What's the consensus on reuben sandwiches?

>>36752184
The more Kraut the better.

>>36752184
One of the best sandwiches around. Idk what corned beef is but it's the best beef and sour kraut is the best kraut by far.

>>36752184
It's full of red meat which is extremely unhealthy. I can't tell if that's egg or cheese so I wouldn't even feed it to my dog.

File: 5512573+_60166c20ce76d413bdf93b0e363094dd.jpg (18KB, 350x250px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 350x250px

>>36752184
I prefer roast beef sandwiches myself

All I know is that gggmanlives loves reuben sandwiches.
>>36754146
>red meat which is extremely unhealthy.
woman.

>>36754456
I'm a man, mate. Just because you eat like shit doesn't make you manly or high test lol

>>36754594
>If you eat any red meats ever that means you must be 1000 pounds overweight

>>36754594
Test literally needs trans fats to be made.

>>36754711
>I have no actual argument so I'll create this strawman instead
wew

>>36754751
This is "literally" not true. Fat accounts for ~15% of my daily calories, no trans fat and my bloodwork shows my testosterone is outside the upper limit of normal.

>>36754830
You didn't really provide an argument (no, assuming someone's eating habits as an insult is not an argument) so I didn't reply with a counterargument.

>>36755049
You eat meat. Eating meat is unhealthy. Therefore you are likely unhealthy. That is what I said. Stop trying to deflect.

Why do you eat meat?

>>36755097

>vegetarians

LMAO

>>36755178
I'm not even a vegetarian. You're making yourself seem more and more retarded anon. Just admit you're an unhealthy piece of shit and we can just move on.

>>36755216

I'm not though. I mean, I smoke, so I'll die of cancer by 30, but I'm in shape right now.

File: Ruben+Studdard+rubenstuddard.jpg (76KB, 453x302px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 453x302px

he's ok i guess. hasn't been relevant for a long time though.

>>36754751
Trans fats didn't exist in ancient times, and yet cavemen had tons of testosterone.

Also, Reubens are godly. It opened my eyes to the fact that Thousand Island Dressing is superior to pickles in every way.

That's one of those foods that I tried when I was a kid and hated but never bothered to try again. Who knows, I might like it

>>36755357
Being in shape and being healthy are two different things. Sedentary vegans have better arterial health than omnivorous marathoners. You have no idea about your internal health.

>>36755097
>Stop trying to deflect.
Do you even know what deflection means?

Saying "Just because you eat like shit" isn't an argument, this is an assumption and insult, you can claim it's an argument just because you don't want to look like a retard.

>You eat meat
Yup, I eat small amounts of meat once per day.

>Eating meat is unhealthy
Can you actually post a source towards why our bodies (which can process meat and receive nutritional benefits from eating said meat)

>Therefore you are likely unhealthy.
I have a normal BMI, I weigh 150 pounds.

>>36755639
>Heh... stupid vegan. Creating a strawman about how I'm not fat isn't deflection. Let me tell you again how normal my weight is
Weight isn't health you fucking moron.

>Can you actually post a source towards why our bodies
Why our bodies what?

>Yup, I eat small amounts of meat once per day.
How much?

>I weigh 150 pounds.
How short are you that 150lbs isn't borderline underweight lol. Not that it matters. BMI isn't used to tell if you're healthy.

File: s3wcE6j.jpg (104KB, 1080x1080px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1080x1080px

What's the consensus on Rogan sandwiches?

File: 4L_ewohjZfQ.jpg (12KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 210x240px

>>36752184
They're the best sandwich a goyim can eat.

>>36755639
yet i bet you eat simple carbs

>>36755799
What the fuck? There is 1.6g of cholesterol and 40g of fat just from the eggs alone. Who the fuck eats like this?

>>36752184
I had one yesterday. Makes me wanna make my own sauerkraut like a hipster

File: 841982374.jpg (52KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 900x900px

>>36755870
"Hello, Freak Bitches!"

>>36755799
eggs ar rather gross, desu

>>36755930
I love Joe but fuck he's dumb sometimes.

>>36755753
>Why our bodies what
I accidentally cut part of the post, I meant to say why our bodies cannot handle any meats whatsoever without it being detrimentally unhealthy.

>How much
Two thin slices of salami on my sandwich.

File: ebb8d9480203f752d916dc9134943037.png (200KB, 600x780px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 600x780px

If you don't like reubens you have no taste.

File: Battle-Of-The-Amazons-1618.jpg (58KB, 600x428px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 600x428px

>>36752184
I read Rubens instead of reuben and the pic of the sandwich looked like a painting to me, have I become an art fag?

>>36756122
>I meant to say why our bodies cannot handle any meats whatsoever without it being detrimentally unhealthy

You're asking such a broad question. But the fact that you're eating salami is worse than red meat.

http://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

WHO considers it a Type 1 Carcinogen.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23011480
This study finds processed meat to be a carcinogen also.

>>36756122
>>36756274
Here are some more

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24148709
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307518
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497300

>>36756274
>>36756349
I've already read these and all of them point to high consumption.
Okay? I don't eat high amounts of red meat or processed meats, my diet is mostly vegetable based.

I mean even the WHO article you link agrees with my position, there is nothing wrong with eating meat it has everything to do with the rate and amount consumed.

>>36756577
>every 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.
>the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100 gram portion of red meat eaten daily.

The WHO does not agree with your position. Stop lying. These are very small amounts. If your position is that 25g of processed meat a day is fine you're still only halving that risk. You're trying to argue that meat is healthy to eat even though it slowly kills you. And this is only looking at cancer, not at the increased risk of CVD, CHD, diabetes, weight gain, etc etc that is also associated with eating meat.

Your position is indefensible from a health standpoint.

>>36756651

So...eat more fish and poultry instead?

>>36756651
>16. Should I stop eating meat?
Eating meat has known health benefits. Many national health recommendations advise people to limit intake of processed meat and red meat, which are linked to increased risks of death from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses.

>17. How much meat is it safe to eat?
The risk increases with the amount of meat consumed, but the data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.

The amount I eat is low, what you're claiming is about as stupid as saying you shouldn't fly because the amount of bakcground radiation in the atmosphere at 30,000ft is higher than it would be on the ground, at this point it's an argument of absurdity, you cannot make the claim with a straight face that eating any meats AT ALL is detrimentally unhealthy.

You know what's also unhealthy? Not having the proper vitamins like Vitamin B12 which would cause more issues than eating small amounts of meat while exercising and vitamin B12 is important to arterial health.

Fuck off I'm done, you can continue your argument to absurdity with someone else, you can go pretend you "won" when the information you provided agrees with me.

and also I have to congratulate you too.

This is the first time in a long time I have ever see someone link to a source that agrees with me while at the same time saying it doesn't agree with me even though it repeatedly agrees with me.

mental gymnastics at it's finest, 10/10 show.

>>36752200
This. I can't get enough until it's spilling off the sandwich.

>>36756855
>Eating meat has known health benefits
Except it doesn't. There is nothing meat has that can't be obtained elsewhere. This is simply to keep people from going overboard.

>17. How much meat is it safe to eat?
>The risk increases with the amount of meat consumed, but the data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.
This is completely contradictory of your position. Not sure why you'd post it.

>Not having the proper vitamins like Vitamin B12 which would cause more issues than eating small amounts of meat while exercising and vitamin B12 is important to arterial health.
B12 deficiencies exist even in a omnivorous diet.

https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/research-news/2000/b12-deficiency-may-be-more-widespread-than-thought/

You probably don't even realise where B12 comes from and why it's found in meat. This argument is a complete non-starter.

>what you're claiming is about as stupid as saying you shouldn't fly because the amount of bakcground radiation in the atmosphere at 30,000ft is higher than it would be on the ground
A shitty analogy because you have no scientific argument. I could just as easily turn around and say your argument is akin to a junkie who shoots up small amounts and claims it isn't unhealthy because he didn't overdose. Everything in moderation amirite ;)))

>>36756923
>If I say it agrees with me then it does!
The article even says they can't give a safe limit. But yeah, you're right. 100grams of red meat and 50grams of processed meat for an 18% increased risk of cancer. Healthy as fuck. Saying otherwise is so absurd xDD

>>36752184
Get rid of the Thousand Island dressing and give me some mustard instead and it's a prime sandwich.

File: WHO.png (7KB, 633x87px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 633x87px

>>36757004
Okay I'll respond one more time
>Except it doesn't
So you're disagreeing with the WHO now? Okay I guess I can eat as much meat as I want because I can arbitrarily decide whether the WHO is right when I want it to be.

>>The risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,
>>36756577
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24148709
>I've already read these and all of them point to high consumption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307518
>I've already read these and all of them point to high consumption.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497300

and also every meat is red meat and processed meat, didn't know that!

>>36757096
We're talking about processed meat because you eat it.

>So you're disagreeing with the WHO now?
What health benefits are associated with eating meat.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24148709
Gives lower serving sizes than WHO. 100-200g meat per week.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497300
Gives lower serving sizes than WHO

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307518
This study talks about chicken also.

You didn't read any of this. Just leave like you said you were going to.

>>36757203
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307518
>This study talks about chicken also.
>White meat included chicken, turkey, and fish and included poultry cold cuts, chicken mixtures, canned tuna, and low-fat sausages and low-fat hotdogs made from poultry

>>36757203
What's the point of linking to WHO if it disagrees with you? and why do you link articles that consistently talks about serving sizes when that's the point, serving sizes?

I'm going to bite the bait for a little longer because I'm watching ROTW right now.

>>36757321
also none of those links provide serving sizes at all, can you actually link to where you got those serving sizes?

>>36757384
whoops the second one does have a recommendation of less than 20/g a day but the first one doesn't.

>>36757384
>He's only reading abstracts
lol

>>36757321
>A source can't be mostly right but wrong about something non-scientific
Their argument is that a lot of Dietary Councils recommend low intake of meat. It doesn't make a claim about what these health benefits are nor does it provide any literature to back up such a claim. It's completely valid to disagree with a non-scientific claim like theirs.

Each study talks about the serving size of meat. One is as little as <50g daily. Some go up to several hundred grams per day. It covers a spectrum. It doesn't mean that less is necessarily better. It means that more is worse.

>inb4 but that means that same thing!!!!!

I don't know what ROTW is and don't care. Just got out of the shower and I'm going on a morning walk with the girlfriend. See you in an hour and a bit

>>36757616
>He's only reading abstracts
Nope, only one of them sorta provide a recommended amount.
What they actually said is that 3.3% of upper middle age to GERIATRIC people wouldn't have died if they lowered the amount of processed meats consumed.

>It's completely valid to disagree with a non-scientific claim like theirs.
So it's stops being scientific? Then why link it in the first place to claim it's non-scientific to a point? The WHO (which is comprised of medical professionals) isn't a legitimate source anymore because it isn't to your liking?

>Each study talks about the serving size of meat. One is as little as <50g daily. Some go up to several hundred grams per day. It covers a spectrum. It doesn't mean that less is necessarily better. It means that more is worse.

Cute! I'm going to say it covers a spectrum too and claim too little worse because obviously we rate things by how much it helps their argument! Even though none of this scientific and none of them offer direct recommendations.

>Doesn't know what Report of the Week is
>Has to mention he has a girlfriend
Yup you're a retarded normie.

Reubens are best. I especially like how it triggers all the anti-intellectuals who think meat is unhealthy.

>>36757715
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-11-63
I read this one did not give a recommendation on the amount you're suppose to eat.

>>36752184
This one looks like the infected pussy of a fat bitch

>>36752184
>>>36755049
>You eat meat. Eating meat is unhealthy. Therefore you are likely unhealthy. That is what I said. Stop trying to deflect.

I can't tell where the fallacy ends and the joke starts

>>36757715
>upper middle age to GERIATRIC
>LIKE OMG THESE PEOPLE ARE LIKE SO OLD xD
Well yeah, that's when a lifetime of eating like shit catches up to you. No one wants ass cancer in their 40s

>So it's stops being scientific?
Yes boy, that's how it works. Are you retarded? It's talking about multiple things in that report. It's a Q&A. The Q&A isn't science per se, it's talking about it. Did you even pass high school?

>Then why link it in the first place to claim it's non-scientific to a point?
See above.

>The WHO (which is comprised of medical professionals) isn't a legitimate source anymore because it isn't to your liking?
WHO doesn't do scientific research afaik. It only reports on it. Even if it does it's irrelevant on this topic, this is a report not original research.

>none of them offer direct recommendations.
Because their purpose isn't to make dietary recommendations. Why do you keep acting retarded?

>Yup you're a retarded normie.
>REEEEEEEEE STOP SAYING MY SHITTY DIET IS BAD FOR MEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>36760052
And what fallacy is that?

>>36755799
How can you hold down those many eggs? Eggs are some of the most filling foods in the world.

>>36760119
>Links to sources then proceed to call then "unscientific" the moment it disagrees with them
>Slightly shifts goalpost from "this will definitely kill slowly you" to "there's a spectrum but I'm still right"
>Doesn't realize that 3.3% of a group that involves geriatric people would definitely raise the amount of deaths caused by consuming a certain amount of processed meats because of their naturally declining health
Jesus Christ

>>36760835
>Links to a report on science
>Advises you ignore non-scientific claims in the report that weren't backed by the research
>Talk about a spectrum of data
>He's so retarded he thinks you're talking about a spectrum of what is good for you
>He thinks they didn't control for this

Stay away from science. You're a verifiable retard lol

Proof that there is a loving God.

>>36760889
>Advises you ignore non-scientific claims in the report that weren't backed by the research
Again, when does it stop being non-scientific? When it disagrees with you?
>He's so retarded he thinks you're talking about a spectrum of what is good for you

" It covers a spectrum. It doesn't mean that less is necessarily better. It means that more is worse."
So what does "better" means in this case? Isn't better referring to health? Aren't you saying in this sentence that over this spectrum that more is worse?

>He thinks they didn't control for this
You're putting words into my mouth, I'm saying older people with declining health will be more detrimentally effected by a poor diet, I'm not saying they didn't control for it I'm saying that what represents 3.3% of people who died from a poor diet.

>Stay away from science.
I actually study computational neuroscience, what exactly do you study?

>>36752200

sauerkraut is the reason i don't like the reuben.

>26. How many experts were involved in the evaluation?
>The IARC Working Group consisted of 22 experts from 10 countries.

So either I trust the WHO on their assessment or I trust some random person on /r9k/ who has a penchant for screaming "XDDD" at people he disagrees with.

>>36761026
>I'm saying that what represents 3.3% of people who died from a poor diet
No idea what this is supposed to say. This isn't the first time you've written something that has made no sense either.

>When it disagrees with you?
It stops being scientific when there is no basis to justify the claim. The research they are talking about talks only about the carcinogenic effects of meat.

But all of this is wildly derailing the point. You've changed the topic from whether meat is bad for you to why I disagree with parts of the report. It doesn't change the fact that meat is shown to be bad for you, the 4 or 5 studies I've linked have shown it is bad for you and it increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 17-18% with as little as 50-100g of meat.

I'm not arguing your derailments anymore. If you want to continue believing that eating something that increases the risk of developing a serious cancer then continue being retarded.

>I actually study computational neuroscience
>But gets confused about why a completely different topic isn't discussed when a study is investigating the mechanistic and causal relationship between eating meat and cancer
Hmmm....

>>36761190
Stop doubleposting you sad cunt. And stop trying to cherrypick the one part I disagree with, which isn't backed by anything in the research paper the article is reporting on, as an excuse to derail the entire argument. Eating meat is bad. The report shows it. The studies show it. You've also seemingly accepted the WHO report as factual. If you want to continue believing that eating something that increases the risk of developing a serious cancer is healthy then continue being retarded.

>>36761260
>Eating is meat is unhealthy
>Even though our bodies are capable of processing meat and receiving benefits from it

>The research says it bad
Again the research, in every single post you made states that consumption is the issue and that's my point but you keep saying I'm wrong and the research is right when they're the same fucking point.

>You've also seemingly accepted the WHO report as factual.
And you're ignoring biology, experts and claiming that research (who conclusions aren't yours, but mine) are correct

These are the sources you link
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24148709
>These results indicate that high consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, may increase all-cause mortality.

High consumption of red and processed meat may increase mortality, I do not disagree with this statement.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307518

>Red and processed meat intakes were associated with modest increases in total mortality, cancer mortality, and cardiovascular disease mortality.

I do not disagree with the research.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497300

>We estimated that 3.3% (95% CI 1.5% to 5.0%) of deaths could be prevented if all participants had a processed meat consumption of less than 20 g/day. Significant associations with processed meat intake were observed for cardiovascular diseases, cancer, and 'other causes of death'. The consumption of poultry was not related to all-cause mortality.

I do not disagree with this.

We're coming to two different conclusions on the exact same information

My conclusion
>High consumption of red and processed meats are detrimental to your health, it's more appropriate to have stronger plant based diet

Yours
>Biology can go fuck itself and if you even so much as smell a sandwich you're going to cancer because I said so

>>36754594
There are actually studies that show red meat boosts testosterone production, I shit you not.

>>36754830
Consider genetics has a part in this. For families that naturally have high test, going vegan would be great since you'd have a reduced chance of getting various diseases. The rest of us, however, need the red meat to boost testosterone.

>>36761723
Yeah I've heard of these, am yet to see it though.

>>36761604
>High consumption of red and processed meats are detrimental to your health, it's more appropriate to have stronger plant based diet

50g of processed meat and 100g of red meat is not "high consumption" for the average person.

>Biology can go fuck itself and if you even so much as smell a sandwich you're going to cancer because I said so
No argument so strawman. I won't be replying to you anymore.

>>36761802
I've seen studies that show vegans and omnivores have similar levels of testosterone. I've even seen one that shows vegans are slightly higher but I believe that to be just genetics like you said. I'll see if I can find it.

>>36761802
>>36761834
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/pdf/83-6691152a.pdf

The article states that the meat eaters were older than the vegetarians and vegans and had a BMI but these variables were controlled for in determining the mean hormone level. Most importantly though vegans had 17% lower cholesterol. It also goes on to suggest that the lower IGF-1 serum levels in vegans may reduce the risk of developing an enlarged prostate so you may end up avoiding taking a finger in your ass which is good too.

>>36761942
Had a higher BMI*

File: 14931036165180.jpg (108KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1280x720px

>>36752184
Is it just meat and cheese? If so it looks yummy, i don't like any toppings at all on my sandwiches

File: 1493486194255.jpg (4KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 125x125px

>>36752184
Hands down the world's best sandwich. I picked it out randomly on a diner menu when I was younger and have been hooked on them ever since. It's the incredibly shouldn't-work-but-somehow-does combination of savory and sour topped with swiss cheese. Fuck, dude. It's a good sandwich.

File: 1409293983785.gif (957KB, 500x418px) Image search: [Google]

957KB, 500x418px

>>36752184
>people are responding to this

>>36752184
hiding the thread because for some reason that image just makes me want to hurl

>>36752184

I went to Katz Deli in NYC which is supposed to have the best sandwiches in the world and I thought this shit tasted like garbage. I like Subway Spicy Italian sandwiches not this hot mess of a sandwich that's sweet as fuck and tastes like a used Jew's jockstrap

>>36763080
>He knows what a Jew's used jockstrap tastes like

I like corned beef sandwiches with mustard. I don't like swiss cheese and if I had sauerkraut it would be on the side not in the sandwich