previous aside from small sample size. It also doesn't negate recent research showing that dietary cholesterol seems to have little to no effect on serum cholesterol in most people. For those that are effected, dietary cholesterol only accounts for about 10-20% of serum levels, with the rest of the cholesterol being produced by the liver. Even if you have high serum cholesterol levels, drastic dietary changes will have a relatively minimal effect. This is why the U.S. dietary guidelines said that cholesterol wasn't a nutrient of concern.

>>38961303

>It was probably ignored because it didn't address anything like was requested.

How?

>Single study, small sample size, short study length, and only correlative results.

I don't know what you mean by correlative results. It's an experiment. You perform an action and then record what happens. You're saying correlation as if any observed effect can't be attributed to the experiment being performed, which is batshit crazy.

>This has all of the issues of the previous aside from small sample size.

You didn't even look at it. It's a meta-analysis of nearly 400 controlled feeding experiments.

> It also doesn't negate recent research

None of which has been posted in this thread

>Even if you have high serum cholesterol levels, drastic dietary changes will have a relatively minimal effect

Also completely baseless with no evidence presented for this being true

>This is why the U.S. dietary guidelines said that cholesterol wasn't a nutrient of concern.

Also not true. The guidelines advisory committee suggested this, but when the USDA finalized the guidelines they made dietary cholesterol recommendations even stronger, recommending people keep cholesterol intake "as low as possible"

File: Effects of added dietary cholesterol on serum total cholesterol..png (28KB, 320x245px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 320x245px

>>38961303
>It also doesn't negate recent research showing that dietary cholesterol seems to have little to no effect on serum cholesterol in most people
Th fuck is wrong with people? Yes, dietary cholesterol has an influnece on your cholesterol. Yes, it is a big impact. Just because the average cholesterol level in the USA is very high does not mean that it is good or even ideal.
The research just found out that an increase of cholesterol in a diet that is already high in cholesterol does not increase blood serum levels much further.
Picture related

>>38956515
Why does he look plastic? Or is it my Flux?

>>38961547
Have there been any later papers to confirm the serum dependent effect of dietary cholesterol?

Hopkins paper didn't do a very good job IMO of separating sat fats effects on LDL receptors which would exacerbate dietary chol effects. Where as Clarkes paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006469) did and found a much lower effect of chol on serum numbers.

FYI: I'm not the anon you're arguing with nor am I arguing.

>>38961742
>>38961547
I'm going to bed, but post the papers anyway and I'll read them 2morrow.