/ck/ - Food & Cooking

if you're worried about heart disease don't be a fat fuck, eat a balanced diet and exercise regularly red meat doesn't come into it much unless red meat means 'burger and chips daily'

>>16397303
Try eating more chicken and fish.
Also just what >>16397311 said if you are not a fat fuck and eating low quality stuff you'll be fine.

>>16397303
>worried about heart disease
Did you cut out sugar and white flours?

>>16397303
Saturated fat has never been convincingly shown to cause heart disease and even some of the authorities are finally starting to come around to this fact.
“Taken together, the evidence from both cohort studies and randomized trials does not support the assertion that further restriction of dietary saturated fat will reduce clinical [cardiovascular] events.”

“Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are SFA[saturated-fatty acid]-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.”

“…dietary effects on CVD risk may not be reliably reflected by changes in LDL-cholesterol levels...”

“…the amount of circulating SFAs [saturated fatty acids] in blood is not related to saturated fat intake from the diet but instead tends to track more closely with dietary carbohydrate intake”

“These historical facts demonstrate that saturated fats were an abundant, key part of the ancient human diet.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874?via%3Dihub

>>16397303
Fill up on slowly digesting carbs. Granola, rice, whole grains, etc.

>>16397303
more beans

>>16399826
>>16400540
The Women's Health Initiative has shown that this will increase mortality for those with heart disease.

>>16397303
I eat a fuck load of oats. Youd be amazing. Lost a ton of weight since I got off bread.

>>16400554
Jewish lies
>b b b but muh (SCIENCE)

>>16400575
The real lie is that a diet high in grains and sugar is good for you.

>>16397303
You're an idiot, there is a concerted effort get people to stop eating beef because it is so good for you.

They tried to do the same thing with eggs in the 90's, they also tried to convince margarine and fake vegetable oils were healthier than butter which is also complete bullshit.

They aren't tell you this because it is true, they are telling you this because they want to trick the serfs into eating disgusting garbage. Eat red meat while you can, soon it will be a very very expensive luxury.

>>16400581
The real lie is conflating table sugar with complex carbs, strained oil with bound lipids, and free glutamate with bound glutamate. People like you are shills for big meat.

>>16397303
Fat promotes muscle growth and Salt fuels your brain. the slander campaign against them was started by the sugar industry so people wouldn't draw the correct conclusion that sugar makes you fat

>>16400749
Simply not true. Keto shills out in force.

>>16397303
Gee, it's almost like eating red meat isn't actually bad for you.

>>16400774
Do you guys link to specific /ck/ threads from /fit/? Yes red meat, pork, nitrates in sausages, and refined fats in high amounts are bad for you.

>>16400860
Are people here really claiming that eating steak every day is healthy?

>>16400860

Nitrates/nitrates are total shit. Apple seeds in large amounts will kill you. Chugging water can cause you to drown.

>>16401377

Steak is healthy. Keep following the food pyramid obesity trap.dhyvp

>>16401377
Are you really claiming that it isn't?

>>16400860
Grains are worse than meat. Cut wheat out of your diet first.

>>16397303
insulin resistance is not caused by consuming red meat... but you knew that when you made this b8 thread.

>>16400649
I’m a shill for big meat uwu

>>16401405
No nitrate foods are more dangerous than nitrated food since nitrated food is legally required to add antioxidants, like vitamin c to their products to prevent the formation of nitrosamines, an actual, known cancer-causing substance.
Whereas foods that use naturally derived nitrates from celery juice don’t have this same legal requirement, so the nitrosamine levels are insanely fucking high in these “natural” foods.
Consumers are so fucking dumb it hurts

>>16400860
Even a large cancer group admitted red meat isn't a definite cause of cancer, only processed meat is. Nobody ever really thought animal products were unhealthy until companies wanted to start selling plant-based alternatives, and most of those are appearing to actually be unhealthy now. Don't forget vegetable shortening was claimed to be a healthier source of fat and it ended up killing thousands of people per year.

>>16401557
Whole grains are fine, they just shouldn't be the majority of what you eat. Refined grains should be removed as much as possible from your diet though.

>>16401772
>Whereas foods that use naturally derived nitrates from celery juice don’t have this same legal requirement, so the nitrosamine levels are insanely fucking high in these “natural” foods.
This is plain false. Foods naturally high in nitrates contain little to no nitrosamines. Nitrosamines form from nitrates binding to protein.

>>16402029
Bacon and other processed meats are /not/ naturally high in nitrates and that’s where the problem comes along

>>16401377
t. skinnyfat faggot on the way to slurp down xir's 3rd coffee flavored milkshake of the morning

>>16397303
>I'm trying to cut out red meat (and reduce my meat in general from the average american diet)
Based NWO ZOG stooge. Your Jewish overlords thank you for your sacrifice.

>>16402219
>saving the planet is a Jewish agenda
How confused you are

>>16402210
t. fatfuck, who could barely lift his arms to type this insecure shit.

>>16402226
Careful not to type too hard or your finger bones might shatter again

>>16397303
Thr thing is, you should choose a diet that accomodates best to your metabolism. Everyone processes foods differently. Take the mediterranean and the french, for example. They eat fats, cheese, and butter like lardasses and yet they are still very heart-healthy

>>16400774
>>16401405
>>16401433
>>16401557
>>16401948
>>16402219
>>16402229
The keto lies. For truth seekers, listen to Dr Axe or Dr McDougall. Humans are primarily starchy vegetable eaters, and find peak health in doing so, such as an all barley diet, plus occasional b12.

>>16402236
It's the all the wine, which washes out their arteries from fats.

>>16402239
>occasional b12
Enjoy your brain lesions, herbivore

>>16402256
Occasional isnt a defined bracket of time. I eat b12 daily or at minimum every other day. But I rotate it also, dairy, egg, lamb, fish, chicken.

>>16402256
And clearly I am not an herbivore. The word primary means firstly or most importantly, not ONLY

>>16402224
The same people who want you to stop eating meat to "save the planet" are the same ones who eat almonds and other high water-low yield foods, drive their cars to work every morning, fly cross-country in private jets on the regular and buy personal electronics and clothing created by literal slaves and political prisoners in forced labor camps.

>>16402378
Or you could try to be a better person all around rather than saying he does it too! This world will not make it much longer.

>>16402378
Huh?

>>16402438
I agree that things could be better but I think it's unreasonable to ask people to deprive themselves of the basics and lower their quality of life for the environment. A better solution is to figure out how to provide these things while minimizing the harm they can cause.

>>16401377
Why wouldn't it be?

>>16402448
Which we both know won't happen with the current big ag players in control

>>16402438
Idiotic mindset, look up the prisoner's dilemma and works of John Nash if you don't already understand why this type of thinking is deeply flawed.

>>16402239
>McDougall
This guy right here on the right compared to a guy who is 4 years older, drinks heavily, eats like shit and smokes? Have you actually listened to him talk? He's going senile in his early 70s.

The only secrets he knows is how to exploit idiots into buying his merch

>>16402378
>A quarter pound of almonds takes 75 gallons of water to produce, and Americans eat an average of 2 pounds of almonds per year. That's 600 gallons of water per year per person in almonds.

>Comparatively, Americans eat an average of 72 pounds of red meat per year, which consumes 133,560 gallons of water per year per person.

based retard. please take the conservative talking points back to your containment board

>>16402494
McDougall isn't correct on every point he makes but his magnum opus "the starch solution" from almost a decade ago is the definitive source to lean back on with references to claim humans are primarily starch eaters. McDougall personally takes that too far like I said earlier I eat dairy which he strongly is opposed to. He also says honey is simple sugar.
Here's the point though, just because he personally classifies foods in the wrong category, doesn't mean he is wrong about the category. If you eat complex fats, sugars, protein, and glutamate rather than the free/refined stuff youre going to be better off.
McDougalls most memorable statements are: youll never get fat off white rice or whole fruit

>>16402509
You might not get fat off of eating only white rice and whole fruit, but it's a shitty miserable diet to follow. And if not being fat is the main goal here, you can do that while eating just about anything as long as you keep your calories down. What's more important here is to keep your mind and body healthy, something McDougall, if he follows his own advice, fails to do. Eating whole animal and whole plant and whole fungi foods with some ferments as probiotics along with salt for minerals is really the actual truth. If you really want to up your game, get to know where the fuck your food comes from. McDougall talks about how great rice is, but if its not grown with the aid of field chasing ducks it's sprayed heavily with all sorts of nasty shit. Fruit has a whole book of issues unless you are eating fruit you pick yourself.

>>16402539
Complex carbs actually fuel workouts too. You dont need a whole animal, because humans have a better alternative, whole grain. But yes if you didnt have access to starchy vegetables maybe. Obviously adding fermentation and healthy "spices" or "flavoring" is important which is why I said dr mcdougall AND Dr axe. Guess what Dr axe emphasizes.
Yes every farm has issues. Why shouldn't people grow their own grain though? It is high yield, grows like weeds, stores forever, and is a balanced meal in a kernal, minus b12.

>>16402239
Humans are obligate hypercarnivores.

Pre-human ancestors ate almost entirely meat for 2 million years. They hunted megafauna to extinction. Humans ate mostly meat for over 300,000 years. Agriculture only introduced significant amounts of starch 10,000 years ago.

Eating starch caused people to be shorter, have worse health, and smaller brains. Meat eating is clearly peak nutrition.

>>16402568
Its not true. McDougall dispelled that myth. He showed evidence of people living off mostly grains for at least 105,000 years.

>>16402568
But yes, as I said, some meat isn't bad. I eat meat. But it isn't an emphasis

>>16402568
Did they also hunt down dinosaurs to extinction?

>>16402573
McDougall is a crackpot. Starches are starvation foods. Nobody has been shown to be as tall, big-brained, and free from disease as our ancestors who ate almost exclusively meat. Starch is a huge downgrade in nutrition.

Humans are versatile but an all-meat diet is clearly best.

>>16397303
As someone who's done the same a couple years ago, you get used to being hungry all the time.
You can try to eat raw veggies to try to help. My go to is celery. I usually eat two full stalks. I'll put peanut butter on half of one to finish off with.

>>16402503
Most of that "water" used for beef is rain water and not fresh water like with the almonds

>>16402588
He provides references. It isn't his findings, it is archeological findings now starting to identify kernels which lasted through the years they ignored previously, where they only found bones and overlooked the kernel shells.
You can argue with the researchers not me. Maybe our ancestors carried kernels for fun, not food.

>>16398265
Doesn't matter. Cutting a little bit out is better than cutting nothing out.

It's funny how militant meat eaters get when someone hints at the idea that eating red meat every day might not fit their lifestyle.

>>16402599
Stable isotope analysis has shown pre-agricultural humans ate almost exclusively meat. All their tools are for meat. Cave paintings are of hunting.

And when we compare starch eating humans with meat eating humans (e.g. >>16402568) today we can confirm that meat is the best food. Starch is inferior starvation food.

>>16402605
No the red meat meat causing heart disease is just an annoying old myth that never had good evidence behind it.

>>16402605
Have you seen militant herbivores though?

>>16402605
I don't care what you eat. I just care when people lie about meat being bad.

The best possible diet with the best health outcomes for humans is one based on mostly red meat or even exclusively red meat.

>>16402614
How do I know you havent watched "the starch solution"

>>16402618
Ever hear of horseshoe theory?

>>16402614
105,000 years ago with citation. Gladiators, Neanderthal, ghenghis khan, Alexander the great all starches. Even modern endurance athletes carb load.

>>16402615
>>16402619
>they're disrespecting muh meats!

>>16402619
High fish diets can also be optimal. Also the real best foods are the organ meats which are unfortunately seldom eaten today because of the dietary cholesterol myths.

>>16402619
False. Simple as. Meat is fine but not the healthiest thing you can eat for sure.

>>16402618

>>16402633
>grug bash skull with stone tool
>grug eat brains
>grug have messy tool
>grug wipe bloody tool on grass
>vegan 100,000 years later says a starch granule on a tool proves we should eat a low-fat plant-based diet despite all counter evidence

>>16402652
>counter evidence is entirely anecdotal buff dudes on steroids hired by big meat industry
K

>>16402639
The study isn't published yet but Shawn Baker has said an upcoming study on the carnivore diet is showing no difference between people who eat organ meat and people who don't.

Fatty red muscle meat is all you need. That and clean fresh water.

>>16402659
How brainwashed can you be? If youre eating meat exclusively and not organs, youre a pussy. Organs and bones are the best part of the animal and the healthiest, and again im not vegan so I do see some benefit of occasional red meat, especially lamb.

>>16402657
Humans were apex predators for two million years
>In a new study, researchers were able to reconstruct the nutrition of stone-age humans. The study's authors collected about 25 lines of evidence from about 400 scientific papers from different scientific disciplines, dealing with the focal question: Were stone-age humans specialized carnivores or were they generalist omnivores?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm

>>16402661
I eat raw liver, raw suet, and bone broth. I just don't think it's necessary. If I could afford to eat nothing but ribeye steak I'd probably eat that most of the time.

People who eat nothing but fatty muscle meat do fantastically well as far as their health goes. You just need to make sure you get enough dietary fat. Lean protein isn't enough.

>>16402662
And McDougall explained their massive mistake is that bones last, and veggies compost, but now there's evidence otherwise.
>hurr durr our ancestors lived off fat that spoils in a day
>hurr durr our ancestors had to kill an animal each time they ate a la no refrigerators
>hurr durr I have no actual argument that the complex protein in a plant isn't just as healthy if not healthier
>bb b b b but muh body building, yep great kill the planet more

>>16402652
Is this image supposed to prove something?

Greger has aged better in 10 years than McDougall has in 6, the top image looks practically the same without a beard and minor hair loss while the bottom looks obviously frailer and older with significant hair loss, also taking into account the time periods.

>>16402643
If you act like an asshole, I can and should too act like an asshole.

>>16402672
>25 lines of evidence from about 400 scientific papers from different scientific disciplines
>conclusively proves humans were apex predator carnivores
>"but muh starch molecule on muh 100,000 year old tool"

>>16402679
>my (SCIENCE) is conclusive
>they found BONES!!!! it can't be disproven
Again I didnt say people didn't eat meat. I said they primarily lived off starchy vegetables as evidence shows.
Youre insane if you cant think through the logistics of our ancestors storing slaughtering and storing meat as a primary food source rather than picking a starch off a wild wheat grass and storing it in a pile until they're ready to eat and it never goes bad

>>16402675
I laughed. The brain fogged mind of a vegan searches for differences between the two vegan gurus when they both aged terribly.

Pic related. Left is aged 46, right is aged 45. Right is a vegan doctor who claims to be an expert on nutrition.

>>16402678
That's why no one likes you.

>>16402699
>has to use vegans as examples against starchy vegetables when the argument never included cutting meat entirely
Nice just pick and choose what you argue

>>16402702
Cope nigger

>>16402560
You clearly have never grown your own grain. You need a large garden bed to produce enough grain for one loaf of bread. Not to mention processing that grain without any complex equipment is a pain in the ass. Early agricultural people actually struggled more than hunter gatherers, and they had a myriad of new health issues like bone and tooth degeneration. They also were shorter and had less muscle.

Not to mention yes, carbs will fuel a workout, but if you have no protein you won't be able to build shit. You will just lose fat and eventually muscle.

I can't believe you are worshipping celebrity doctors. I bet you think Michael Gregor is a legit doctor despite never seeing a single patient or finishing his residency.

>>16402687
You clearly haven't read the paper. It includes
>25 lines of evidence
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm

Here's a podcast with one of the authors, Miki Ben-Dor. It's a recent paper. You can hear him explain the findings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90Bc_kcq0nM

>Youre insane if you cant think through the logistics of our ancestors storing slaughtering and storing meat as a primary food source rather than picking a starch off a wild wheat grass and storing it in a pile until they're ready to eat and it never goes bad
This is such a childish take. I kind of feel bad for you. When human ancestors learned to hunt they didn't care about storing meat. They killed more animals when they wanted more meat. Humans are apex predators.

>>16402730
>milling is comparable difficulty to butchering
Nope.
>>16402731
If im a child youre a dumb cunt. Imagine being this low iq and reliant on a paper written by big meat

>>16402672
>kill an animal each time they ate a la no refrigerators

Are you stupid or something? You would cook, pot, store in fat, dry, ferment, salt, etc. There are STILL people who live without refrigerators and eat tons of meat. Oh wow how they do it?

>>16402744
>a different modern technology implemented other than refrigerator
>haha I gotcha!
Good one bud. You eat your frozen, fermented, salted, or rotting meat. For me it is fresh only. And no they wouldn't have been able to catch enough to sustain, they mustve had grains and its been proven. Once again you keto fags are acting like I said im vegan. No one here is against meat you dumb fucks. But it is absolutely 80 iq to say people live mostly off meats and have been

>>16402740
You clearly have not butchered an animal or cut, dried, dehulled, and milled grain. Yes, it takes a day to butcher a hog. But the hog will feed you for a year. A small animal like a rabbit or poultry will take an hour tops. If you're a pro it will just take a few minutes.

Processing grain takes days if not WEEKS, and it is LONG hard arduous labor. You can save a lot of time by just growing the grain, cutting it down, and feeding it to the damn pig.

>>16402759
Hog didnt store for ancestors though and grains did. Youre assuming modern technology. Our ancestors wouldve emphasized milling due to storage requirements and the fact it contains a balanced meal, unlike meat.

>>16402752
My friend, read this very recent paper.
>Only the extinction of larger animals (megafauna) in various parts of the world, and the decline of animal food sources toward the end of the stone age, led humans to gradually increase the vegetable element in their nutrition, until finally they had no choice but to domesticate both plants and animals -- and became farmers.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm

The appropriate human diet is to eat unlimited fatty red meat. That was the diet of our ancestors when they reached peak health and physical condition.

>>16402740
>believes "big meat" conspiracy theory
>no muh impossible meaterino isn't part of a large, expanding industry

>>16402770
Ever hear of salt?

>>16402699
I just entered the thread and I see that your posting anecdotal evidence for your argument, so much for my brain fog. Have this one as another piece of anecdotal evidence retard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTyGP5hCtBQ

>>16402770
>he doesn't know about salt pork and pemmican

>>16402779
What did they feed their animals if not grains? It simply isn't true. Youre a dreamer.
>>16402780
>big ag doesn't exist!!!!
Yea bro neither does big pharma or big medicine or big tech or even big banks or big government. Its all conspiracies.
>>16402782
>our ancestors had pounds of salt sitting around to use on every animal they killed

>>16402786
>large amounts of salt
Is a modern technology. They didnt have that much salt. Maybe some of them distilled it from ocean water or mined it? Like I said salt is modern technology.

>>16402791
Salt is not a modern technology holy crap.
If you have a pot and fire you can literally boil it out of the ocean. There are massive salt flats that are hundreds of miles long. For fucks sake goats will climb mountains to lick salt. Can you just admit maybe you don't know everything and you have some learning to do?

>>16402797
>trucks just brought that salt from the coast to Wyoming or mining rigs just dug it up
Yea bro goats go the top of a mountain for it because its so easy and abundant. Guess what if our ancestors had salt they would die for it, it was not something to waste on preservation techniques

>>16402788
>What did they feed their animals if not grains?
Wild animals get their own food, child.

>>16402788
Of course they exist, but stating that "big meat" is controlling the dissemination of information or falsifying reports is some serious schizo shit

>>16402788
"Big ag" as you put it is universally pushing plant-based diets. Even the meat processing companies are pushing plant-based. The profit margins are way higher.

>>16402802
Hey cunt glad to see you again, so if the animals were wild then they weren't domesticated
>>16402804
Big soda paid for research. Big cigarette paid for research. Big dairy and big meat are above it though. Ill take your word for it.

>>16402791
this is false and historically illiterate

>>16402801
>preserving food and get mineral at same time
>waste

>>16402801
>our ancestors
yeah, maybe our ancestors who lived where salt wasn't plentiful
there's a reason inland cultures like native americans made pemmican but coastal Mediterranean civilizations made garum- europe was salted the fuck up

>>16402807
Simply not true. The big ag pushing plants are the ones growing them for meat. Had we focused on plants more we wouldn't have needed 90% more food supply for the livestock which we cut many corners to produce. The industry is a disgusting take on what it once was and meat drives everything.
>>16402809
>>16402812
>>16402813
The entire keto community is falling back on salting. Lol pathetic. You cant just consider for a second grains which store without preservation and provide protein may have been consumed as a primary food source, and we found kernels to demonstrate they were. OR our ancestors entire lives focused on meat and salt and somehow they also got carbs

>>16402820
its the latter we ate mostly meat with some grains during times it was difficult to get meat

>>16402826
Uh ok at least you're coming around. And the times it was difficult to get meat was almost always, id say once a week at most.

>>16402779
There have been genetic changes since that time though. We produce more amylase in our saliva to help digest starchy food better. And this is just my personal experience, but I don't really enjoy eating red meat that often. Sometimes I crave it but I feel better with dairy and eggs being my main sources of protein and fat.

>>16397303
Eating meat keeps you satiated longer. Same for fat.
If you are skinny, go ahead now and do some whacked diet that completely eliminates a entire food group. That sounds like proper nutritional sense to everyone who is smart like you.
Or, you could lose weight by not doing too much caloric restriction and being nutritionally sound and balanced. Shave off more than 2-300 cals a day and you'll shut down in starvation mode, slowing your metabolism and likely getting ever virus going around with your shit immune system.
Try weight watchers, which will teach you how to watch fiber, how to space out meals, and snack, as well as get your nutritional needs. Those points will keep you in the minimally restricted phase each time you drop pounds in easymode. Once you hit goal weight, go ahead and work on some whacked out diet changes and see if you stay healthy, energetic and more like exercising.

>>16402820
Grains can store indefinitely as long as rodents don't get into them, as long as the place they are kept doesn't get wet, as long as you have access to the grain stores (aka other humans lording over them), as long as the growing season stays good. And no one would live solely off the fucking grains. No one. There is a reason livestock was domesticated before crop agriculture.

>>16402820
>You cant just consider for a second grains which store without preservation and provide protein may have been consumed as a primary food source
I considered it and found it to be preposterous.

Evidence overwhelmingly shows humans were apex predators for 2 million years.

>>16402820
>ad we focused on plants more we wouldn't have needed 90% more food supply for the livestock
this is only true for pigs and chickens the food we feed to cows is 90% non human edible leftovers like corn husks and almond hulls

>>16402828
>id say once a week at most.

>>16402835
Nope they were herbivores. Thats why the megafauna went extinct every time humans would show up, because they ate all the mammoths grains.

>>16402841
You could alternatively feed pigs and chickens spoiled food waste.

>>16402833
I didnt say solely. And yes storing grains properly makes them last forever, unlike meat, glad you agree.
>>16402835
Apex predators and omnivores includes consuming grains. Apex doesn't mean you have to eat worth opponents or some strange notion you have.
>>16402843
Ok. Obviously some may trap and hunt better but its been shown you can eat just potato for 6 months and live
>>16402841
Ok. Does that change what I said? It isn't about what it could be, its about what it is

>>16402820
>bitching about big ag and the industry
>won't fucking produce any of their own food.

>>16402857
Certain animals can also last forever if stored properly. People in the 1800s would have mammoth meat parties where they dug up frozen mammoth meat and ate it.

>>16402859
I do believe in specialization but we have gone far from it. Specialization should allow for 1 party to do all the work for the community, but that party is supposed to be responsible and we forgot to keep them up to standards.

>>16402862
Yes there are exceptions but en masse people didn't have access to preservation in whatever forresty plain they found themselves in

>>16402857
Everything you say is so ridiculous. Please take a break and go research.

Early hunting pre-humans were hunting megafauna which had no instinct to flee from them. They just casually walked up to them and stuck them with pointy sticks. It was easy food for millions of years. They would follow herds and eat meat whenever they were hungry.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm

>>16402876
>animals just let you kill them, trust me
>oh wait that's a characteristic of plants, which im arguing against
I have researched this stuff for years. Its like youre giving me reasons people ate plants.

>>16402868
pemmican can last at least a year. Long enough to find another animal.

Holy fuck can you just admit we need animal food more than grain? Like I can understand certain starches like potatoes and other starchy tubers but since I can't grow it, I almost never eat grains. I'd do field corn but I'm still trying to figure out the nixtamalization shit so for now I just grow sweet corn. But grain is just... not that important.

>>16402862
>>16402868
You don't have to preserve anything when animals are plentiful and easy to kill. This whole discussion of preservation is totally misguided. Preservation is relatively recent. All the evidence of food preservation comes from post-agriculture.

Before starting to hunt human ancestors ate rotten meat. Then they learned to hunt and ate fresh meat. Preservation wouldn't have been a problem at that point until millions of years later.

>>16402883
Yea its not that important if youre eating it. Wow potato and corn, so starchy veggies. Why bother? They aren't important right?
No I wont believe people just lived off pemmican lol sorry not sorry I am skeptical
>>16402891
Wild animals today are crazy back then it was 10x harder. Youre an idiot if you think animals were more domestic and timid back then.

>>16402847
lmao

>>16402878
>>16402897
Megafauna never evolved any instinct to run away from humans.

Even modern elephants which are much smaller are easily approachable.

>>16402891
>just ate rotten meat
Holy shit keto fags know no end to the lies. Dude you can't admit they ate fresh sweet potato over rotten meat even? There's nothing to discuss then

>>16402902
It just isn't true. Megafauna can and do attack humans today. They are very intelligent and know when to feel threatened. Also your entire argument is we lived entirely off megafauna which are so easy to find and kill and all the extra meat was fine because we just went and got another
But its so hard to mill a grain

>>16402905
Sweet potato would be inedible without cooking. Humans were eating raw meat for a million years before developing fire. You really know nothing.

>>16402911
Sweet potato is edible raw, which is why I used it as an example. You know nothing

>>16402911
>Humans were eating raw meat for a million years before developing fire. You really know nothing.
a lot of fire pits in archaeology getting carbon dated. Record is pretty clear on the use of fire in antiquity

>>16402912
You can eat lots of stuff. You don't get enough nutrition from tubers without cooking them.

>>16402915
Go ahead and try to find evidence of fire use two million years ago.
>Humans were apex predators for two million years
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210405113606.htm

>>16402920
So humans evolved weapons for megafauna before fire. Sure bud, not plausible but sure.
Its interesting a keto fag is saying this, the irony must be lost on the fact that eating just meat isn't enough either.

>>16402930
huh?

>>16402930
You don't think our ancestors figured out the pointy stick before they figured out fire?

Please eat some meat. Your brain is non-functional.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR7H9xeMYME

>>16402943
I eat meat daily if you had been following the conversation you'd know that you dumb fuck, as I said like 20 times im not vegan
>>16402942
Anecdotal. Wow innuits occasionally ate raw meat and fat so all ancestors did.

>>16402438
"Rather than saying he does it too!"
I don't fly cross country in a private jet and support slave labor.
I'm just a man who eats meat.

>>16397303
>>16397311
>>16397353
>>16398265
>>16399791
>>16399826
>>16400540
>>16400554
>>16400573
>>16400575
>>16400581
>>16400596
>>16400649
>>16400749
>>16400764
>>16400774
>>16400860
>>16401377
>>16401405
>>16401433
>>16401557
>>16401621
>>16401764
>>16401764
>>16401772
>>16401948
>>16402029
>>16402182
>>16402219
>>16402210
>>16402182
>>16402229
>>16402226
>>16402236
>>16402239
>>16402241
>>16402256
>>16402261
>>16402268
>>16402378
>>16402438
>>16402447
>>16402448
>>16402469
>>16402477
>>16402492
>>16402494
>>16402503
>>16402509
>>16402539
>>16402560
>>16402568
>>16402573
>>16402577
>>16402587
>>16402588
>>16402595
>>16402596
>>16402599
>>16402605 >>16402614 >>16402618 >>16402619 >>16402615
>>16402633 >>16402634
>>16402636 >>16402639 >>16402643 >>16402652 >>16402657 >>16402661
>>16402662
>>16402671
>>16402672
>>16402675
>>16402678
>>16402679
>>16402687
>>16402699
>>16402702
>>16402711
>>16402730
>>16402731
>>16402740
>>16402744
>>16402752
>>16402759
>>16402770
>>16402779
>>16402780
>>16402782
>>16402785
>>16402786
>>16402788
>>16402791
>>16402897
>>16402899
>>16402902
>>16402905
>>16402910
>>16402911
>>16402912
>>16402915
>>16402920
>>16402925
>>16402930
>>16402942
>>16402943
>>16402959

>>16402902
>Megafauna never evolved any instinct to run away from humans.
To evolve such instinct there should had been survivors after humans hunted them to reproduce such genes. The problem is that humans are natural born marathon runners and can outrun almost any land species (with few exceptions like wolfes), so megafauna was literally chased to death without a chance to evolve.

>>16402977
You

>>16402977
I guess I do.

>>16402977
(me)

>>16402977
JIDF puppet confirmed for btfo and seething

ITT: insecure muh caveman ANCESTORZ bro science faggots
It's really not that hard to determine whether or not a diet centered around red meat is good for you.
>population studies that compare life expectancy and rates of health conditions across similar SES countries with different diets
>longitudinal studies comparing outcomes of people with different diets, heavily controlled for demographic factors
>large-scale cross-sectional studies comparing outcomes of people with different diets, heavily controlled for demographic factors
Nutrition research is the shadiest out there, but there's plenty of studies, some of which utilize population statistics that aren't generated by the research, that can give you a good idea as to what happens to people who eat red meat-heavy diets vs. non-red meat-heavy diets. It's hilarious watching all of you faggots go 'I WON'T BE (((MANIPULATED)))' and then immediately cling to whatever alt health guru tells you that your current diet is healthy.

>>16403644
Which do you think is less healthy, coke or steak?

>>16403644
>what happens to people who eat red meat-heavy diets vs. non-red meat-heavy diets.
The only data against red meat are from observational studies and are only associational. Moreover they are extremely small effect sizes so no causal information can be inferred like in the case of lung cancer smoking epidemiology.

"Taken together, the evidence from both cohort studies and randomized trials does not support the assertion that further restriction of dietary saturated fat will reduce clinical [cardiovascular] events.”

“Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are SFA[saturated-fatty acid]-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.”

“…dietary effects on CVD risk may not be reliably reflected by changes in LDL-cholesterol levels...”

“…the amount of circulating SFAs [saturated fatty acids] in blood is not related to saturated fat intake from the diet but instead tends to track more closely with dietary carbohydrate intake”

“These historical facts demonstrate that saturated fats were an abundant, key part of the ancient human diet.”

“Taken together, these observations strongly support the conclusion that the healthfulness of fats is not a simple function of their content in SFA but a result of the various components in the food, often referred to as the ‘food matrix’"
https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077

Even the nutritional establishment is beginning to come around that there was never good evidence showing red meat to cause CVD.

>>16403722
...coke? Are you trying to do a 'gotcha' here?
>>16403733
> Dr. Astrup has received research funding from Danish Dairy Foundation, Arla Foods Amba, and the European Milk Foundation; has received speaker honoraria for the Expert Symposium on the Dairy Matrix 2016 sponsored by the European Milk Foundation; and has served on the advisory board and as a consultant for McCain Foods Limited and Weight Watchers. Dr. Bier has served as a consultant and/or received lecture fees and/or reimbursements for travel, hotel and other expenses from the International Life Sciences Institute, the International Council on Amino Acid Science, Nutrition and Growth Solutions, Ajinomoto, the Lorenzini Foundation, the CrossFit Foundation, the International Glutamate Technical Committee, Nestlé S.A., Ferrero SpA, Indiana University, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, the Infant Nutrition Council of America, and the Israel Institute. Dr. Brenna has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association/North Dakota Beef Council; has received panel participation honorarium from Dairy Management (2017); and is a shareholder in Retrotope. Dr. Hill has received research funding from...
The disclosure section on that paper is so fucking long that it surpasses the character limit. Thanks for illustrating how shitty nutrition research is, dingus

>>16403779
Good to see you didn't try to refute my point that no RCT has shown meat cause CVD. Here's a review of the relevant literature without conflicting interests but I'm sure you'll move the goal posts somewhere again anyway.

“There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non‐fatal myocardial infarction or CHD mortality, but effects on total (fatal or non‐fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non‐fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality. There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI."
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD011737.pub2/information#whatsNew

>>16403800
From the full text:
>The findings of this updated review suggest that reducing saturated fat intake for at least two years causes a potentially important reduction in combined cardiovascular events. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appear to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear. The reduction in combined cardiovascular events resulting from reducing saturated fat did not alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk, but greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events.

>>16403810
"We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all‐cause mortality (RR 0.96; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.03; 11 trials, 55,858 participants) or cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.80 to 1.12, 10 trials, 53,421 participants), both with GRADE moderate‐quality evidence."

>>16403779
and here's another one

“Intake of SFA was not significantly associated with CHD mortality, with a RR of 1.14 (95% CI 0.82–1.60, p = 0.431) for those in the highest compared with the lowest category of SFA intake (fig. 6). Similarly SFA intake was not significantly associated CHD events (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.83–1.05, p = 0.269 for high vs. low categories). Moreover, there was no significant association with CHD death (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.75–1.65, p = 0.593) per 5% TE increment in SFA intake.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19752542/

>>16403779
aaand another one

“Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723079/

>>16403800
>Methods: clinical trial review
So they pulled info from a database of all the trial research, i.e. combined data from actual reliable research and the research with a laundry list of COI? Really reliable stuff there, so reliable that the review isn't even in a publication and the authors admit
>effects on total (fatal or non‐fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non‐fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality

>>16400581
I'm under the impression that wholegrains are fine?

>>16403852
Yes they reviewed the best available evidence (clinical trials) and found no effect of SFA on said criteria. But since you love observational studies so much here's the largest one ever conducted.

“High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings.”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28864332/

>>16403854
Better than refined grains yes, not sure what you mean by fine. If you are already diabetic or pre diabetic like half of US adults consuming them in large quantities could pose a problem.

>>16403854

>>16403800
And let's get back to the actual question- is a red meat-heavy diet good for you?
Let's take a look at some actual large-scale naturalistic studies on red meat consumption:
>https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/179/3/282/103471?login=true
>https://www.bmj.com/content/365/bmj.l2110/
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/414881
etc
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/1134845
>https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn201359

>>16403858
Cool, now find some reliable evidence that red meat, the subject of this thread and my OP, improves health outcomes.

>>16403899
Just about any carbohydrate restricted diet study (which tends to increase meat consumption) show greater weight loss, diabetes reversal, improval of CVD risk factors than controls or other diets. The most striking is Virta Health's trial where they had long time diabetics which are notoriously hard to improve with diet and here's what they did.

"Reductions from baseline to 2 years in the CCI group resulting from intent-to-treat analyses included: HbA1c, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, weight, systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, triglycerides, and liver alanine transaminase, and HDL-C increased. Spine bone mineral density in the CCI group was unchanged. Use of any glycemic control medication (excluding metformin) among CCI participants declined (from 55.7 to 26.8%) including insulin (-62%) and sulfonylureas (-100%). The UC group had no changes in these parameters (except uric acid and anion gap) or diabetes medication use. There was also resolution of diabetes (reversal, 53.5%; remission, 17.6%) in the CCI group but not in UC. All the reported improvements had p < 0.00012."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2019.00348/full

>>16403878
Even without looking I can guess these are all observational studies that contain no causal information and therefor can only generate hypotheses not conclusions. If you want some potential explanations why meat eaters might appear less healthy than vegetarians consider the fact that we've been telling people to eat less meat for nearly a century. There is a whole literature on confounders in studies like this that don't get controlled for.

>>16403899
Once again you have no clinical trials showing red meat to raise risk of CVD or mortality. When tested in RCTs it has failed. See Women's Health Initiative, Sydney Diet Heart Study, Minnesota Coronary Experiment, and more

>>16403921
>Just about any carbohydrate restricted diet study (which tends to increase meat consumption) show greater weight loss, diabetes reversal, improval of CVD risk factors than controls or other diets.
Reduced carb /= increased red meat intake though; for example, fish and poultry also exist.
>>16403932
>>16403944
Clinical trials are some of the most unreliable research methods in the life sciences because it's unfeasible to recruit more than a handful of participants and follow their outcomes across a long period of time without a massive amount of funding and the effects of individual differences are even greater because the sample sizes are smaller. It's much more reliable to do a large-scale cross-sectional or longitudinal study with a few hundred thousand+ participants and control for factors that would increase mortality, e.g. smoking or SES, then investigate the same research question with tweaks to the methods again and again to approximate the truth.
>See Women's Health Initiative, Sydney Diet Heart Study, Minnesota Coronary Experiment, and more
links?

>>16403969
That's why I linked to reviews of all the clinical trials done but you dismissed that for no good reason. The point is that the good quality data show a consistent lack of benefit in mortality from reducing red meat consumption. If you want a study with people in a hospital find the Minnesota Coronary Experiment. They subbed out SFAs for PUFAs and the PUFA group died more. How about a free living Nobel Prize winning study? Except it didn't because the WHI showed that lowering red meat and replacing with vegetables and whole grains increased CVD risk by ~30% for those with pre established heart disease.

"The conclusion after 8.1 years of study was that: ‘… a reduced total fat intake and increased intake of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of [coronary heart disease] (CHD), stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors’ (p. 655).1 However, the abstract notes that these conclusions apply only to women who were healthy at the start of the trial since it excludes ‘participants with baseline CVD (3.4%)’. It is not clear whether the inclusion of these unhealthy women would have altered the overall conclusion.

The study’s only statistically significant finding, reported on the seventh page of the published manuscript (p. 661),1 has yet to enter the scientific discourse: ‘The H(azard)R(atio) for the 3.4% of women with CVD at baseline was 1.26 (95% CI, 1.03-1.54)’.

This shows that women with diagnosed CVD at the start of the trial who adopted the ‘healthy heart’ low-fat eating option had a risk of developing future cardiovascular complications that was 26% higher than that of the non-intervention group. This finding is not discussed and a key line of text is missing from Fig. 3 (Fig. 1).1 "
http://www.samj.org.za/index.php/samj/article/view/7343/5505

>>16403969
>>16403979
"Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit. These findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega 6 linoleic acid, or polyunsaturated fats in general, for saturated fats."

>>16403998
>That's why I linked to reviews of all the clinical trials done but you dismissed that for no good reason.
It wasn't about red meat, it wasn't in a publication, and the idea of peeling data from a bunch of clinical trials that I assume were being used to test various unrelated treatments is pretty funny
>The point is that the good quality data show a consistent lack of benefit in mortality from reducing red meat consumption.
Where? All you linked is research about fats and carbs, not red meat. As an aside, while the ''''''healthy heart''''''''''' diet is one of the worst examples of nutrition research corruption, generalizing a finding for a specific population (women with CVD), about a specific aspect health (cardiovascular health) to the general population is dumb. The Minnesota Coronary experiment is pretty cool but also somewhat flawed in that its sample was entirely institutionalized people (didn't see if they controlled for confounds)

>>16404031
>>16404031
I've posted so many showing the same result I don't even know which one you're talking about but the WHI should be alarming. They reduced red meat by ~25% and as we've seen experienced WORSE cardiovascular outcomes.

>>16404031
And there really aren't many RCTs on red meat alone but they are included in the analyses I've posted. SFAs tend to be a pretty good proxy though.

>>16403998
I remember you from last time. My previous points unrefuted by you still stand, had to go through a long process myself to find the original WHI study. Btw TD Noakes is an advocate of a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet, so much for unbiased research.


Anyway three clinical studies showing the fact of meat intakes' health disadvantages:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/206745

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/01.CIR.40.1S2.II-1

https://www.bmj.com/content/304/6833/1015.short

And you still cannot find a single clinical study showing meat's health benefits, all the prior you've posted showing no conclusions for or against its benefit and being middle ground

>>16404073
Once again the Minnesota study and Sydney study removed red meat and saw worse outcomes. The same was true for the WHI initative. These results also hold up in meta analyses. You've posted the same 3 studies from last time none of which testing red meat specifically either. All of which are also much smaller in scale or less controlled than the above.

>>16404046
Again,
>outcomes of WOMEN with CVD
>positive outcomes with increase of FATS, not red meat (the article lists margarines as an example of the sources of fat ffs)
>>16404053
>And there really aren't many RCTs on red meat alone
If there aren't many, there must be some- why don't you link them?
>SFAs tend to be a pretty good proxy though.
No, they're not. Also, almost everything if not everything you've posted was in direct reference to cardiovascular health rather than all-cause mortality or other conditions.

>>16404073
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/206745
"This randomized trial suggests that patients following a cardioprotective Mediterranean diet have a prolonged survival and may also be protected against cancer. Further studies are warranted to confirm the data and to explore the role of the different lipids and fatty acids in this protection."

This is testing a mediterannean diet not just red meat.

>https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/01.CIR.40.1S2.II-1
I don't even see any hard outcomes here so not sure how this is relevant.

>https://www.bmj.com/content/304/6833/1015.short
This one is interesting because its basically the WHI but smaller scale and the opposite result so make of that what you will.

>>16404101
I literally did not post these last time but okey dokey.

And for the WHI they saw as much positive outcome as negative outcome as I recall, you still refuse posting the original WHI study.

As for the Minnesota and Sydney study if I recall the results were negligible as stated in the studies if I recall, repost them if you please.

As for my studies I post they hold up better in meta analyses as they have actual strong conclusions and I would like to see the evidence as to how they are less controlled. Furthermore, these definitely have higher numbers than studies you have posted previously.

>>16404127
The Minnesota, Sydney, WHI, and meta analyses looked at overall mortality as well as CVD events and other factors all showing a consistent result. And off the top of my head those are all of the big ones I can think of unless you want to look at the Polyp Prevention Trial which showed no benefit to colorectal cancer from reducing red meat.

>>16404136
"The intervention group (n=221) had higher rates of death than controls (n=237) (all cause 17.6% v 11.8%, hazard ratio 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.64), P=0.05; cardiovascular disease 17.2% v 11.0%, 1.70 (1.03 to 2.80), P=0.04; coronary heart disease 16.3% v 10.1%, 1.74 (1.04 to 2.92), P=0.04). Inclusion of these recovered data in an updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed non-significant trends toward increased risks of death from coronary heart disease (hazard ratio 1.33 (0.99 to 1.79); P=0.06) and cardiovascular disease (1.27 (0.98 to 1.65); P=0.07)."
https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.E8707

This is the Sydney Diet Study which is consistent with Minnesota study in which reduction of SFA and red meat and replacing with linoleic acid raised mortality.

>>16404149
>Minnesota Coronary Survey
A study of high vs. low fat intake, literally nothing to do with red meat or even saturated fat, and again, only concerned with cardiovascular health...with institutionalized participants where there were no controls for confounds but age and gender..and unpublished data recovered from this 50yo study casts even more share on its findings on saturated fat- https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246.. You can see it in the fucking abstract https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2643423/
>Sydney Diet Study
"The intervention group replaced SFA with LA from safflower oil and safflower oil polyunsaturated margarine. The control group continued their habitual diet." Didn't know that MARGARINE comes from beef
>Women's health initiative
See my last post, about women with CVD and margarine is cited as a source of sat fat. Not about red meat.
>meta analyses
About red meat?

>>16404157
So it showed no support for red meat consumption? Like all your other studies posted? While mine clearly oppose its consumption? That's what you quote anyway

>>16404129
First has the exact same parameters of previous studies you have posted

Second read some more.

Third doesn't oppose the WHI study as they got no findings as explained previously, but I will ignore that.

>>16404196
"The MCE (1968-73) is a double blind randomized controlled trial designed to test whether replacement of saturated fat with vegetable oil rich in linoleic acid reduces coronary heart disease and death by lowering serum cholesterol."

It lowered cholesterol it did not lower heart disease rates in fact it did the opposite this is the same with Sydney. I'm not even sure where you're getting this from anymore. And the WHI women were told to lower red meat and they did but got more heart disease. These were all studies designed to prove the diet heart hypothesis and they all failed. If that doesn't get you to revise your priors you are not being scientific.

>>16404198
This retard is giving off some major shill energy, or perhaps guzzling burgers every day accelerates cognitive decline.

>>16404198
Once again the only significant finding from the WHI was the WORSE CVD outcome for those with heart disease. So those at MOST RISK fared worse when you lowered red meat.

>>16404055
I went to the eggshell in Denver and for two sausage and gravy breakfast with orange juice was $67

>>16404208
>It lowered cholesterol it did not lower heart disease rates in fact it did the opposite this is the same with Sydney
"Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid."
>And the WHI women were told to lower red meat and they did but got more heart disease.
"The conclusion after 8.1 years of study was that: ‘… a reduced total fat intake and increased intake of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of [coronary heart disease] (CHD), stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and ach"
Not about red meat, not about genpop, not about any other outcome but CVD

To reiterate this is what happens when you look at all the best data, clinical trials, on saturated fat (animal foods).

"The current available evidence found nosignificant difference in all-cause mortality or CHDmortality, resulting from the dietary fat interventions.RCT evidence currently available does not support thecurrent dietary fat guidelines. The evidence per se lacksgeneralisability for population-wide guidelines.:
https://openheart.bmj.com/content/openhrt/3/2/e000409.full.pdf

>>16404266
>"he systematic review included 62 421participants in 10 dietary trials: 7 secondary preventionstudies, 1 primary prevention and 2 combined. Thedeath rates for all-cause mortality were 6.45% and6.06% in the intervention and control groups,respectively. The risk ratio (RR) from meta-analysiswas 0.991 (95% CI 0.935 to 1.051). The death ratesfor CHD mortality were 2.16% and 1.80% in theintervention and control groups, respectively. The RRwas 0.976 (95% CI 0.878 to 1.084). Mean serumcholesterol levels decreased in all intervention groupsand all but one control group. The reductions in meanserum cholesterol levels were significantly greater inthe intervention groups; this did not result insignificant differences in CHD or all-cause mortality."

And before you say it yes saturated fats is a good marker for animal foods like red meat unless you suppose everybody is eating copious amounts of palm and or coconut oil.

>>16404208
>It lowered cholesterol it did not lower heart disease rates in fact it did the opposite
Again, not a study about red meat, not a study about genpop, not a study about non-CVD outcomes
>this is the same with Sydney.
It's literally in the abstract that the source of fat came from margarine. Is red meat the source of margarine?
>And the WHI women were told to lower red meat
Again again, not about red meat (literally mentions fats from fish and margarine in addition to ruminants), not about genpop, not about non-CVD health outcomes.
>These were all studies designed to prove the diet heart hypothesis and they all failed.
Again, this thread is about "is a red meat-based diet good for you", not "is a low fat diet good for you". It seems that you're shillingly ignoring the difference.
>>16404266
>when you look at all the best data, clinical trials, on saturated fat (animal foods).
yeah, those 50-year-old studies on mental patients and swapping carbs with margarine

>>16404280
Yes they replaced the satured fat (animal products INCLUDING red meat) with polyunsaturated fats. And they did look at other outcomes like total mortality which went UP on the intervention group that got less saturated fat. And that meta analysis is every relevant study to date that met the pre specificed criteria not just old studies nice try though. And you seem to misunderstand what the diet heart hypothesis is so read up on it a bit and get back to me. Perhaps it has something to do with the last 80 years of pushing less red meat and animal products.

>>16404292
>Yes they replaced the satured fat (animal products
and margarine lol
>INCLUDING red meat)
But I thought you preferred clinical trials, which are better for controlling some extraneous variables. Why don't you point to some clinical trials that specifically focus on heavy red meat vs. less heavy red meat consumption, since you're so big on controlling for confounds? Surely a study that adds fish and margarine to its list of healthy fat sources isn't sufficient, given your high standards.
>And you seem to misunderstand what the diet heart hypothesis is so read up on it a bit and get back to me. Perhaps it has something to do with the last 80 years of pushing less red meat and animal products.
Yes, it is the diet used in the WHI study you linked- high carb, low fat.

God this whole thread is retarded.

>>16404312
Just look at any study of the Atkins/Keto diet where they increase red meat and improve weight, reverse diabetes, and more. I've posted the closest we have in terms of clinical trials there isn't one to knowledge that only changed red meat but the ones shown were designed to test the Diet Heart Hypothesis (SFA + cholesterol = + heart disease risk) and they all failed which means your hypothesis is WRONG.

>>16404317
>Just look at any study of the Atkins/Keto diet where they increase red meat and improve weight, reverse diabetes, and more.
Have any publications on hand about how a red meat heavy-diet increases health outcomes? I provided plenty that associate higher red meat (specifically red meat, not margarine, fish, or poultry, as is the topic of this thread) consumption with poorer health outcomes including but not limited to all-cause mortality and can produce more, especially if 50-year studies meet your standards lmao. Where's your data on red meat?

>>16404317
Oh, and since clinical research is your thing and you don't seem to care about the populations that are being sampled or the outcomes that are being measured, here are some for you
>https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4141
>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S089990072100006X
>https://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/27/9/2108.short
>https://www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2014228

>>16404333
>associate higher red meat (specifically red meat, not margarine, fish, or poultry, as is the topic of this thread)
Note associate as these studies are not designed to show cause and effect. Like I've said I've posted studies where people remove red meat and animal foods and their health gets worse. The Ketogenic diet trials show the reverse because they usually increase red meat consumption yet show greatly improved health. I've posted all of this in links above you just keep coming up with ad hoc rationalizations for why none of these trials are good enough despite having zero to prove your case except arguably the Lyon Heart Study which I have yet to look into in depth.
This is in my mind one of the most compelling because it looked at all the clinical trials and came to this conclusion
>>16403800
>“There was little or no effect of reducing saturated fats on non‐fatal myocardial infarction or CHD mortality, but effects on total (fatal or non‐fatal) myocardial infarction, stroke and CHD events (fatal or non‐fatal) were all unclear as the evidence was of very low quality

>>16404359
See >>16404353, I can happily post more, because there is plenty of clinical research specifically about red meat that you somehow didn't seem to find (I wonder if it's because it doesn't support your repulsive diet)
>I've posted studies where people remove red meat and animal foods and their health gets worse.
You've posted studies where people on high vs. low saturated fat diets have better cardiovascular outcomes, with the fat coming from a variety of sources. I could easily use your links to shill for Big Margarine.
>>16404359
Again, not about red meat, not about genpop, only about cardiovascular disease. Not even a journal publication.

>>16404353
All of those are irrelevant with respect to showing causality except the nature paper because that was the only clinical trial. The only clinical trial you post is a small study with meager results. Not only that they only looked at soft outcomes not hard like mortality and CVD events.

your only clinical trial:
"24 women and 7 men; age: 58.1±6.0 years) with type 2 diabetes"
"ignificantly decreased fasting blood glucose (P=0.04), fasting insulin (P=0.04), triglyceride concentrations (P=0.04) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (P=0.02)."

So a small sample size with barely significant results where as the Keto diet study I posted here >>16403921
which increased total fat as well as saturated fat (red meat/animal foods) consumption and saw complete diabetes reversal in long time diabetics in >54% as well as remission in another ~15%. I think the data speak for themselves.

what the fuck are you guys even talking about?

>>16404379
>Again, not about red meat, not about genpop, only about cardiovascular disease.
These are all wrong. They removed red meat and other animal products and replaced with other fats. Why is this not generalization but your study of 30 people is? And yes it was about CVD risk that was one of the main outcomes measures. All your criticisms are weak and you studies are of poor quality.

>>16404391
He thinks red meat causes heart disease and diabetes I think. I'm not even sure at this point.

>>16404404
Clearly its been demonstrated to be debatable.

>>16404404
The main takeaways should be that no clinical trials have shown red meat to increase heart disease or overall mortality. And thats not for lack of trying I've posted all the studies in this thread as well as meta analyses of all the relevant literature and the results are consistent.

>>16397303
Grab any fish, tinned or fresh and fry it with mushrooms on the side and hit with lemon juice and onion rings. Experiment with tomatoes, onion, leek, pasta, spices and sauces. After a week you'll wonder why beef exists

>>16404386
>All of those are irrelevant with respect to showing causality except the nature paper because that was the only clinical trial
Okay, here -- and only because you seem to care a lot about the research method being the absolute shittiest possible one for nutrition research but don't seem to mind drawing wild conclusions well beyond what the data would actually indicate:
>https://www.nature.com/articles/1602713
>https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/109/2/288/5307117?login=true
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/40/7/583/5232723?login=true
>https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/110/1/49/4085218?login=true
>https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035225
this metaanalysis might be interesting to you:
>I think the data speak for themselves.
The data about fats and not about red meat?
>>16404395
>They removed red meat and other animal products and replaced with other fats.
Yes. They removed sources of fat, including red meat and also including other sources of fat.
>Why is this not generalization but your study of 30 people is?
Did you not catch "Oh, and since clinical research is your thing and you don't seem to care about the populations that are being sampled or the outcomes that are being measured"? I thought these would be to your liking since they're of the flawed methods that you seem to be into, just as you seem to be into drawing conclusions about red meat from studies that use margarine as the treatment.

>>16404462
once again observational studies can not show causality yet you keep posting them heres what one of your actual interventional trials says though
"there seems to be no additional beneficial impact of reduced red meat intake and increased fiber intake on the improvement in cardiometabolic risk parameters."

>>16404462
and the data are about fat including saturated fat which means red meat and other animal foods

>>16404462
from your meta analysis

"Inconsistencies regarding the effects of red meat on cardiovascular disease risk factors are attributable, in part, to the composition of the comparison diet. Substituting red meat with high-quality plant protein sources, but not with fish or low-quality carbohydrates, leads to more favorable changes in blood lipids and lipoproteins."
So once again no data on hard outcomes just some changes in lipids

>observational studies
Isn't this useless?

>health nut Karen goes to the gym, stays a healthy weight and subs margarine for butter like the doctors recommend
>Bubba smokes, is obese, eats fried chicken every day, never visits the doctor

wow guys we figured out margarine makes you healthy. The power of observation

>>16404500
Yes but he likes observational studies because they "prove" red meat bad. In reality you can only infer causal information from observational studies in extreme cases like with lung cancer and cigarettes where there was a 20-40x increased risk. In these observational diet studies it tends to be relatively tiny increases of risk like 10%.

>>16404478
>once again observational studies can not show causality yet you keep posting them heres what one of your actual interventional trials says though
I posted CRTs, but please explain to me why short-term 50-year-old research on fat-heavy vs. carb-heavy diets, that use margarine as the entire or part of the treatment, with sample populations like long-term institutionalized mental patients and women with CVD, are somehow more valid than large-scale demographic-controlled repeated longitudinal studies with hundreds of thousands of people, i.e. the best methods possible for dubious fields like nutrition, that specifically examine red meat.
>>16404482
And fish, and margarine. I assume you're a big fan of margarine.
>>16404487
"Substituting red meat with high-quality plant protein sources...leads to more favorable changes in blood lipids and lipoproteins."

>>16404510
M8 you think that clinical research is reliable and that you can conclude that a study on cardiovascular outcomes that swapped high carb with margarine = red meat is good for you.

>>16404500
The big cow shill is using "observational" wrong. Population studies are controlled for factors like age, weight, smoking, etc. Observational studies are when you watch participants and note + code their behavior then extract patterns. The guy doesn't know jack shit about research methods.

>>16404515
>large-scale demographic-controlled repeated longitudinal studies with hundreds of thousands of people, i.e. the best methods possible for dubious fields like nutrition, that specifically examine red meat.
I've explained it half a dozen times and this will be the last these studies are only designed to test for associations not causations its that simple. Causal information can be inferred in extreme cases like cigarettes and lung cancer but diet studies never meet that criteria.>>16404515
>And fish, and margarine. I assume you're a big fan of margarine.
I'm not those were just the most well controlled studies of their time designed to test the diet heart hypothesis which is what you arguing for and they all failed. They REMOVED red meat saturated fat and animal foods and ADDED margarine.

>>16404536
>Causal information can be inferred in extreme cases like cigarettes and lung cancer but diet studies never meet that criteria
That's simply untrue. Large-scale population studies are the best tool available for studying long-term health outcomes and effects that are modulated by a shitton of confounds, e.g. the effects of ageing, the effects of diet, the effects of pollutants. This is why nutrition research is notoriously poor; the sample size is almost always extremely low given the confounds caused by individual differences and there is no way to study the long-term effects of any given factor. Longitudinal research is then often repeated and paired with cross-sectional and experimental or quasi-experimental studies to approximate the truth so that it's not a matter of 'see? 1,000 loonies were given more fat than 1,000 other loonies 50 years ago and fewer of them died'. If you knew anything about research methods then this would be a no-brainer, but who could expect more from a proponent of margarine?
>They REMOVED red meat saturated fat and animal foods and ADDED margarine.
And the people in the margarine condition had better CVD outcomes. That means red meat is bad for you and margarine is a superfood!!!

>>16404556
They control for the factors they can think of that have an effect but for every one that they do there are likely just as many if not more con founders that haven't. This is why 80-100% of observational epidemiology turns out to be wrong when tested in clinical trials.
>>16404556
>And the people in the margarine condition had better CVD outcomes. That means red meat is bad for you and margarine is a superfood!!!
Here you are simply wrong the intervention group had MORE deaths. So less red meat more margarine and more deaths.
"The intervention group (n=221) had higher rates of death than controls (n=237) (all cause 17.6% v 11.8%, hazard ratio 1.62 (95% confidence interval 1.00 to 2.64), P=0.05; cardiovascular disease 17.2% v 11.0%, 1.70 (1.03 to 2.80), P=0.04; coronary heart disease 16.3% v 10.1%, 1.74 (1.04 to 2.92), P=0.04)."

>>16404568
>They control for the factors they can think of that have an effect but for every one that they do there are likely just as many if not more con founders that haven't
And how is this different than clinical research, which is subject to the same individual differences that effect participants of all human research?
>This is why 80-100% of observational epidemiology turns out to be wrong when tested in clinical trials.
Source?
Here you are simply wrong the intervention group had MORE deaths. So less red meat more margarine and more deaths
By your logic [thing was also removed] was responsible for the healthier outcomes of the control group. Shitty old study showing higher fat diet is better than low-fat diet of course means that any given high-fat item that i want to shill is healthy.

>>16404625
“Any claim coming from an observational study is most likely to be wrong.”
https://rss.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2011.00506.x

So now I have to explain the difference between a clinical trial and an observational study to you? No thanks you should've learned that in 8th grade science class and if not just ask the internet. You don't even seem to be making logical sense anymore you should go take a walk and calm down.

>>16404625
More on why observational studies are not useful for causal claims only to generate hypotheses.
"Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak. Effect sizes shrink in meta-analyses."
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/97/1/127/4576988

>>16404637
>>16404647
t. margarine man who thinks that a short-term study on fats on women with CVD and high-carb vs margarine-enriched diets can be generalized to red meats and genpop
You haven't even taken stats 101 you peabrained handflapper, let alone the most basic life sciences course, you can't even use "observational study" right after I explained what it means to someone else ITT. You can't explain the difference between a clinical trial and an observational study because you are using the term 'observational study' incorrectly.

>>16404754
Sigh more strawman arguments. Just no point in engaging if you are going to argue in bad faith. Say whatever you will but there are still no RCTs showing risk from saturated fats / red meats and plenty to the contrary. The only studies showing red meat / SFAs to be bad are only "associational" and since you are the resident scientific expert you can explain to everybody why that is not causal information.

>>16404766
>short-term research investigating diet with fat including fish and margarine vs. high-carb diet on cardiovascular disease = high red meat diet must be good
t. absolute retard
> The only studies showing red meat / SFAs to be bad are only "associational" and since you are the resident scientific expert
The fact that you're confounding red meat with saturated fats when none of the studies you linked even pretended to make an assumption about red meat (go ahead and search for the term on any of those perfect studies) is absurd.
>you can explain to everybody why that is not causal
Every study where the participants are inherently full individual differences that can create confounds is an attempt to establish a causal effect by controlling for these factors; clinical and population research methods are both trying to do the same thing. Again, you would know this if you had a lick of training in research methods.

>>16404838
>>16404766
Can you two shut the fuck up or go on discord or something?

>>16404838
The saturated fat must be coming from all the huge amounts of coconut oil we eat then. Red meat contains no saturated fat and is not relevant clearly. See how stupid this sounds.

>>16404838
And the difference you fail to mention is that observational studies, sometimes called prospective cohort studies, can not prove causation. For that we need interventional clinical trials where you go in and change something and look at the outcome. But you knew that already Mr Bigshot Science.

>>16404928
The potential exception to this being when you huge hazard ratios upwards of 4 or 5 where the association is strong you might be able to infer causality. The classic case of this is the association between lung cancer and cigarette smoking where the hazard ratio was 20-40x increased risk between smokers and non smokers. The hazard ratios in nutritional epidemiological studies are relatively tiny usually 1.1 or maybe 1.2 and that is just too small and can be confounded by too many things to assume there is some causal relationship.

>>16404838
Here is an example from a paper on the Bradford Hill Criteria explaining the same thing.

"Hill’s first criterion for causation is strength of the association. As he explained, the larger an association between exposure and disease, the more likely it is to be causal. To illustrate this point, Hill provided the classic example of Percival Pott’s examination of scrotal cancer incidence in chimney sweeps. The tremendous strength of association between that occupation and disease—nearly 200 times greater than seen in other occupations—led to a determination that the chimney soot was likely a causal factor. Contrarily, Hill suggested that small associations could more conceivably be attributed to other underlying contributors (i.e. bias or confounding) and, therefore, are less indicative of causation."

>>16402568
why do the anti meat ones all look so jewy?

>>16404999
I'm just going to leave this here:
I want to redpill you on (((Veganism)))
>18 Vegan Doctors Who Drive (((The Plant Based Movement)))
https://nutriciously.com/vegan-doctors/
I just want /pol/ to look at the driving forces behind Veganism. Notice anything?
>Esselstyn (alternate spelling of Esselstein)
>Goldner
>Goldhamer
>Ostfeld
>Lederman (alternate spelling of Letterman)
>Klaper
>Ornish
>Michael Greger (the #1 vegan doctor on Earth, confirmed Jewish by his wikipedia page)
>Joel Kahn (admits to being Jewish in an interview (see sources))
>Garth Davis (he made a Facebook post saying he is Jewish (see sources))
That's 10 out of 18 confirmed ultra-Jews with many of the remaining 8 being unconfirmed yet highly probable Jews. 56%+ of most "influential" Vegan Doctors despite being only 1.75% of the population. (sources here since 4chan thinks some of the URLs are spam: https://pastebin.com/UvGtvNh8

>>16404999
I'm just going to leave this here:
I want to redpill you on (((Veganism)))
>18 Vegan Doctors Who Drive (((The Plant Based Movement)))
https://nutriciously.com/vegan-doctors/
.Notice anything?
>Esselstyn (alternate spelling of Esselstein)
>Goldner
>Goldhamer
>Ostfeld
>Lederman (alternate spelling of Letterman)
>Klaper
>Ornish
>Michael Greger (the #1 vegan doctor on Earth, confirmed Jewish by his wikipedia page)
>Joel Kahn (admits to being Jewish in an interview (see sources))
>Garth Davis (he made a Facebook post saying he is Jewish (see sources))
That's 10 out of 18 confirmed ultra-Jews with many of the remaining 8 being unconfirmed yet highly probable Jews. 56%+ of most "influential" Vegan Doctors despite being only 1.75% of the population. (sources here since 4chan thinks some of the URLs are spam: https://pastebin.com/UvGtvNh8

why not try cutting yourself outta the equation, or start cutting yourself, or start cutting parts of yourself off and eating that instead?

>>16397303
>I'm trying to cut out red meat (and reduce my meat in general from the average american diet)
Whu

Hi everyone,

I want to apologize for the unacceptable behavior of my wife in derailing this thread. I'm going to block this website on our router from now on to prevent future incidents.

Sincerely,
Anon

>>16402759
>Processing grain takes days if not WEEKS
Sure, if you're doing all of the harvesting and threshing by hand or if you're doing a whole field by yourself.

>>16402752
>fermentation, pickling and salting are modern technologies
k

>>16397303
The obvious middle ground here is to eat grains and meat like people have been for the entirety of documented history (not including eskimos and other extreme environment dwellers). You grow/harvest grain for bread and feed the stalks to animals.

Anyone who claiming that humans are obligate carnivores or are naturally vegan is retarded. Humans are opportunistic omnivores. You can't survive on an exclusive diet of steaks, nor can you survive on a diet exclusively consisting of rice and broccoli.

>>16407661
>Sure, if you're doing all of the harvesting and threshing by hand or if you're doing a whole field by yourself.

Well, yeah, thats my end plan. To produce all my own food. Which means most grains will probably be rare treats. My starch of choice will be potatoes.