Sugar and carbohydrates are good for you and you should eat them everyday

>sugar and carbohydrates are good for you and you should eat them everyday
>meat, fats and dairy are bad for you

Why are they trying to meme people into obesity?

Other urls found in this thread:

press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-simplicity-of-dieting-it-really-is.html?m=0
breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health
authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/
authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/
caloriesproper.com/red-meat-wont-kill-you-it-will-make-you-stronger/
saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/
rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdf
deniseminger.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/
deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
foodrenegade.com/the-china-study-discredited/
deniseminger.com/the-china-study/
suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/01/true-or-false-dairy-is-toxic-hormone.html
colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/pdfs/discussionEssay/thermogenesisS
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1561651/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC325106/
ottawa.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1814937!/httpFile/file.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25064579
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749
chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-best.html
chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html
lloydianaspects.co.uk/opinion/veggie.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

fat people consume more

>>meat, fats and dairy are bad for you

The fuck don't you understand about this you mong?

corn lobby

>from the makers of cowspiracy
Omg cows drink too much water dude the world is gonna end!!!!

I just had a donut and a pint of whole milk for my hangover cure.

howd I do?

Don't meme me bro

>drinking
Not gonna make it

I'm not a manlet, so I can fit it into my diet no problem

NOT

jesus christ are you a fucking climate change denier? Are you fucking retarded?

Douche
>Nice shill schlomo

for thousands of years humans developed on a diet of carbs and sugars as primary everyday nutrients. the amount of "no carb" or "low carb" bullshit that people come up with nowadays is fucking retarded.
likewise, meats and animal products have been staple foods for thousands of years. people demonising them to push for le vegan meme shit are massive morons.

simple reality is that the vast majority of nutrition and metabolism related problems are a result of obesity, and obesity is a direct result of overconsumption of calories. as long as you keep your kcal intake appropriate and eat a somewhat balanced diet, you will be ok.

GONNA

GIVE

>sugar and carbohydrates are bad for you
fighting one meme with another, I see.

>meats and animal products have been staple foods for thousands of years
Not in the amount meat is consumed nowadays. Not the meat that is produced nowadays.
But yes, it's eating too much that makes you fat/unhealthy. Not a particular kind of common food that should be avoided altogether (like fats, carbs, animal products).

tbqh since I stopped eating sugary foods and lowered my carb intake I feel a lot better

I dunno if keto is a meme but it's working for me

This, mouth feels cleaner, i feel less sluggish and i've lost 4 stone

I lowered my carbs and upped fat and protein and it fucking worked
Bread tastes bad now it's weird

>Humans
No our primate ancestors may have but cooked meat was already a significant portion of the diet before the development of homo sapiens. The cro-magnons ate cooked meat as well. Our species has NEVER not eaten significant amounts of cooked meat when it was available. In fact ALL of the remains found of early man are found with remains of teeth scarred bones of prey and along significant bodies of water meaning they likely fished as well. Therefore man (homo sapiens) has always depended on a variety of fish and game. it wasn't until the advent of agriculture that grains were available in abundance and it wasn't until bread was first baked that this nutrient was adequate to sustain man.
>To put is succinctly your chronology of the nutrition of man is the definition of ass backwards.

insulin and starch residue being broken down by your saliva. guessing you dont count calories because you lost weight without trying

>nuts and berrys aren't carbs or sugar

Retard

>overconsumption of calories

this

Wrong. CICO is an unproven myth by the food industry to try to get you to consume "healthy food". Stop buying into tat garbage and start fasting instead

saying that abbos, chinese and europeans all had the same diet is foolish.
There are more than just one kind of homo sapiens

>posting blogs as sources

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>The fuck don't you understand about this you mong?
Tell me you're memeing and don't actually believe this.
>press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-simplicity-of-dieting-it-really-is.html?m=0
>breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health >authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/
>authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
>authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/
>caloriesproper.com/red-meat-wont-kill-you-it-will-make-you-stronger/
>saragottfriedmd.com/does-meat-cause-cancer-revisiting-the-meat-igf-1-and-cancer-connection/
>rawfoodsos.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/minger_formal_response2.pdf
>deniseminger.com/2010/08/03/the-china-study-a-formal-analysis-and-response/
>deniseminger.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
>foodrenegade.com/the-china-study-discredited/
>deniseminger.com/the-china-study/
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/01/true-or-false-dairy-is-toxic-hormone.html
Right
>Not in the amount meat is consumed nowadays. Not the meat that is produced nowadays.
The "too much meat" argument is a meme too
The sources I posted are fine. You should give them a read before shitposting
>(cont.)

>(cont.)
I also have my doubts to "milk=prostate cancer" entirely especially when in the article it says:
>Estrone and prostate cancer risk in men: As far as the estrone levels Maruyama et al. measured in their 2010 study are concerned it is very difficult to tell, whether or not the 26% increase in E2 levels is or isn't a problem.
>The estrone values in the Maruyama study are unrealistic. With a normal range of difficult to tell
>unrealistic
and
>What remains to be seen, though, is whether future epidemiological evidence will support or refute the currently heralded hypothesis that dairy consumption increases prostate cancer risk and whether we will be able to identify more feasible explanations for this relations than those that are implicated by the results Maruyama et al. present in their 2010 study.
You're missing the point, arguably deliberately.

>Tells me I'm memeing, proceed to post blogs and broscience as valid data. You're some special kind of retarded aren't ya?

I'll make it easy for you;

-Find out what makes data valid
-Find out if there are any valid studies
-Check for validity and objectivity

Get back with me whenever you want. Prove to me that eating animal based products provides more benefit than harm to us and our planet THEN we'll talk.

>posting blogs as sources

Mad cow disease must have gotten to you. Maybe that heart attack will put you out of your misery

>-Find out what makes data valid
>-Find out if there are any valid studies
>-Check for validity and objectivity
Not only did i do all these, i proved it. All's good on my end. Yours is sorely lacking

>blogs
>valid data

Then why don't you post the source study instead?

Oh wait, you don't have one? Because they don't have one? Because it's a blog?

Try again fatshit

NO YOU DIDN'T LMAO THAT'S WHY I'M CALLING YOUR DEGENERATE ASS OUT. Blogposts which do not provide objectively valid data and sources are not what you posted dipshit.

Again, provide me with valid sources or get the fuck out with your tard brain.

Shut the fuck UP you vegan hippie garbage. Go suck some kale from your xerlfriends clit dick

Yo mixed salad with Kale is tasty as fuckk, might make some in a bit. Thanks though, shithead

Stupid hippie cunt.

Awwh how cute. Fuck outta here cunt, if this is the best you can do I'll be amused for a while

Shit up you've already got to the point where I can only use meme so you loser

nice sources retard

Might wanna take a few steps back there lad, I think you just fried the fuck out of your brain :(

>Oh wait, you don't have one? Because they don't have one? Because it's a blog?
Except they do. All you'd have to do is take a look
>Try again fatshit
I don't have to do any such thing. The balls in your court not mine
>NO YOU DIDN'T LMAO THAT'S WHY I'M CALLING YOUR DEGENERATE ASS OUT.
You're not calling anyone out. You're memeing and posturing as like what what you're saying's an actual argument; and none of it is
>Blogposts which do not provide objectively valid data and sources are not what you posted dipshit.
>Again, provide me with valid sources or get the fuck out with your tard brain.
Again, except I did. whether you're too lazy or stupid to read them isn't my problem. And you don't have the right to me or what I posted retarded or any other insult, if this is how you're going to keep arguing.
>nice sources retard
See above retard

Where are the peer reviewed research in scientific journals?
I'm waiting retard

Plains indians and telhuelche people ate mostly meat and fat, especially during the winter.

Many native groups in the canadian interior also ate mostly pemican in winter (50/50 dried meat and fat)

Most people are already familiar with the diets of circumpolar peoples like the inuit.

Not that the aforementioned is necessarily more healty than eating a low fat whole grain vegan diet, my point is simply that humans have managed to do quite well on a variety of different diets, and there are many historical groups that ate way more meat than we do today

>Lived on nuts and berries
Retard.
They supplemented a diet based around wild game and fish.
>More than one homo sapiens
Go away /pol/ this is a discussion about science.

YOU

tumblr pls go

Nuts-and-berries user isn't completely wrong, but yes, meat and sometimes fish were present in all hunter gatherer diets.

For various hunter gatherer groups nuts were a crucial part of their diet. The San eat lots of Manketi nuts, the natives of southern chile got most of their calories from the seeds of arucarias, Californian natives ate lots of (leeched) acorns, and based on this I'd hazard a guess that mesolithic european hunter gatherers had a similar diet. Its quite likely that the natives of the north American east coast ate large amounts of chestnuts before maize agriculture became more widespread, but like i said in this post , other groups follwed very different diets historically

Not the user but here's one for you. All I did is randomly picked one of his links scrolled to the bottom and lo and behold it was properly referenced including dates. You're just being obtuse on purpose or are a lazy p.o.s.

colorado.edu/intphys/Class/IPHY3700_Greene/pdfs/discussionEssay/thermogenesisS

It appears to me that the ones who relies on nuts were also wildly less successful than Indo-Europeans

>Plains indians and telhuelche people ate mostly meat and fat, especially during the winter.

You are not a native American living in the plains you bringing up in this case is useless. Your dietary intake is not comparable.

>Any native groups in the canadian interior also ate mostly pemican in winter (50/50 dried meat and fat)

Again, useless. We are not in times of great hunger or in need of extreme survival. Why again are you bringing this up?

>Most people are already familiar with the diets of circumpolar peoples like the inuit.

NIGGA DO YOU KNOW THE HEALTH PROBLEMS THE INUIT HAVE?? Do you know the average lifespan of an inuit??

>my point is simply that humans have managed to do quite well on a variety of different diets, and there are many historical groups that ate way more meat than we do today

Quite. well. Define well, do you mean survive? fuck and bring forth and enough offspring and die? Sorry to break it to you but our situation now is a bit different than a few thousand years ago friendo.

Just because there were groups that ate more meat than us today does not justify it. If another group of people was murdering much more innocent civilians than modern mankind is today would that justify harming ourselves and killing each other? No.

Nice 404. Stellar research mate.

it's about methane emissions not water consumption

that said, i have trouble believing the methane they emit is more potent than the various fumes and emissions of manufacturing in industrializing nations or car emissions

>Except they do. All you'd have to do is take a look

We did, hence the reason you're called a retard, retard. ''8 reasons why eating meat makes you strong'' is not valid/objective. If you are too stupid to realise why your ''sources'' are not credible scroll up to my checklist I posted for ya.

>You're not calling anyone out. You're memeing and posturing as like what what you're saying's an actual argument; and none of it is

Again, not memeing, post valid sources or btfo. Quite a simple demand.

>except I did. whether you're too lazy or stupid to read them isn't my problem. And you don't have the right to me or what I posted retarded or any other insult, if this is how you're going to keep arguing.

YES. I'm not going to sit here and tell you your BLOGS with no valid sources at all will be used in this conversation, until you provide some valid data you will still be known as a retard. Sorry to break it to you but this isn't the 4th grade anymore.

you guys are all dumb.

just inject testosterone, lift heavy weights. and eat a balanced diet with plenty of veggies.

viola

None of what you are saying is within the context of the conversation. Those people didn't die because of diet, they died because humans are a) mortal and died young because b), they didn't have modern medicines and hygiene

Sigh..

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1561651/

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC325106/

ottawa.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.1814937!/httpFile/file.pdf
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25064579

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749

>B-But It's all due to their lack medicine and poor hygiëne! we have evolved far beyond that stage user!

Except (and here's the fun part)

These effects happen to occur regardless of, sex, age, geographical spread, hygiëne etc.

do any of you guys actually read these long ass articles.
like holy shit, lemme go read 200 pages so I can try to prove a point in an online argument

Yes. That's why shit-for-brains who claim their blogs are legit get called out for being retarded, because they are.

I don't care if you claim you understand why valid statistical data is trustworthy, but don't post a blog or an article with no valid source or background and just say that it should be taken in consideration, fuck outta here.

but muh buzzfeed sources

>We did, hence the reason you're called a retard, retard. ''8 reasons why eating meat makes you strong'' is not valid/objective. If you are too stupid to realise why your ''sources'' are not credible scroll up to my checklist I posted for ya.
I"ll keep saying i need to do no such thing for you again. I've done it and much over at this point. You "didn't". And if this is how you're going to keep arguing I'll take this as your concession.
>Again, not memeing, post valid sources or btfo. Quite a simple demand.
Demanding me to do something I've already doner while posting more shitty arguments still doesn't prove wrong anything I've said and certainly doesn't make you as right as you desperately want to be. Your shit tier arguments haven't blown anyone out.
>YES. I'm not going to sit here and tell you your BLOGS with no valid sources at all will be used in this conversation, until you provide some valid data you will still be known as a retard. Sorry to break it to you but this isn't the 4th grade anymore.
What you do or don't tell me or anyone ITT doesn't mean shit with your level of debate you've been using; and no one ITT should give a shit what you think about them or what they post. I doubt you actually looked at what I posted all and you still continue to autistically screech your shit arguments. You're the only one here arguing like a fourth grader

How about you either actually read or get the fuck out with your constant shitposting
>but muh buzzfeed sources
but muh not reading

Buttmad meat eater spotted. Brain clogged with saturated fats again, schlomo?

Again, post valid sources or btfo. The reason that you're getting called out is because you are not posting valid sources.

Try understanding the studies I've posted and look how they differ with the shit you post.

Again, please. Post valid sources, or btfo. Must be hard to comprehend what I'm saying.

You need some electrolytes. THEY'RE WHAT PLANTS CRAVE, SON. DRINK BRAWNDO, NOT FAGGY TIT JUICE.

I do but when you point out to the vegan yards that all these .Gov studies are correlative and not causative and trade in phrases like
>May
>Have been linked to
>20% increase of *insert already low prevalence cancer here*
They autistic screech about how abstention from meat will lead to immortality. They also treat studies like dogmatic religion instead of a single point on a continuum of evolving knowledge over time. Very frustrating.

So more insults and willful ignorance? I'll definitely take these as your concession

Point is never that no intake of animal based products will lead to immortality, I refuse to believe you're this stupid.

We can SAFELY say that intake of said products leads to a higher chance of disease and death. Acknowledging that there are exceptions, just like how there are 90 year olds who have been smoking their whole life, have shit lung and cardiovascular condition do not develop any disease.

Accepting the exceptions to the rule does not disprove the fact.

>They also treat studies like dogmatic religion instead of a single point on a continuum of evolving knowledge over time. Very frustrating.

Right now we base everything we know on said studies, what the fuck do you plan on using as knowledge to continue our understanding as a whole then? We are conducting research on various topics using what we are capable to understand right now, and part of using our ''evolving knowledge over time'' is coming to new conclusions. The fact that said conclusion do not line up with your current belief does not make them any less true.

Comparing religion with peer reviewed/valid statistical data is probably the most stupid shit I've heard so far in this thread. I hope I do not need to explain the differences.

Nope. I just said why your claims cannot be taken in consideration.

It's like someone handing me a sheet of paper scribbled with crayons, expecting me to accept it as a valid piece of information.

Post valid sources, or btfo. If you did then we wouldn't be going back and forth.

I was being hyperbolic. Good catch, you amaze me with your intuition. You're supposed to use ALL studies past and present as well as a healthy dose of skeptism. There have also been subsequent studies that run counter to the .gov ones but it'll take a decade of small published documents etc. Before they make it to the .Gov page. It's not cutting edge. These studies represent a couple of decades of thought and they've only ever come up with fairly weak correlations which is why the health industry today is being forced to rethink their entire line of reasoning. Granted keto and Atkins are a meme but all plants is also obviously a meme.

Nice hyperbole man Good catch, you amaze me with your intuition.

Again, I still need to find ANY source that can prove that consuming animal based protein has more benefits than causing us harm to our wellbeing and environment. Please, enlighten me with these subsequent studies and how plant based is a meme.

>Repeat what I say
>That circular logic
I just finished explaining.
> Pete and repeat went up the hill; Pete came back, who stayed there?

>Degenerate
I did not know the fat keyboard 14 year olds from Pol visited here.

>I'm not going to sit here and tell you you're data is invalid
>Says data is invalid anyways

Pol is weaker than shit lately. Must be due to the sugar rotting their brain.

>I have yet to find any source to prove me wrong
>Gets proven wrong throughout the thread

(You)

sugar and carbs are easy.

>stick them on a box or bag
>shelf stable for weeks
>can draw all kinds of pictures on packaging to attract
>don't need to be cooked

Big Corn

>sugar

Literally nobody says this is good for you

vegans think it's healthy to eat a bowl of oranges

>If you did then we wouldn't be going back and forth.
No, if you actually read my post and quit shitposting as though you actually have an argument we wouldn't be going back and forth. I've more than done my part, and could have always properly done your own research

>Please, enlighten me with these subsequent studies and how plant based is a meme.
Both veganism and vegetarianism are literally based in pseudoscience
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-best.html
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html
>lloydianaspects.co.uk/opinion/veggie.html

>Literally nobody says this is good for you

That's what they say in the documentary

They literally say that sugar is good for your body

I'm assumimg you didn't pass high school biology. The human body requires all macromolecules such as proteins (amino acids), lipids (fats and oils) and carbohydrates such as sugars and starch in order to maintain healthy metabolic function and healthy cells. Where people fuck up is getting shitty, processed sources of these macromolecules and then going a step further by overconsuming these sources. Is meat bad for you? No, but what western cultures consider a normal amount is actually a bit too much.
Is sugar bad for you? No, but most people don't get carbs from fiberous veggies and fruits, but soda and sports drinks, candy, etc
Is fat bad for you? Absolutely not, but hydrogenated oils and fats are heavily saturated with hydrogen and harden and cause clogged arteries; use olive and veggie oils instead

>forgetting the fact that the sugar industry literally paid off scientist in the 50s to say that sugar was great for human consumption and that fats, meats and dairy are the main causes of heart disease and diabetes

*sigh* look all in saying is biologically all 3 macromolecules are required for a healthy diet, the body needs glucose (sugar) as its number one source for ATP (energy) in the human body. Plants create sugar, humans eats sugar (glucose), human gets energy. Sugar is NECESSARY and is healthy IF you get healthy sources of sugar (fruits and veggies) anything in a package or plastic wrap and you've fucked up.

UP

lmao most early humans threw tubers into a fire and ate the ashy cooked remains. why are idiots incapable of accepting that they're to blame for their own obesity, not fucking carbs or soda that the government "forces" them to drink. it's beyond me that people manage to shift the blame onto the soda companies when they're the ones who don't bother to throw together balanced meals. if any food is "bad" for you it's probabaly oil as fats can be derived from other sources anyways like nuts and avacados and meat without being 120 calories per tablespoon.
quit blaming macronutrients for lack of self control desu

I like how fake news controls public perception to this extent. I really hate journalists

>pseudoscience

>continues to post blogs with no credible source or background

GIVE ME A MOMENT.


AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Newsflash, can't prove someone wrong with false information. But hey what do you expect from shitstain over here

Because $$

It is better for profits.

Who is going to profit if everyone is healthy?

>fake news

Thank you, Monsanto

The film is entirely about who profits; spoiler, its not the broccoli industry.

>continues to shitpost and not read