VEGANS: CONTINUALLY BTFO

citation needed

>Yeah bud I'm sure you're good at science.
>Projecting THIS hard
Also
>Yeah goy eat cheese, it has protein and calcium and it's good for the cows because if we didn't milk them they'd cry or something, and global warming (which is in part caused by the GHG emissions from animal agriculture) is a hoax!
>Good goy, eat your cheese

what is a control condition. any decent study has a control condition to make sure the effects are still relatively significant.

yeah thats why the fruit industry has a greater tendency to do them on normal people and vegetarians so they can overstate the effects, but whats the harm in that if people start eating blueberries or watermelons more often.

I bet you still do SS because """science""" says that full body training gives natties the best gains.

When will people realize that lifting is 100% broscience?
And what's wrong with using your own brain rather than just reading some shit and blindly parroting it?

their control is already at risk for heart disease in almost all of these studies that claim so and so has "no risk" its not an effective control at all.

>Implying global warming can be stopped
Hahahaha get over it climate change has happened we must deal with the repercussions. It could also not be man made, or could reverse itself, or could be fixed with sulphur seeding. Stop acting like global warming is a disease that can be cured.

Nah I do a routine based around back and diddlys, chest, and shoulders arms. Never done ss

The fruit industry? They don't have any malicious agenda, unlike the animal agriculture industry. If you don't believe me, watch Cowspiracy. Fruit is beneficial for health and has a combination of fiber, antioxidants, vitamins and minerals and phytochemicals that are beneficial. There is virtually zero harm in eating more fruit, basically you stand to benefit from eating more fruit.

>Sir you have lung cancer. Smoking is partly at fault along with other factors desu.
>Sick. Let me keep smoking then.

>Fruit industry has no malicious agenda
Hahahaha look into tropical plantations. Why do people put food on some kinda moral/religious pedastal?
>Implying two completely different diseases and substances make a congruent comparison.

Are you seriously denying the effects animal agriculture has on GHG emissions?

I'm denying that climate change is at all reverseable

How does a thread go from eating cheese to climate change? Wtf?

Also, how can climatefaggots shill so hard for it when the earth has undergone climate changes suddenly and without warning for millions of years before man even walked the earth? This has been proven by ice core samples.

When will the climate change meme end?

More interesting than what a study finds is how it finds it. Post the study itself, and we can look at it. Its funding sources don't seem promising for objective research though.

>The research was part-funded by the three pro-dairy groups – Global Dairy Platform, Dairy Research Institute and Dairy Australia

Better than a journalist for The Guardian whose job pretty much requires that they don't accurately report science in order to write more attention-grabbing articles

Are you denying the effects plant agriculture has on GHG emission?

Getting all your plants for your stupid diet all year around with giant containers from all over the world.

>Veeky Forums cant just admit dairy products are bad for you

Holy shit you think smokers swear up and down how cigarettes dont give them lung cancer? I drink whole milk because I think its delicious but I know its bad for me and I even have pretty bad bacne. I just dgaf because I like it more than I care about myself. You guys have the mental gymnastics of SJWs and are clinically retarded if you think dairy products are good for health

i drink whole milk literally every day multiple times a day and have zero acne anywhere m8

Correction shit genes and shit hygiene give you acne.

>Veeky Forums cant just admit dairy products are bad for you

Because they aren't. Historically cultures that ate milk and meat were always bigger and stronger than agriculture-based peoples.

The US uses 5 mm acres of land for plant production. It uses over 50 mm acres for animal agriculture. Plant based diet have far lower impact.

>Drink milk and eat meat for the first 25 years of your life
>Once your body and brain have fully developed, switch to a plant based diet

This is what I did and I'm happy with the choice.

>Dat sweet sweet IGF-1 and protein during puberty and growth years
>Dat sweet sweet low LDL, high fiber, and low chance of atherosclerosis as an adult

Best of both worlds.

>once you're in your physical prime become dyel

Pretty easy to maintain and grow slowly as a vegan with a good base built during puberty.

IGF-1 is dangerous as an adult. It will grow cancer cells. One should avoid dietary intake after puberty.

If growth is your only concern, go right ahead. If health is your concern after puberty, go vegan. I've been in a hospital bed for cancer and I'm going to do everything I can to ensure that I'm not feeding a dormant metastasis.

Wouldn't keto be the best health choice for you then. I fucking hate that diet but it certainly can be effective against cancer. I wonder how hard a vegan ketogenic diet would be. Avocados galore probably

>Wouldn't keto be the best health choice for you then. I fucking hate that diet but it certainly can be effective against cancer.

That's just bullshit.

Keto is literally the worst thing a person could ever do for their heart. Biggest meme diet ever. Atkins died of heart disease.

Look at the science, certain cancer types can only use glucose.

Fuck you for making me defend that shit. Keto =/= Atkins, that diet was literally retarded. You can be on a keto diet and stay healthy, you can probably be vegan as well with lots of nuts, seeds and legumes. Worth a try if you're actually diagnosed with cancer.

Yeah but you would need all that 50 mm and then some if everyone were vegan.

Found the study

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/1/158.full

As a quick example of the quality of studies they selected for their meta-analysis, the first study they chose for data on cheese and mortality was this

academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/119/5/775/125122/ASSOCIATION-BETWEEN-REPORTED-DIET-AND-ALL-CAUSE?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Can't find the full text, the abstract doesn't mention dairy, but it does point out that eggs and meat correlated with higher all-cause mortality. This was in the California Adventist population, so it's likely that with regard to dairy products, dairy intake was either similar in most people or represented the difference between vegetarians and non-vegetarians, with vegetarians having lower all-cause mortality. A lot of the studies used have problems like this, looking at people who eat lots of meat as well so that people who eat less meat and more dairy appear to have some risk reduction.

>Design: PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS were searched for articles published up to February 2010. Of >5000 titles evaluated, 17 met the inclusion criteria, all of which were original prospective cohort studies
xD

Just modify criteras until you find the right studies to back your (payed) opinion. That guardian article is about a new meta analysis though, yours is from 2011. Either way it doesn't link the actual study and it was funded by the dairy industry, 99% it's pure bullshit.

Disqualifying incongruous cohorts is the responsible thing to do on meta studies tho.

>Look at the science, certain cancer types can only use glucose.

That's not true but doesn't matter anyway because keto doesn't remove glucose from your blood. It's just a misleading thing keto promoters try to say.

aicr.org/enews/2016/01-january/enews-sugar-and-cancer.html

Ketones can help cancer grow and spread

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3507492/
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3047616/

>milk and milk products are bad for you
Can mudskin subhumans please leave?

>It is excess body fat that is convincingly linked to greater risk of ten types of cancer

The other 2 studies look at breast cancer specifically, I don't remember exactly but I think it helped against other froms of cancer. I actually don't really care I think keto diets are retarded and only useful as a treatment for the few diseases we know it works like epilepsy.

Why do you guys insist at grasping at every thread of science about cancer. These are all tiny little points if data and you following the right one to "prevent" cancer is less likely than hitting the mega millions Jack pot. There is no consensus of cancer causes in general and most particular cancers don't either in summation
>YOU CANNOT PREVENT CANCER AND IT WILL KILL YOU IF YOU LIVE LONG ENOUGH
It's the dumbest reason to go vegan.

There's brain neurogenesis, synaptogenesis, angiogenesis, and a prolonged myelination trajectory throughout the entire lifespan if you use it at all. The anabolic effects on the musculoskeletal and immune systems don't disappear after epiphyseal fusion either. Even in the elderly there's literature on positive effects with stuff like sarcopenia, pressure ulcers, infections, bone health, incidence of mental disorders and cognitive function. Trophism on EPCs and immune function might be especially important for Alzheimer's, which is now considered by experts like Tanzi and Zlokovic to be mediated mostly by a combination of low level neuroinfection and neurovascular damage.

Isocaloric substitution with protein tends to lower cholesterol (katancalculator.nl), IGF-1 has atheroprotective effects and upregulates hepatic LDLrs. In fact fiber positively regulates IGF-1 expression, so those aren't mutually exclusive. Almost every nutrient you can think of does too (notable omega 3s, potassium, zinc, selenium, b12) so why the obsession with protein restriction exclusively?

Effects on cancer depend on the type and species-specific susceptibility. Can actually be counterproductive because AAR can stimulate compensatory growth signaling like the ATF4/VEGF pathway. Also reduced immunosurveillance. For total incidence in humans, genetically low IGF-1 tends to slightly increase all-cause mortality, so it's hard to understand the argument here as well.

>Historically cultures that ate milk and meat were always bigger and stronger than agriculture-based peoples.
Source: your ass

Eating meat has never been proven to cause health problems.

Vegans are faggots that spread their bullshit the way liberals spread bullshit about racism.

It's 100% always unsupported by evidence and 100% influenced by whose dick you sucked that morning.

Don't listen to vegans and definitely don't listen to liberals.

Guess thats why the world is run by brown people...

acsh.org/news/2017/04/12/move-over-dutch-men-herzegovinians-may-be-tallest-world-11122

Here's the actual paper for those interested

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28374228

Is that why every non-white person that enters America cries about the injustices of white men?

Or is there a conspiracy afoot?

Yeah we sneak dairy into their food and it cripples them with cramps and bloating so they can't keep up with the rat race because they are always running to the toilet.

What
>>>Historically always [...]
>>Source: your ass
>[One cherrypicked example as "historically always"]
Kek you didn't even try now did you

>Relationship between male height and the ‘protein index’ (the ratio between high-quality proteins from dairy and pork, and low-quality proteins from wheat) in 46 countries of Europe and overseas
>>One cherrypicked example

You're dumb

Dairy, specifically cheese consumption, helped whites logistically conquer the world through the age of discovery and from then on.

what the researchers said:
>random nutrition study #255024 on dairy metabolism yields inconclusive results
what the media reports:
>shocking study finds that eating cheese wont kill you!
what shitposters on Veeky Forums make of it:
>vegans BTFO how will they ever recover

sensationalist reporting by garbage media is dragging science's reputation into the gutter.
in the current state of journalism, you can pretty much disregard any and all press coverage of scientific matters - more often than not they are either actively trying to mislead their audience by misrepresenting the studies they reference, or they are just incompetent buffoons who don't have a fucking clue about what the studies actually say, and over-interpret them to fit their own personal biases.

?????? Why are you pretending to know how to interpret research studies when you clearly have no fucking clue what you're talking about