Breakfast Thread

literally in the title/abstract/conclusion you little ass pained faggot

Lol fat and cholestorol don't do shit to you unless you're a fat fuck or have preexisting conditions. It's not the fat that damages your arteries, it's the fact that gets forced into the artery cuts due to hypertension.

Got a physical, I eat nothing but ground beef, eggs, butter. And I don't mean in small amounts. I consume 1.5 pounds of beef and drink the fat (for testosterone.) Everything optimal. In fact they told me that I was probably at the most ideal state that a body could be in equilibrium (heart rate, blood sample, etc.) All this fear over saturated fat is just fucking nonsense. Dry some mustard and some beef fat in separate containers and look at their condition. It's the same. Everything hardens in arteries.

Mate I read all your articles. I'm saying that I believed the paleo people. But you opened my eyes to another group of people.

Please check this link I posted hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/saturated-fat-regardless-of-type-found-linked-with-increased-heart-disease-risk/

But if its working for you and your doctors are telling you its working for you then follow their advice

>Lol fat and cholestorol don't do shit to you unless you're a fat fuck or have preexisting conditions.

We'll check back in a few decades to see if your hypothesis is correct

>hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/12/19/saturated-fat-regardless-of-type-found-linked-with-increased-heart-disease-risk/

That second link is not really telling me anything. It seems you posted it because of the title without reading it.

It's saying that the different types of saturated fats have different effects, but are linked to heart disease. There is no article that I have seen that directly associates the link.

Correlation =/= causation. Body type does not also take into account particular health problems. Some people already have an unnaturally high heart rate due to a variety of factors (Health conditions, high stress jobs, etc.) That is my point. Don't blame the saturated fat when the saturated fat is just one of two components. Sugar is far worse for you than saturated fat in almost every way, so the health industry's singling out of saturated fat and cholestorol is almost akin to conspiracy.

I would not continue to do this by my mid-40s because that is when other health conditions rapidly increase. It's not a hypothesis. It is a simple scientific fact that if you opened up my arteries right now you wouldn't see any damage because there is no place for the damage to occur. You wouldn't see the beginnin of it. Imagine how much force would be needed to actively breach and cut through the arterial wall. Your argument "over time" just isn't true.

I would worry more about colon cancer, but in the case of red meat, as long as you don't burn it and don't eat the processed red meat with the nitrates, the odds of anything happening drastically decrease.

People who live in Eastern Europe, how the fuck do you not eat all the smoked meat and buns and home cooked shit?
This is beyond me.

2 peanut butter sandwiches
Already ate one

4x tiptop wholemeal the one bread (346cal)
38g kraft crunchy peanut butter (234cal)
Total cals: 580

>There is no article that I have seen that directly associates the link.

From that same article

"In 2003, Mensink et al. published an important meta-analysis at American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, in which the authors summarized data from clinical trials that examined the effects of individual SFAs on blood lipids. The results clearly demonstrated that, in comparison with carbohydrates, lauric acid, mystic acid, and palmitic acid raised low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, whereas the effects of stearic acid were largely neutral. (2) "

Saturated fats raise LDL cholesterol, and higher levels of LDL in the blood makes you more at risk of developing atherosclerosis. That's been understood for decades. "Correlation doesn't equal causation" doesn't work in this case, as the causation is firmly established. Other things like sugar and some health conditions can definitely aggravate the problem, but obviously saturated fats are a major contribution as well.

DUDE

one cup egg whites three whole eggs and a half cup of oats

english as fuck, where's the baked beans?

That's not the point. At all. It's a straw man conclusion that eating saturated fat or cholestorol, and having it in your blood stream, will cause heart disease. It won't.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2016-06-13-study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/

Even if consuming saturated fat or cholestorol increased LDL cholestorol (The jury is strangely still out on that because studies contradict each other) it does not mean that you will get heart disease. That is just a corollary factor.

>It is a simple scientific fact that if you opened up my arteries right now you wouldn't see any damage because there is no place for the damage to occur. You wouldn't see the beginnin of it.

The early signs of heart disease are nearly universal in children and adults in their early 20s

atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0368-1319(69)80020-7/abstract
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3455748
europepmc.org/abstract/MED/12244281/reload=0;jsessionid=LgelpF26ZVp4Wk7W2xyb.12

>Imagine how much force would be needed to actively breach and cut through the arterial wall

The endothelium is a single layer of cells that line the inner walls of your arteries and they're damaged after every meal high in salt, fat, sugar, and cholesterol.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21228265
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9036757
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11603133
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989358/

>The endothelium is a single layer of cells that line the inner walls of your arteries and they're damaged after every meal high in salt, fat, sugar, and cholesterol.

So literally just about every time you eat anything it damages your arteries. Not really a convincing argument.

You're going to get some damage in your arteries from eating most of the foods we eat.

Everyone does.

The cholesterol plaque is how the body repairs wounds in the arteries.

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines/news/2016-06-13-study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/

This article is explaining why you shouldn't take any contradictory study at face value, not saying this study is a good piece of evidence. Read the "Conclusion" section.

>he findings of this review and possible explanations will need to be explored further, but for now this review doesn't provide solid evidence that high LDL cholesterol is good for you, or that statins are of no help
>Fat is actually good for you" may be a great headline for a newspaper, and there are always researchers who are willing to make such a case,
>These types of stories are often based on a selective view of evidence, rather than a comprehensive systematic review. There is currently no comprehensive body of evidence that contradicts current official advice on saturated fat consumption – which recommends no more than 30g of saturated fat a day for men and 20g for women.

>atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0368-1319(69)80020-7/abstract

That says high salt meal.

>An HSM, which reflects the typical amount of salt consumed in a commonly eaten meal, can significantly suppress brachial artery FMD within 30 min. These results suggest that high salt intakes have acute adverse effects on vascular dilatation in the postprandial state.
This has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

>This article is explaining why you shouldn't take any contradictory study at face value, not saying this study is a good piece of evidence. Read the "Conclusion" section.

That's the point. You don't the contradictory study at face value, or the original studies at face value, because it doesn't prove anything. Correlation =/= causation.

If all the food you eat is fried, heavily salted, sugar coated, and has no antioxidants

The idea that anyone is not going to eat those listed foods is hilarious.

Also the clear indicator that various people follow government standardized guidelines for diet and end up sick and fat because it's wrong. Everyone should be eating less sugar and less carbohydrates. The fat's not going to do anything to you.

>or the original studies at face value

Why do you think anyone is taking the fundemental research at face value? It's probably the most thoroughly researched disease over the last 60 years. It's understood well enough that "correlation =/= causation" isn't an appropriate excuse

It's not the face value, it's the fact that it doesn't take into account the various factors that create heart disease. Blaming saturated fat intake for heart disease is like blaming oxygen for fire. It makes 0 fucking sense. The only reason the government recommends it for the population is because there is a direct link. That's it.

>post actual studies or fuck off with your outdated 90s bullshit
How about you actually read what I posted and quit constantly making this debunked "sat fats are the devil" argument only backed by the tenuous of links to CVD and all these supposed health issues or fuck off with your shitposting
>That's been understood for decades.
Except is hasn't and the theory behind it is full of holes and weakly tied together. These anons are right
No matter how much you want to fall for this meme. But if you really want to keep aerguing this I'll post the rest of the links that tells this argument to fuck off
>breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health
>authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/
>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/
b-but muh red meat largely a meme too.
>caloriesproper.com/red-meat-wont-kill-you-it-will-make-you-stronger/

Just posting links is not going to do anything to help your case. Google "appeal to authority." The fact that you're wrong and throwing links to substantiate your ridiculous claim is just making you look worse.

2 THICC pork slabs, cottage cheese, 2 eggs, and onyuns

Best breakfast itt dont even @me nigga

>the clear indicator that various people follow government standardized guidelines for diet and end up sick and fat because it's wrong.

You're confusing the fact that the government gives dietary guidelines with the idea that people base what they eat on what organizations say are healthy. The vast majority of people don't follow diet guidelines.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2937576/

The few who do are significantly better off

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24572039

> Everyone should be eating less sugar

Which is what people are advised by the USDA to do.

>The fat's not going to do anything to you.

That depends on what type of fat it is and what food it's coming from

30gram protein bar and 16 oz of green tea.

>You're confusing the fact that the government gives dietary guidelines with the idea that people base what they eat on what organizations say are healthy. The vast majority of people don't follow diet guidelines.

Can you please stop posting government links to try to prove your point. The entire food pyramid and the way it was set up was based on an ancient study which has been disproven multiple times. The sheer fact that they still tout that study despite the fact that so many carbs are killing people is direct evidence that you should not be listening to the government for advice. The entire food pyramid is flawed, and spamming government links as an appeal to authority is not proving your case because you are wrong.

vomitinganimegirl.jpg

You are like a little baby. Watch this:
>rump steak
>spinach
>3 hard-boiled eggs
>avocado
>chopped mushrooms
>chopped brazil nuts
>olive oil
>balsamic vinegar

>It's not the face value, it's the fact that it doesn't take into account the various factors that create heart disease

Of course it does. But why are you trying to remove saturated fat entirely from the discussion? Organizations that specialize in heart health will tell you to exercise, maintain a healthy weight, eat less salt, eat less sugar, stop smoking, in addition to eat less saturated and trans fats. You're trying to ignore any involvement of saturated fat in heart disease for some reason, like it just shouldn't even be mentioned.

>Blaming saturated fat intake for heart disease is like blaming oxygen for fire. It makes 0 fucking sense. The only reason the government recommends it for the population is because there is a direct link.

I'll restate what the basic issue is. Saturated fats raise the levels of LDL cholesterol in your bloodstream

bmj.com/content/314/7074/112.long

Life-long elevations in LDL promote arterial plaque Therefore, lowering the amount of saturated fat in your diet, which is possible unlike avoiding all oxygen to prevent fires, would likely give you lower cholesterol levels, which would make you less likely to develop heart disease, all other factors held constant. It's an easy, modifiable risk factor. With the fire analogy, it's more like saturated fats are gasoline. Maybe it's not the only thing that will cause a fire, but pouring flammable liquid everywhere makes it more likely to happen.

Bfast pt. 2 greek yogurt, bluballs, almonds(activated), a single strawberry, flaxseed, and coco powder

>Can you please stop posting government links to try to prove your point.

They're peer-reviewed medical journals. Should I post random internet blogs instead?

>Of course it does. But why are you trying to remove saturated fat entirely from the discussion? Organizations that specialize in heart health will tell you to exercise, maintain a healthy weight, eat less salt, eat less sugar, stop smoking, in addition to eat less saturated and trans fats. You're trying to ignore any involvement of saturated fat in heart disease for some reason, like it just shouldn't even be mentioned.

No, actually. I said the opposite. So why are you arguing then if you agree that saturated fat alone does not cause heart disease? On its own it doesn't do anything. You could drink a gallon of it a day and it wouldn't do a fucking thing if you're healthy.

a banana and 16 oz of skim milk and 3 scoops

EGGS CAUSE CANCER MORE THAN PROCESSED RED MEAT RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Source: Harvard Epidemiologists on 131,342 over decades

ergo-log.com/health-risks-high-protein-diet-negligible.html

No, you should stop doing an appeal to authority because it is by definition a logical fallacy and rub your own braincells together to come to a conclusion.

>So why are you arguing then if you agree that saturated fat alone does not cause heart disease?

I agree with that as in saturated fat isn't the only thing that raises heart disease risk

>On its own it doesn't do anything. You could drink a gallon of it a day and it wouldn't do a fucking thing if you're healthy.

That's where you get batshit crazy. Elevated LDL is, on its own, the central risk factor in atherosclerosis. If anything, high saturated fat intake in the absence of other risk factors is likely worse for heart disease risk than any other risk factor, with very low saturated fat, and more accurately low LDL.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603726/

>Atherosclerosis is easily produced experimentally in herbivores (monkeys, rabbits) by giving them diets containing large quantities of cholesterol (egg yolks) or saturated fat (animal fat). Indeed, atherosclerosis is one of the easiest diseases to produce experimentally, but the recipient must be an herbivore. It is not possible to produce atherosclerosis in carnivores (tigers, lions, dogs, etc.). In contrast, it is not possible to produce atherosclerosis simply by raising a rabbit's blood pressure or blowing cigarette smoke in its face for an entire lifetime.

>I agree with that as in saturated fat isn't the only thing that raises heart disease risk

Then that completely destroys your argument. Have a good day.

How?

>almonds(activated)
never gets old

>Just posting links is not going to do anything to help your case.
And not reading doesn't help yours
>The fact that you're wrong and throwing links to substantiate your ridiculous claim is just making you look worse.
What's worse is the fact that you're still going by how you 'feel', and posting shittily interpreted, bad science about sat fats. They
This entire demonization of meat/animal proteins fats started based off of pseudoscientific bullshit anyway and ignores both science, biology and the human historical record.
And this is bad science and a meme too. Same with meat/sat fats=heart disease/cancer/what ever other bullshit people what to say they do

>Lol fat and cholestorol don't do shit to you

What is that sentence supposed to offer?

>What's worse is the fact that you're still going by how you 'feel', and posting shittily interpreted, bad science about sat fats. They

Because I don't link to sources, it isn't true, right? You link to shitty government articles that state in conclusion "do not account for" etc. and then find their original conclusion. That is bad science, kid. All the information is out there if you really care to find it.

>This entire demonization of meat/animal proteins fats started based off of pseudoscientific bullshit anyway and ignores both science, biology and the human historical record.

Global scientific consensus is psuedoscience?

Argument ad populum, young child.

>Nobody credible thinks what I think is correct
>therefore, I must be right

You use the phrase "red pill" too don't you?

>Therefore, lowering the amount of saturated fat in your diet, which is possible unlike avoiding all oxygen to prevent fires, would likely give you lower cholesterol levels, which would make you less likely to develop heart disease, all other factors held constant.

You do realize that your body produces 3x more cholestorol than you can possibly eat, right?

Maybe save that for when someone brings up dietary cholesterol, although both dietary cholesterol and saturated fat (what we're talking about right now) influence blood cholesterol levels, both by stimulating extra cholesterol production and shutting off the receptors that transfer LDL particles out of the blood.

>Maybe save that for when someone brings up dietary cholesterol

Sorry I didn't know we could stop our body from producing something vital to our existence. I'll save it for then.

> And this is bad science and a meme too. Same with meat/sat fats=heart disease/cancer/what ever other bullshit people what to say they do

Dude this study by Harvard was done over decades and on 115,000 people. You need a better refutation than calling it a "meme".

Stop saying correlation=/=causation. Its impossible to prove causation when looking at milions of different people - each themselves a complex system. All you can do is find patterns and aim to follow the best ones.

>Stop saying correlation=/=causation. Its impossible to prove causation when looking at milions of different people - each themselves a complex system. All you can do is find patterns and aim to follow the best ones.

Which is exactly why you don't rely on studies like this to come to these conclusions because statistics only goes so far.

Here is one recent study that finds the opposite is true.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161202094340.htm

Of course LDL is vital, but you don't want so much that it starts building up in your artery walls. When you've got a concentration 2-3x higher than your body is meant to have, it causes problems. It's like how if you had 0 blood sugar, you'd be dead, but it would also be bad to have double what would be normal. With LDL, it's virtually impossible to have inadequate amounts, but extremely common to have too high levels.

>Of course LDL is vital, but you don't want so much that it starts building up in your artery walls.

That doesn't have anything to do with the fact that limiting it has an extremely minimal impact.

>Because I don't link to sources, it isn't true, right?
No if it's literally based in pseudoscience it isn't true
>That is bad science, kid. All the information is out there if you really care to find it.
>This level of projection
The info certainly is out there. And all you have to do is take a look the the links in this post to find where this pseudoscince came from
>Global scientific consensus is psuedoscience?
Veganism and vegetarianism are. And science certainly has my back way more more than it does yours about animal products/sat fats being fine for you
>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
If you want to claim they're credible then they should have done their science better.
I don't care how you 'feel' about this. i doesn't change the fact that this witch hunt of everything animal product is some of the worst "science" ever done

FFS. My study by Harvard was on 131,342 people over decades and you've refuted it with this study on 38 fucking people?!!?!?

And one of the lead people ends the article with

> ""Future studies should examine which people or patients may need to limit their intake of saturated fat," assistant professor Simon Nitter Dankel points out"

You are a total RETARD and I am DONE wasting my time 'debating' you

Clearly that's not a fact, as the links already provided show.

>sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/12/161202094340.htm

This is a small, short-term study about weight loss on two diets. Clickbait title aside, what are you really trying to say with this?

>Saturated fat has been thought to promote cardiovascular diseases by raising the "bad" LDL cholesterol in the blood. But even with a higher fat intake in the FATFUNC study compared to most comparable studies, the authors found no significant increase in LDL cholesterol

It was a study about weight loss. They were losing weight during the study and their LDL still managed to go up.

>You need a better refutation than calling it a "meme".
How about the fact that it does the same thing as all the other studies trying to say animal/sat fats/red meats=cancer and is based in the same shitty pseudoscience and ignorance

>sample size

>trying to find negative impact of x
>add variable which has a positive impact at the same time

...

If you're trying to find out if saturated fats have a negative effect you DON'T incorporate a calorie deficit, which on all levels, is objectively healthier for your heart and general health. Now you can't prove what the calorie deficit or the saturated fat did

A study =/ another study. It's not a matter of "statistics go so far". We can disregard studies that are poorly done, like yours. We can trust studies with less uncontrolled variables and bigger sample sizes

>if I throw around the word psuedoscience and act outraged about butter-dipped tendies being called unhealthy maybe someone will think I have an argument

>if I keep shitposting, not reading and ignoring that fact my arguments are based in pseudoscintific crap (which isn't "just" throwing around the word pseudoscience, this demonization is proven bunk) then maybe someone will think I have an argument

Your argument is a tangent about vegetarians on a supplement selling blog?

nigger post a fucking study supporting your arguments or fuck out of this thread, im not asking for your shitty clickbait blogs, people posted a ton of articles supporting the claim that eating unhealthy shit is indeed detrimental to your health, instead you post this like

which is a ridiculously dumb study, based on sample size and variables, and fails to accurately asses the health effects of saturated fat ALONE. Stop saying shit like "pseudoscience"

you say some dumb shit about negative effects of meat consumption being a "myth", so i'll just throw this. If you have a study with as big a sample size, with similar if not better conditions/controlled variables, post it

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307518

>There were 47 976 male deaths and 23 276 female deaths during 10 years of follow-up. Men and women in the highest vs lowest quintile of red and processed meat intakes had elevated risks for overall mortality. Regarding cause-specific mortality, men and women had elevated risks for cancer mortality for red and processed meat intakes. Furthermore, cardiovascular disease risk was elevated for men and women in the highest quintile of red and processed meat intakes

your claim:

>This entire demonization of meat/animal proteins fats started based off of pseudoscientific bullshit anyway and ignores both science, biology and the human historical record.

which is objectively wrong

also

>Veganism and vegetarianism are [pseudoscience]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/

less chances of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disease, and mortality with plant based diets

so again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and its pretty obvious considering you haven't posted shit defending your arguments

>Your argument is a tangent about vegetarians on a supplement selling blog?
And your argument is a description of my post that indicates you clearly didn't read a word of it.
>Stop saying shit like "pseudoscience"
Stop posting your bad science and shit arguments based in pseudoscience and I won't have to
>nigger post a fucking study supporting your arguments or fuck out of this thread
I did, several times how you 'feel' about them or whether you want to read them or not isn't my problem
>you say some dumb shit about negative effects of meat consumption being a "myth"
Because they are. They're based in pseudoscince and demonization with nothing to back them up.And you, along with many vegans and vegetarians want to desperately grasp onto anything you can just so you can believe it
>your claim
>This entire demonization of meat/animal proteins fats started based off of pseudoscientific bullshit anyway and ignores both science, biology and the human historical record.
>Veganism and vegetarianism are [pseudoscience]
You're linking to the wrong post. I claimed this and not only do I stand by it; it's fact with sources to back it it up. The history of both veganism and vegetarianism is chock full of pseudoscientific crap
>so again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and its pretty obvious considering you haven't posted shit defending your arguments
>This level of projection again

>And your argument is a description of my post that indicates you clearly didn't read a word of it.

My argument was part of the collection of published research papers posted in this thread. What am I supposed to glean from what you posted? Unless you meant to link to something else, it's just 3 blog posts about how dumb vegetarians are. What does that have to do with anything in this thread?

>want to desperately grasp onto anything you can just so you can believe it

So white meat and fish are all right?

Relative to red meat, they're better options

>What am I supposed to glean from what you posted?
Exactly what I posted. Your arguments are based in pseudoscience and now on top of that your only bringing up the studies you are to desperately latch onto meat and sat fats being the devil
>Unless you meant to link to something else, it's just 3 blog posts about how dumb vegetarians are.
How about you read my "3 blog posts again" as well as the rest of rest of the blog posts you ignored because I posted more than that
>What does that have to do with anything in this thread?
Your shitty arguments based in pseudoscience, and backed with flimsy reasoning and nonexistant connections between meat, animal proteins/fats and whatever adverse health effects you want to meme; the same bullshit with the same kind of ass backwards thinking that you always argue whenever this subject comes up
>projecting that I'm projecting
I didn't think you could come up with a shittier argument than you've been doing but I guess i was wrong.
>So white meat and fish are all right?
They along with red meat are fine for you. There isn't any "relative to red meat" to be had, like he wants to claim here . this demonization of all things animal product is based in pseudoscince and nonsense, with vegans/vegetarians doing any can just to believe it.