Is this game over for meatcucks?

> higher circulating IGF1 causing cancer
> down regulation of growth hormone due to higher circulating IGF1
> lower test
> ruined arteries

is this finally the end?

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22044848
cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/2/177.short
penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism_writings/translations/voisikoelamavoittaa_translation/III - Animal Rights/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

kek

meatcucks cucking both their health and their gainz

is this legit?

yes

meatcucks are killing themselves

Vegans have higher test because their bodies don't use it for anything.
Everything you need test for is basically shut off.
Sex, muscle building, healing, all of it. Off.

As for IGF...it's because vegans are technically starving. Their bodies can't get all of the nutrients they need from the plants they eat. So their in a perpetual state of low calorie eating and dieting.

A clean omnivorous diet where fasting and intermittent fasting is the norm is in every way superior to a vegan diet.

C O P E

t. low test meatcuck

My doctor told me genetic factors are far more likely to be the cause of any disease you get, stuff like diet/exercise can help swing it either way, but if you're genetically predisposed to having a problem, the chances of diet/exercise fixing it aren't anywhere near as high as exercise/diet guru's would claim it is.

Just take a look at figures for lung cancer, you'll be surprised to find a huge percentage of people who die from it aren't smokers, but the gurus would make you believe lung cancer is just 100% caused by smoking and that you could easily avoid it by not smoking. Yeah okay tell that to the millions upon millions of people who get lung cancer without having touched a smoke in their life.

Nice arguments you vegan pieces of shit get the fuck out of here with your meme diet

>my doctor

stopped reading there

bruh your argument is a load of unsubstantiated nonsense

COPE'y Bryant

C O P E

user...there's no such thing as a big or strong or sexually voracious vegan.
Every vegan athlete, even with ridiculous amounts of gear have dropped in performance once they adopt a vegan lifestyle.

The test seems to only build up and does absolutely nothing in the body except prevent what muscle you do have from wasting away.

As for IGF, it's from eating vegan and your body simply not having enough nutrients and calories overall.

Take a look at IF and Fasting. The same positives that happen for a vegan diet happen in a similarly healthy organic omnivorous diet with an IF and occasional Fasting eating pattern.

intense cope

the never ending C O P E

lel

yes smoking has nothing to do with lung cancer

vegans could increase their IGF1 if they wanted to

but only a brainlet would want to

Christ the cope

lol the cope

>19 replies
>10 posters
Samefaggin this hard jesus
I dont even oppose veganism but this is ridiculous, fuck off

did you actually read that paper, OP?
The vegans had higher sex-hormone binding globulin which results in no difference in free testosterone.
But really the biggest issue is the age difference. The meat eaters where on average 10 years older than the vegans and we already know that T drops with age. Also, IGF-1 acts to protect the musculoskeletal system as you age. You are essentially saying that vegans are only maybe as healthy as meat eaters who are 10 years older.

>Sex, muscle building, healing, all of it. Off.
>fugg :D gf regularly, arms and chest growing, healing is absolutely fine
wut mah man would you kindly be talkerino about?

you clearly didn't read it because the reason for higher test is

'SHBG was significantly higher in the vegans than in the meateaters, leading to a corresponding increase in T in order to maintain constant levels of FT, a pattern which has been found in previous smaller observational studies'

C_O_P_E

You clearly didn't read it.
Even in the abstract it says "Vegans had higher testosterone levels than vegetarians and meat-eaters, but this was offset by higher sex hormone binding globulin, and
there were no differences between diet groups in free testosterone"

look at the numbers brah

vegans have higher free test

The difference isn't statistically significant

Vegans actually have higher free test because of increased insulin activity, which lowers SBGH. Thus explaining why a ketogenic diet, in the long run, increases total testosterone, but morons overlook free testosterone (insulin sensitivity is impaired). Irrespective, the difference in testosterone doesn't make a huge deal when it comes to building muscle, and heck women can stimulate as much MPS as men, as can hypogondal men. The difference must be satellite cell related, though there is debate on the topic, and shit, IGF-1 is heavily debated and even dubbed as 'irrelevant growth factor 1' when we talk about muscle growth, unless we focus on paracrine IGF-1.

Bottom line fact is, stop obsessing other testosterone, doesn't matter nearly as much as a fully grown adult, unless you are hypogondal, in which case there is blunting of MPS to an extent, and of course satellite cell proliferation and myonuclear domain donation, thus leading to reduced hypertrophy, and above all else it's more the fact that being hypogondal affects energy, neural strength factors, and your state of mind, which therefore affects your ability to train and elicit a stimulus (oh also connective tissue growth will suck). Other than that, if you're normophysiological, then shut the fuck up and lift, vegan, omnivore, keto only, whatever the fuck. Just lift, get stronger. Get bigger.

Also, increased systematic IGF-1 is indeed related to cancers and is in no way related to increased muscle mass bar during development (that being from prenatal years to adolescence, ending once you're a fucking grown ass man).

Conflicting results in other literature too, is it insulin related, is it cholesterol related? Dunno, why don't we do a RCT with vegans versus meat eaters and put them on statins, see what happens.

Guys, testosterone isn't that important for muscle if you're WITHIN normal range. Take it to supraphysiological levels and of course you fuckign build muscle

also onion doesnt increase significantly testosterone in humans
but this is Veeky Forums
welcome

Irrespective, it means nothing if it doesn't translate to real world performance, be in strength, size, speed, or endurance!

Why does everyone on Veeky Forums obesses over T? I get it if you're on gear, and I am myself, but jheeze if you're natural and confirmed not hypogondal, your issue isn't T related, it's fucking training, diet, and work ethic. Fuck, everyone on here is DYEL and only lifted max 3 years.

I know it's not clear who posts what here but I've essentially been arguing that the paper that the OP pointed to doesn't really show anything substantial

I feel like the onion knights would say that there isn't enough information about that to say one way or the other given that all they have is one guy eating it for one month. Or at least I hope they would say that and not just use that one guy as definitive evidence.

OP post is mainly about IGF1 which significantly increases your chance of dying from cancer.

the test shit is secondary

how do i get highter levels of SBGH

Low IGF-1 also increases your chance of cancer as well as increasing your chance of cardiovascular death

citation needed

"Both low and high serum IGF-I levels associate with cancer mortality in older men."

>CONCLUSIONS:
Our findings demonstrate that both low and high serum IGF-I levels are risk markers for increased cancer mortality in older men. Moreover, low IGF-I levels associate with increased CVD mortality.

"The association of serum insulin-like growth factor-I with mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer in the elderly: a population-based study."

>CONCLUSIONS:
Results suggest a U-shaped relationship between IGF-I level and mortality, with fatal CVD as the most critical outcome in community-dwelling older persons.

That's not new news. You can lower systemic IGF-1 by doing aerobic exercise, and more over, the role is plays. In a normal, 'healthy' population, yes a Vegan diet is probably better. In an athlete that trains, the increase in systemic IGF-1, which is non significant, likely correlates with an increase in binding protein of IGF-1 and its actions are probably restricted more to joints, as opposed to causing metatasis.

My point being; don't use scientific lit which looks in a normal/diseased population if you are a in a specific population; that being, an athletic population. OP post is therefore redundant to me.

However, given the clear fact that Veeky Forums doesn't even lift and is mostly overweight and probably fits that 'normal population', then I suspect it does indeed apply to them, and they should either do more exercise, eat less, and follow healthier lifestyles, or do that in conjunction with becoming vegan. Whichever is easier.

Pick up a phys and endo book and have a look yourself. I'm a clinical genetics scientist, not a specalised endo medic. I did one year on applied phys, anatomy & phys, and endocrinology, I know how to read lit but I'm not an expert on it.

But I do know one way, inject shit tons of testosterone, like me, because then your SBGH, like mine, goes fucking sky high.

Again; population specific. This is in the elderly. Furthermore, it's one study. I haven't gone doing a search myself but unless it's a decently put together metanalyses, it could just be stochastic effects. Also, are you elderly, and is there any elderly people on this board? If not, why are you using it as an example?

vegans overwhelmingly are less prone to cancer

anyone who denies that is just a brainlet at this point

>Written with open mouth

You're not really following our discussion. I was pointing out how the paper from the OP isn't really relevant, you can say that IGF-1 changes but trying to pin that change down to a single outcome is difficult. Additionally, I already pointed out the age issues in an earlier post. What I've been saying is that the OP post isn't useful

Okay, brainlet.

In what population? Normal, elderly, young, diseased, athletic?

Wait; what if athleticism decreases the risk of cancer irrespective of diet?

For example, carr et al., may have found an increased risk of colorectal cancer, if my memory serves me right, with lamb and beef (not pork or poultry though) but this was in a normal population. How does this stand in a population of fitness enthusiasts who calorie restrict, lift heavy, and do endurance cardio based exercise?

it's well known that both animal and soy protein increase igf1

see

>it's well known that both animal and soy protein increase igf1
so?

Kinda hard to when there's about 6 responses talking about cucks and meat lol, but fair play. Completely agree, it's a pointless and silly paper. OP is shitposting and has very poor scientific knowledge (can't critically analyse a paper)

Have you not read the recent studies proving that people with higher cholesterol have a lower chance of heart failure? I guess you haven’t yet, leafcuck.

Haha yeah, I know everything gets a bit confused. But it's good seeing some considered posts in response to the nonsense that gets posted

stop larping as an expert, you have no idea what you're talking about

Red meat directly causes cancer. We even know how some of the mechanisms work

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22044848

cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/2/177.short


'heme iron can catalyze endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds, which are potent carcinogens''


'heme iron has a catalytic effect on (i) the endogenous formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds and (ii) the formation of cytotoxic and genotoxic aldehydes by lipoperoxidation. A review of evidence supporting these hypotheses suggests that both pathways are involved in heme iron toxicity.'

Doesn't help that I'm currently down with the flu and hence off work. I've been going to Veeky Forums since I was 13, honestly - it's been getting so much worse over the years. At one point, aside from the Zyzz shitposts, it used to actually be about lifting and improving lifting!

no one gives a shit about your life and smalltalk faggots

Exercise can decrease transit time in the bowels; it is therefore POSSIBLE that in athletic populations, the hazard is reduced (show me some RRs boi, in a trained population). Beyond the point, I specifically stated that Poultry and Pork DON'T cause cancer as stated in Carr et als., study, which has been proven time and time again in other metanalyses. I was arguing that MEAT is not an issue.

Also, spastic - I'm not larping as an expert (I'm a clinical geneticist) and I do have an idea of what I'm fucking talking about because I worked directly with fucking epidemiologists during my PhD, whos research concerned the field, BUT IN TRAINED POPULATIONS. THERE'S A FUCKING DIFFERENCE!

yes, veganism is the shit

>phys
what's that?

I second this guy. Also, you have to be a V E G A N F A G G O T to spell shit in this faggot ass tumblr vaporwave fashion.

sure bro if you train you're immune to carcinogens

23 posters / 56 replies
jesus stop same fagging. Why do vegans always have this superiority complex like they need to PROVE their diet is somehow "superior" when humans have been living off an omnivorous diet for literally since the beginning of time?

). Calcium salts,
chlorophyll, vitamin C, and several polyphenols may
reduce these deleterious effects of heme. Specific recommendations
might be made, for example, "eat a yogurt
after your steak." Moreover, vitamins or polyphenols
could be added during the curing process. Ascorbic acid
is already added during the processing of processed meats
specifically to inhibit the formation of volatile NOC in
the meat (69). We expect that this will reduce the risk of
CRC without losing the benefit and the pleasure of eating
meat

plz read the paper, if Vit C and antioxidants can prevent formation of NOC, then explain to me how upregulation of antioxidants by exercise would not also achieve the same effect? Tell me SIT/HIT/Trainign in general doesn't increase antioxidant production in response to increased ROS production (you can't because numerous studies demonstrate that this actually happens).

But sure bro, use your HS diploma in sciences and shitpost.

your ancestors eating meat doesn't make it not cause cancer bruh

>having to eat yogurt after a meal to avoid cancer

no thanks bro

IGF-1 means Insulin-like GROWTH Factor

That is part of the reason all of you vegans are Auschwitz mode soybois.
Veganism BTFO!

Kek!

>not reading right hand side of OP

absolute brainlet

After a meal with red meat.

You can eat meat that isn't red meat and not have increased risk of cancer.

Shit, I'm vegetarian (ethics) and even I'm not as much of a biased prick as everybody here.

Anything you do or eat can cause cancer this day in age. Properly portion your meat and you'll likely be fine. Life isn't a contest for who lives the longest anyway. You can walk to a store to get some lunch in the middle of the day and get hit by a car. Doesn't mean I should stop walking everywhere I go now.

>Quotes study, hasn't even read the abstract.
Veganism as religion detected.

8 people with lung cancer out of 45,803 people (NEVER SMOKED)

>0.0002% incident rate
93 people with lung cancer out of 99,965 (CURRENT SMOKER)

>0.001% incident rate
You just proved MY point.

vegetables prevent cancer

try again

I would also be vegetarian for ethics, if I had any, but then I would have to eat way bigger amount of food to meet my TDEE

Vegans are so infatuated with their diet choices it becomes the way they live their life, and then they judge others based on how they eat because it matters so much to them. Just fuck off, okay? The rest of us will enjoy our lives eating how we want to, and being happy about it. Go eat your nasty fucking spinurla or whatever the hell.

>doesn't know the difference between uptake dowregulation and release upregulation and so doesn't control for it
>hasn't noticed large-scale intervention studies show no benefit to increased plant consumption

That's fucking fantastic. Here's a new concept for vegans. You don't have to be a vegan to eat vegetables.

You believe correlational data is definitive. And you believe in plantcuck "ethics." You're literally retarded.

>being this triggered by veganism

just leave the thread and calm down bro

fucking good post

>being so retarded you expect people not to respond to a thread posted on a public forum

>correlational data

No, I don't. Did you see the part where I said I'm a clinical geneticist? Correlational data is anything BUT definitive in my day-to-day work, and that was also the case in my PhD and MRes, maybe not my BSc diss.

Yeah, I believe in plantcuck 'ethics'. So? I'm bigger than you, whether you eat meat or not, whether you take gear or not. 823kg total @ 87kg 5'10 come at me bro, lifting 13 years. Fuck off.

just so u know that's
S - 300kg
B - 201kg
D - 322kg

GPC, I'm not Tom Martin but I can dream.

you shit 300kg while your bitch weighs 201kg but your dick is 322kg?

But vegans are the ones massively butt hurt by people who eat meat. gg no re

what can I say? My wife likes me bloated and likes a heavy dick, she weighs 201kg so ye

>""""""""ethical""""""""""" vegetarianism
RREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism_writings/translations/voisikoelamavoittaa_translation/III - Animal Rights/

...

meatcucks are so fucking pathetic

go vegan lad

That's what this thread will demonstrate you.

The irony is that I'm a vegetarian and I've been defending the health aspect of eating non-meat in this thread and I've been explaining why whoever the fuck this spastic is, is a retard that can't read papers and only went to high school for science, or a BSc know it all.

shit, sorry for you are not 5'11" my bad bruh

It's a religious belief. They have built their value system around a diet lol. If you eat vegan you're a good person, if you don't you're a bad one.

well if I didnt hop on the sauce at 18 I'd be over 6ft, considering my father is 6'5.

Veeky Forums's GOAT larp

I'm not even joking, that's what makes this funnier. I'm on a sick day with the flu lol

Okay, but I can eat meat and still be healthy. So why should I care? I don't want to eat a nasty vegan diet. I've tried the food plenty of times and it never tastes good.

It depends on when you eat. You have to listen to your body and react for optimal outcomes.

The fact that vegans act so superior, pushing all this ridiculous data down your throats, scream how we are "brutal monsters" eating "corspes" and "promoting animal cruelty" is the reason they will never convince anyone to go vegan. Why not just try being a decent human being, "here is a vegan meal I want you to try and tell me what you think" maybe someone would actually give it a shot. But all vegans are dick cheese data slingers who have to prove why their diet is superior.

not vegan, but "trying a vegan meal" doesn't exactly equal being vegan.
As far as i know to see full health benefits you have to be completely vegan, you can't be vegan while eating meat on your daily, can you?

>Red meat directly causes cancer. We even know how some of the mechanisms work
The state of American education.

In reality, vegetables may cause cancer (those numbers haven't been published yet and never will be probably). AA diet high in vegetable fibre at least increases the adenomes in you colon (ie. pre-tumors). This was proves by actual intervention studies (means: You get a few thousand people together, check their colon, then give one half a lot of veggies, then re-check after a while, in stupid American terms).

Meat, however, doesn't. Is it possible meat increases cancer? Probably, but we haven't any evidence or proof for it. Just epidemiological studies, which are bullshit anyway.

Veggies and fruit in any case don't reduce cancer risk unless in hardcore alcoholics (maybe).

Sources:
IARC: IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat. Lyon Press Release 240/26.10.2015
IARC: Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. Lyon 2015
Bouvard V et al: Carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. Lancet Oncology 26.10.2015
Alexander DD et al: Red meat and colorectal cancer: a quantitative update on the state of epidemiological science. Journal oft he American College of Nutrition 2015; 34: 521-543
Francis CY, Whorwell: Bran and irritable bowel syndrome: time for reappraisal. Lancet 1994; 344: 39-40
Alberts DS et al: Lack of effect of a high-fiber cereal supplement on the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. NEJM 2000; 342: 1156-1562
Jacobs ET et al: Dietary Change in an Intervention Trial of Wheat Bran Fiber and colorectal adenoma recurrence. Annals of Epidemiology 2004; 14: 280–286
Asano T, McLeod RS: Dietary fibre for the prevention of colorectal adenomas and carcinomas. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002; (2): CD003430

Yeah but you have to crawl before you fucking sprint. You can't get someone to flip the switch on their dietary choices they've made their ENTIRE lives leading up to this point to being entirely comprised of no animal products, shopping at speciality stores and paying close attention to LITERALLY everything you buy to make sure it doesn't have anything animal in it. Trying a meal would be a gateway to "huh maybe I could do this" to adding a meal every other day or so leading up to eating vegan entirely.

>triggered by data

the absolute state of meatcucks