THE KETO FAGS WILL OUT LIVE THE VEGANS

Low-fat diets could raise the risk of early death by almost one quarter, a major study has found.
The Lancet study of 135,000 adults found those who cut back on fats had far shorter lives than those enjoying plenty of butter, cheese and meats.

European Society of Cardiology Congress, in Barcelona found those with low intake of saturated fat raised chances of early death by 13 per cent compared to those eating plenty.

And consuming high levels of all fats cut mortality by up to 23 per cent.

Researcher Dr Andrew Mente, from McMaster University, said: “Our data suggests that low fat diets put populations at increased risk for cardiovascular disease.

telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/29/low-fat-diet-linked-higher-death-rates-major-lancet-study-finds/

VEGANS BTFO

Other urls found in this thread:

amazon.com/Art-Science-Low-Carbohydrate-Performance/dp/0983490716/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1504926933&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=the art and science of low carbohydrat
huffingtonpost.com/entry/diet-and-health-puzzling-past-paradox-to-pure-understanding_us_59a81d10e4b02498834a8f27
sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-of-replacing-fat-with-high-carb-intake/
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016844
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/
journals.plos.org/plosone
authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/
authoritynutrition.com/saturated-fat-good-or-bad/
chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy/
uib.no/en/node/103172
healthline.com/nutrition/5-studies-on-saturated-fat
bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/31/bjsports-2016-097285
press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/05/bcfa-gut-health-immunity-cancer.html
breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health
time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/
livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html
livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html
chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html?zx=19c1d9e7ae7f06a5
suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/01/true-or-false-dairy-is-toxic-hormone.html
sciencedrivennutrition.com/hormones-milk/
suppversity.blogspot.com/2013/12/dairy-good-bad-or-ugly-latest-studies.html
suppversity.blogspot.com/2016/07/cheese-your-health-cvd-cancer-metabolic.html
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2011.10719992
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The vegans fear the β-hydroxybutyrate

I want to stick my dick in that butter while I stuff my every orifice with butter

damn its almost like humans evolved to metabolize high energy foods really made me think

elaborate

bupgers prevent kill

>amazon.com/Art-Science-Low-Carbohydrate-Performance/dp/0983490716/ref=sr_1_sc_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1504926933&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=the art and science of low carbohydrat

β-hydroxybutyrate are the main ketone bodies used by cells to produce ATP.

No militant vegans yet. Should I start roleplaying?

>Woah dude processed sugar is bad? no way.
Did u even read the article?

...

The vast majority of vegans and first time vegans over consume sugars and breads and fruits and junk.
Why?
The satiety from meat and fat is gone.

It's such a stupidly misrepresented study

huffingtonpost.com/entry/diet-and-health-puzzling-past-paradox-to-pure-understanding_us_59a81d10e4b02498834a8f27

The study was basically about the diet differences between rich people and poor people. Richer people can afford fatty foods, poorer people rely on white rice and other cheap processed foods. Poorer people have a much higher rate of death from all causes than more well-off people, separate from whatever effect their diet has.

What are you talking about? fatty foods are cheap as shit. You can bulk buy fatty frozen meat for dirt cheap and you can easily live on $45 a week. The expensive shit is avocado and cheese which is optional.

> fatty foods are cheap as shit.

You live in America

but fat is 35%~ of my calories

Do the rich who eat fatty foods on the regular have higher mortality?
Because people in other countries who have to subsist on mostly vegan and fished foods and are active out of necessity tend to live very well and long.

I think modern strict veganism is a ploy and people would die from it more then people who eat a relatively clean omni diet.

>huffington post

This isn't /r/cuckold

Piss off.

>Do the rich who eat fatty foods on the regular have higher mortality?

They tend not to because their lives are less stressful and they can afford medical care. The poor live in squalor and die more of infectuous disease or work-related accidents. The countries they looked at included places like Zimbabwe and Bangladesh. The differences in what they eat are less important than why they eat it.

I was trying to find some silly-billy study proving that low fat diets led to longer life, but I kept finding the same study you found.

OP, you serious? That shit study has been debunked several times already.

Not that I like vegans or anything, but I don't think most of them eat low-fat. They still eat nuts and include oil in their diet.

sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-of-replacing-fat-with-high-carb-intake/

There's no such thing as easy stress eating in the nations you mention user.
But I would like to see a real fair study done on healthy vegans healthy keto people and healthy omnivores who are all living relatively healthy stress free lives and exercise frequently.

Not this bullshit where they compare vegans who have a regimented healthy active life and the average obese fast food eater.

>implying chad does some autistic diet like keto
>implying chad doesn't live off pizza, wings, and beer all while having a better body than you ketofags could ever hope to attain

>There's no such thing as easy stress eating in the nations you mention user.

Obviously some people have it harder than others. If you're so poor that the only food you can afford is a sack of rice after working an 18 hour day harvesting cocao while your wife is dying of malaria at home and your children are malnourished with stunted growth, you've got more stress than the guy who has enough money to buy adequate food and other comforts.

In India for example, one of the countries used in the study, people with the least amount of assets had a 300% increased mortality risk compared to those with the highest journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016844

>But I would like to see a real fair study done on healthy vegans healthy keto people and healthy omnivores who are all living relatively healthy stress free lives and exercise frequently.

This is probably the closest we have to that.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/

>Not this bullshit where they compare vegans who have a regimented healthy active life and the average obese fast food eater.

This doesn't really happen either. I don't know where people get that idea. For one, you'd never see people not matched for at the very least BMI and physical activity in a study, and there's nothing about a vegan diet that requires people to be physically active or even to eat healthy foods. People who are active or interested in healthy eating are more likely to eat something more lauded like the mediterranean diet, and eat fish and chicken.

>Obviously some people have it harder than others. If you're so poor that the only food you can afford is a sack of rice after working an 18 hour day harvesting cocao while your wife is dying of malaria at home and your children are malnourished with stunted growth, you've got more stress than the guy who has enough money to buy adequate food and other comforts.
>In India for example, one of the countries used in the study, people with the least amount of assets had a 300% increased mortality risk compared to those with the highest journals.plos.org/plosone

That doesn't actually mean anything. They have less access to meat and are more active then people who do have meat.
They do not live longer and the people who have access to meat don't live too much better in india anyway. Unless you're pretending that the top 1% means fucking anything there and not including people who simply have more access to meat and have an american equivalent middle class life.

>This is probably the closest we have to that.
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4073139/
Inflamatory title and it uses the adventists study.
The adventists who've been outed as lying about the relative health of the members of their organization for long as fuck years.
This not, in any way, what I ask for.

>This doesn't really happen either.
user, this is exactly what happens when veganism is compared to omnivorous eating. There has never been an even half decent controlled study done ever.

...so just eat vegan, but don't be a 90/5/5 or 80/10/10 fruity hippy, chow down that tempeh burger and the peanut butter. Got it
>people would die from it more then people who eat a relatively clean omni diet.
>Idiots who can't put 2 and 2 together will die
About time, I'd like the world to drop a 20-40% in population

>be me
>start on pic related
>the moment you forgo vegetable oils
>and increase meats
>energy suddenly spikes
>have trouble sleeping because of so much energy
>have to start meditative sessions and prepare to deal with increased energy levels over longer term just to be able to sleep again.

whew, very neat.

>They have less access to meat and are more active then people who do have meat.

I don't know what you're thinking of as activity, but the poor in Bangladesh are not going on leisurely jogs. The study wasn't even necessarily on diet-related outcomes. All-cause mortality can be anything from a heart attack to dying of AIDS. Any way you want to look at it, being poor is itself a major risk factor for death from all causes, and animal foods and fat are strongly associated with increased wealth.

>Inflamatory title and it uses the adventists study.
>The adventists who've been outed as lying about the relative health of the members of their organization for long as fuck years.

Any info on that you can send my way?

>user, this is exactly what happens when veganism is compared to omnivorous eating. There has never been an even half decent controlled study done ever.

Show me one study about anything diet-related that doesn't match participants by BMI and physical activity.

>cringe thread

Chad just naturally ends up with keto, he doesn't need to watch what he eats. His instincts take care of it.

>the title offends me
>the study is therefore wrong

>pizza
>keto
pick one

>bupgers

fuckin kekd

This research paper that you speak of, was released in 2015. The researcher himself never said that low fat diet will kill you. What he said is, that "Low fat diet is not particularly effective in fighting CVD because it is difficult to sustain". What you did, or whoever wrote this article, is took the first part of the sentence and thought: Since "low fat diet is bad for CVD" then that means that "High-fat diet is good for CVD"! And since milk,diary,meat have loads of fats - "milk, meat, cheese are therefore good". The fact that CVD is a disease that can kill you - there comes the final statement:

"Low fat diet can kill you"

This is called data/info manipulation. And this article you wrote is not genuine and truthful to the original paper.

Overall there is better research on CVD that is able to proof how much a human can benefit from a high carb low fat diet.

We must be outside their business hours. Give the v*gans some time to sign in at VIDF headquarters

You're dumb. The research this refers to was published last month on THE LANCET.

>i didn't read the study

bro... im on keto myself. all i can say is it works for me but it doesnt mean it works for you. veganism doesnt work for me cause its malnutrition but it works for a few others. my problem is that vegans mostly spread lies and false facts to underminde their bullshit ideology. keto is red pilled nutrition, your body is much more effective while being in ketosis

>i didn't read the study
>Contrary to popular belief, consuming a higher amount of fat (about 35 per cent of energy) is associated with a lower risk of death compared to lower intakes. However, a diet high in carbohydrates (of more than 60 per cent of energy) is related to higher mortality, although not with the risk of cardiovascular disease.
>The research on dietary fats found that they are not associated with major cardiovascular disease, but higher fat consumption was associated with lower mortality; this was seen for all major types of fats (saturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and mono unsaturated fats), with saturated fats being associated with lower stroke risk. The researchers point out that, while this may appear surprising to some, these new results are consistent with several observational studies and randomized controlled trials conducted in Western countries during the last two decades.
>The large new study, when viewed in the context of most previous studies, questions the conventional beliefs about dietary fats and clinical outcomes, says Mahshid Dehghan, the lead author for the study and an investigator at PHRI.
>authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
>authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/
>authoritynutrition.com/saturated-fat-good-or-bad/
>chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy/
>uib.no/en/node/103172
>healthline.com/nutrition/5-studies-on-saturated-fat
>bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/31/bjsports-2016-097285
>press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
>suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/05/bcfa-gut-health-immunity-cancer.html
>breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health

>Richer people can afford fatty foods
over here high grade olive oil is about twice as expensive as the cheapest pasta per calorie.
Do you live in some third world country where fat doesn't exist or what?

>avoid GMO
good goy

>over here
>Do you live in some third world country

So you have no idea what the study was about.

We investigated the influence of socioeconomic status and poverty using four different measures of socioeconomic status to adjust in the analysis of the associations between different nutrient intakes and total mortality and cardiovascular disease events. These were household wealth, household income, education, and economic level of the country subdivided by urban and rural locations. When we included education in the models, the estimates of association were robust. Additionally, we adjusted for study centre as a random effect which takes into account socioeconomic factors and clustering by community. When we reanalysed the data using household income, household wealth, or economic level of the country our results were unchanged

>When it comes to assessing diet, we can statistically adjust mortality rates for income and education between urban Canadians and whose lifestyles are somewhat similar, but not between the rich and poor in Asia or an African country, or even worse, statistical adjustments when lumping Canadians with the rich and poor of a place like India.

>Avoid legumes

Wow the opinion of a vegan orthopedic surgeon who didn't even have access to the dataset versus hundreds of researchers who did the study and the entire lancet editorial board

It's amazing how far vegans will go to defend the epidemiology they like and dismiss anything else they disagree with

Statistical adjustment isn't magic. There are limits to what you can do with it. The scope was so broad in this study with the range of countries they used, it would be impossible to do accurately, especially in cross-country comparisons.

>the limit goes all the way to my bias and not one step further
k

Realize that we're talking about a study including countries like Zimbabwe, Malaysia, and Iran. The differences between the richer and poorer are not small enough to be adjusted out that simply.

You should read this article

People love hearing good news about their bad habits.

First world people live longer than third world people.

Such a news flash.

This data is trash.

The hundreds of researchers who did the study and the Lancet evidently disagree
A Katz op-ed which would invariably be citing and defending the study if the results conformed to his alternative medicine organization's beliefs is not an argument

It doesn't matter how many researchers were involved in data collecting, and the editors of The Lancet or any other journal aren't required or expected to make sure a paper adjusts its data in the best possible way.

To ignore the context of the associations and use this paper to say "ketofags live longer" would be extremely dishonest.

and the overwhelming data says they do not. this was paid for by Meat Shills anyways. all kinds of headline grabbing jewry here.

>To be quite clear about it, there was no adjustment for, or even mention of, access to a hospital or medical care in the PURE papers.
>The researchers examined the replacement of carbohydrate as percentage of calories, with fat as a percentage of calories, but did not report variation in total calories, or the degree to which very high intake of carbohydrate as a percent of that total correlated with very low calorie intake overall, and malnutrition. Looking across the several papers, it is apparent that correlation is strong. There was also no examination of what replacing one kind of fat with another did to health outcomes, a kind of dietary variation that might have more to do with choice, and less to do with socioeconomics.

>Also, by way of reminder: the HIGHEST levels of both total fat, and saturated fat intake observed in the PURE data were still LOWER then prevailing levels in the U.S. and much of Europe, providing no basis whatsoever for headlines encouraging people already exceeding these levels to add yet more meat, butter, and cheese to their diets

>he doesnt down a gallon of extra fatty quark with a jar of hazelnut spread every morning
you rpobably think this is a joke but i actually do this

>believing humans are even supposed to eat animal products
>not realizing that if humans were suppoed to eat meat, then we'd have carnivorous instincts and eat the fur, organs, and entirety of the animal.
>not realizing that consuming another animal's milk is completely unnatural and the process speaks for itself

i like my beans, potatoes and bread. :)

>b-b-but we need fat from animal products !!!
non-vegans BTFO

I'm sympathetic to you but images like that don't help your message

>believing humans are even supposed to eat animal products
>not realizing that if humans were suppoed to eat meat, then we'd have carnivorous instincts and eat the fur, organs, and entirety of the animal.
>What are organ meats
Also we do and have. And.
>time.com/4252373/meat-eating-veganism-evolution/
>livescience.com/23671-eating-meat-made-us-human.html
>livescience.com/24875-meat-human-brain.html
>People who read books know a fact that vegetarians do not- that at one point in history, the Earth's total population of humans dropped to between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals, due to the eruption of Mt. Toba in Sumatra, which killed off most of the available plant and animal life on Earth in 71,000 BC. During this period of time, humans were confined to an
>extraordinarily small area of Africa that escaped glaciation, where they subsisted on a diet that was "approximately 50-70% meat and 50-30% plants, respectively." This diet was necessitated by the die-off of plants and animals, and the lack of a varied diet that could have been otherwise obtained though plant gathering. It was at this time that the Neanderthal diet came to consist of naught but meat, due to the complete lack of availability of edible vegetation, which likely lasted for at least 1000 years.(Plants/climate)
>chaosandpain.blogspot.com/2010/07/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as.html?zx=19c1d9e7ae7f06a5
>(cont.)

>memescience

Veeky Forums is so fucking lame now that plebbit normies have flooded it

Overadjustment is easily grounds for rejection
Peer-review of hundreds with direct access to the data is more valuable than someone just emptily claiming it's improperly adjusted without nonetheless not even making any kind of rigorous statistical argument based on it
Literally every diet cult is being extremely dishonest about this study

that theory only works if there was one human species, there wasn't. debunked and dunked

>(cont.)
>not realizing that consuming another animal's milk is completely unnatural and the process speaks for itself
>Ignoring history and evolution even more
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/01/true-or-false-dairy-is-toxic-hormone.html
Also doubt the"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.
>sciencedrivennutrition.com/hormones-milk/
>suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/05/bcfa-gut-health-immunity-cancer.html
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2013/12/dairy-good-bad-or-ugly-latest-studies.html
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2016/07/cheese-your-health-cvd-cancer-metabolic.html
>tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2011.10719992

All of this is only true if you're a shitskin

>you're not a baby cow. Humans are the only species on the planet that drinks the milk of another species

Like cats? I give my cats milk all the time. Dogs? Yup, they love that shit too. All mammals love milk and only stop drinking it because their mothers stop producing it.

Predators constantly kill pregnant mammals and you bet your ass they tear open those delicious udders and drink anything inside.

Lactose intolerance is a disease

Cheese being compared to heroine or something

>No one can be this retarded

Humans eat organs you fuckwad.
Also, why are our digestive tracts so short compared to herbivores? Why do we lack the same amount of protective enamel as herbivores?

Maybe humans are OMNIvores you fucking IDIOT. Your food privilege has blinded you to the realities of existence. You are such a massive faggot it's incomprehensible.

>This level of not reading

No other animal naturally eats food from completely different environments either. By that logic, anyone born in Europe shouldn't ever eat a kiwi. Potato? Not for Irish, those are from South America.

Maybe food and its constituent nutrients are just that; amalgams of nutrients in carbohydrate, protein, and fat latices that are melted down by the hydrochloric acid in our stomachs to their smallest forms for the bacteria in our guts.

You all are beyond helping.

>Overadjustment is easily grounds for rejection

It happens all the time. In this case it's more underadjustment though. The journal doesn't tell them "you better adjust for hospital access," they just make sure the authors' adjustments were calculated correctly.

Keto+IF+monthly 3 days and semi-annual 5 day master race reporting in

What have you all done today to ensure the reversal of the damage the modern diet and sugar have caused to you while also ensuring a strong body and will?

>The Lancet only cares about syntactical validity not semantics
>their model is overadjusted because fruits and vegetables don't show enough of an effect I like and underadjusted because macronutrients don't show an effect I like

The journal isn't the one who decides how the data is adjusted, that's the study authors' job. Very few papers would get published if journals had strict requirements like that.

t. hindawi author

>keto + IF

Could you be any more of a walking meme?

Holy shit, people on this board are so fucking autistis, I also bet you're fat as fuck.

you come off as the guy that shits up the /fat/ threads and tells them to take tren+clen

>2 servings of meat
>A day
>"Only"
What the fuck? Is this normal in America?

But a vegan diet isn't necessarily a low fat diet.

Yes, are you poor?

If by "poor" you mean planning to not get killed by my shitty diet in less than 30 years, then yes, I am poor

You'd know, you've completely cut off cheese, haven't you?

>Brainlets still publicizing the PURE study.

Just go back to your shitty fad diet that will kill you in your forties. You're obviously too stupid to resist supplement marketing, why would we expect you not to fall for shit science propagated by meat, dairy, and egg industries?

>the supplement, meat, dairy, and egg industries propagate shit science
>my vegan studies are flawless and perfect, buy my vegan cookbook

>science says bad things about animal products
>mommy make the bad man stop

Yeah man, Big Spinach is behind all this fake science

Please tell me how you're going to consume a large amount of fat when all you've got to eat are vegetables, fruit, and legumes?

not the guy youre replying to, but vegans tend to compare vegans/vegetarians vs normal people.

Vegans and vegetarians are generally more health concious, and are less likely to be low income individuals. The average guy has a horrible diet and do not exercise.

Comparing the average diet to anything will make any other diet look good. That doesnt mean the other diet is the best for optimal health and longevity.

>Vegans only eat vegetables, fruit and legumes
>what are nuts, seeds, peanuts (legume), avocado (fruit) and oils (from fruit, like olives for example)
user, I...

Don't be a fat blob and eat an entire pizza by yourself and yeah, you can eat pizza while on keto.

>i mislabel my stupid views as science and if real science doesn't conform them then it's not science at all!
absolutely disgusting

...

Strawman means that I mistepresented your argument.
Your argument was that veganism and vegan science is backed by some weird ulterior motive, which you didn't disclose of course because you're full of shit.
I made fun of you, so I won that internet argument with logic while not committing any fallacy in the meantime. Take that, random internet stranger.

> Nordic compatible food pyramid
> banned: potatoes
> encouraged : Kefir, Kombucha,
What?

>dat non-existent reading comprehension
It's okay, dude. You can stop praising me as the winner now.

>Still not listing the supposed motive behind veganism
>Implying all the activists and doctors who promote it have books to sell
>Implying that the cow industry jew wants what's good for you
>Implying the (((blogbosts))) you cite don't cite as their references (((books I have to buy from amazon)))
Y A W N
A
W
N

Because nuts, seeds, coconut (personal fave), and olive oil don't come from animals, you're welcome for letting you in the know. :^)

Keep pretending we don't get enough nutrients and you'll never convince a good vegan. Find a way to prove eating meat is a legitimately superior way to get nutrients and health benefits.

This is false- it's a broscience myth that needs to stop. In fact, there are some studies that show vegans with low fiber in their diet aren't particularly healthy. They're called junk food vegans- they're vegan for moral reasons and they are generally the ones the the low measurements of vitamins and minerals that are pointed to by all main stream supplement hawks/keto/paleo/atkins fad diet pushers as reasons vegan diets are unhealthy. Junk food vegans are the ones eating fake pizzas, fake meats, and fake substitutes of the standard american diet- rather than fruits and vegetables- as evidence by their low fiber intake, and the foods they report eating.

There's even a study that puts couch potato vegans against ultra marathon runners to find comparable bmi and the vegans still have less atherosclerosis.

Exercise is good for you, but not as good at eating a ton of fruits, veg, beans, nuts, and seeds- because your body is efficient at expending energy- it's hard to out exercise your mouth. Going up 70 flights of steps in 20 minutes only burns about 3 oreos worth of calories.

We have plenty of studies to control for these factors you're pointing to. Yes, anyone concerned about their health and making an effort to exercise and "eat right" will fare better than those eating the standard American diet- but no that's not what you're seeing when vegans are compared to other non-vegan populations. Even when you control for exercise, even when you control for calories- vegans simply out perform omnivores in health outcomes like diabetes, obesity, cancer, and cardiovascular disease.

>There's even a study that puts couch potato vegans against ultra marathon runners to find comparable bmi and the vegans still have less atherosclerosis.

Ultra marathons runners arent peak of healthy, They get a lot of health/injury issues due to their excess training

And exercise(lifting with some cardio) will bring more health benefits than any diet can.
And from the studies ive seen there is no difference between health councious meat eaters, vegans and vegetarians in terms of health and longevity.

People in the "blue zones" (people with the highest % of people above 100 yrs) in the world have meat in their diets.

>I shift the burden of proof
>I couldn't pass a psych 101 course explaining allegiance and ideological biases
>I can only shit-fling memes and personal attacks because my low IQ only allows for a low level pop sci understanding of the field
>I project my utilization of unscientific sources onto others
and this is why reddit must stay in reddit