Reminder that saturated fats and cholesterol are actually your friends

>thereby allowing animal cells to change shape and animals to move (unlike bacteria and plant cells, which are restricted by their cell walls).

its literally what makes us able to grow new tissue

nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/11
>Given the capability of all tissues to synthesize sufficient amounts of cholesterol for their metabolic and structural needs, there is no evidence for a biological requirement for dietary cholesterol.
>There is much evidence to indicate a positive linear trend between cholesterol intake and low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentration, and therefore increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).
>It is thus recommended that saturated fatty acid, trans fatty acid, and cholesterol consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet.

By that moronic reasoning blood pressure is necessary for proper organ perfusion, therefore more = better. I mean, it has a wikipedia entry, doesn't it? What's it like to live in retard land?

>even though it's proven it doesn't raise it all.

ibcmt.com/2009-03-16-EffectsOfDietaryCholesterolOnSerumCholesterol-PaulHopkins.pdf

>let's me die quicker

truly the best friend a man could ask for

feels pretty good fama, enjoy your shitty gains while me and bros get our science on

Remember that transfat can't be burned off once it's stored as body fat.

>What's it like to live in retard land?

I don't know man, what it's like?

he said, with tears in his eyes

>nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/11
>published in 2002
>cited articles are even older

Do you have a critique of these papers?

>needing a critique
>not realizing that in all biological fields that basically anything published before the last 10 years is hopelessly out of date and basically invalid as source, dietary and nutrition science doubly so
>not realizing that if you tried to cite a literature review that old you'd get laughed at by peer reviewers and publishers

This isn't something that needs critiquing its the nature of the massive leaps in molecular biology, genetics, cell biology, and biochemistry that have occurred in the last 10 years that make anything published earlier incredibly suspect. I don't even necessarily disagree with asserted the positions, but trying to cite something that incredibly old as your argument is hilarious.

>the massive leaps

You can't just assume massive leaps have happened. When older data is passed through in science, it's because new breakthroughs have explained why they were incomplete or incorrect and have provided new insights that lead us elsewhere. You don't just say "it's been a few years since that research was published, let's just throw that data away now" especially when the reason that they came out over 10 years ago is because the issue was settled at that point. The links are reviewing hundreds of studies that were performed over a number of decades. To complain that they weren't published yesterday is absolutely ridiculous. What do you think has changed?

First of all stop describing how science is supposed to be, because that's not how it is. When it comes to putting together grant proposals and preparing articles for publications, you will be laughed at and looked at as exceedingly amateurish by the reviewers if you try to bring up anything that old, other than seminal classics that provide the sub-field's definitions. And the case of dietary cholesterol is still in hot dispute with articles on it being published every year, it is no where close to a settled issue. We've only in the past couple of years have begun to even come close to understanding how the gut microflora process things like cholesterol. Our methods for studying the proteome in response to metabolites didn't exist by 2000, our methods for studying the metablome didn't exist then, hell, even genomic bioinformatics was still in its infancy. Hundreds of enzymes and macro-modular enzymes that define those systems have been discovered since then and are still being studied. Hell, brand new review articles dealing with highly specific and focused issues relating to dietary cholesterol have been released in the past month. 15 years in the dietary sciences may as well be 100 years considering how volatile a field it is; it is hardly ridiculous to claim that a REVIEW that was published in 2002 would be invalid; in fact the ridiculous thing is to claim that it is.

...

>What's it like to live in retard land?

I don't know man, how strong are you?

Reminder that animal agriculture is the number one cause for climate change & enviromental damage...
But hurr durr, who needs a planet when you have gains?

>what is pasture-based poultry

tfw even saturated fats and cholesterol aren't your friends.