/ck/ - Food & Cooking

And then he goes into the whole "Norway started a plant based diet because of Nazis derp" analogy. Really? First off, how ridiculous is it to believe that a sudden diet change has IMMEDIATE results in a population's mortality rates. Come on, you can't believe that, can you? That's just ridiculous. It's more likely deaths weren't recorded as properly during those times of invasion and seizure of the Norwegians. Ever thought of that? People probably died more of direct causes such as.. ugh... war during that time. A chart showing me a drop in mortality from circulatory diseases at exactly 1940 when Nazi Germany occupied Norway without any sources or other proof of his claims doesn't really sell me on this, I'm sorry. Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

It's funny how they always portray meat in a most charred, heavily browned state. Yeah, guess what. That's pretty bad for you, nobody's disagreeing with you there. Chances are if that meat's also full of crap, hormones, antibiotics and other drugs it's highly likely not going to be good for your health. I don't understand why they do this? Why not show some sous-vide prepared grass fed beef? I love vegetables and fruits, I just don't take my protein from them - I have my coho salmon and sardines as well as my local beef for that. I don't try to scare people by charring and oxidizing vegetables, am I? I'm just saying, there's clearly a conscious decision in this documentary so far to portray meat as the prime evil food that it just isn't.

I don't consume dairy at all, never even liked it and I agree with all the research backing up that it's not good for you so I'm agreeing with Dr. Campbell on this. I don't understand why they say that soybeans don't promote cancer, though. We have tremendous evidence so suggest that unfermented soy is horrible for you, especially in case of breast cancer. I gotta note at this point that I eat heavy amounts of Natto. That stuff is delicious, especially on some basmati rice with dijon mustard.

By all means, I'm eager to see what more educated vegans/raw food advocates have to say about this. I'm really not sold so far.

Did Dr. Campbell really just say during the China Study that eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy? That's batshit insane. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever. There's been numerous in vitro and in vino studies done that show cholesterol is an important nutrient. In general he seems to be stuck to the paradigm that casein isn't good for us, therefore all animal protein is bad. And then we have this Chinese Yen guy with 5 heart blockages that goes on record in this very documentary saying that traditional Chinese were eating maybe half a pound of meat divided by a family of four. In the study, while the dietary surveys were conducted in the autumn of 1983, the mortality rates were taken a decade earlier in 1973 through 1975. Rural areas were thus deliberately selected to ensure that the people in the area had for the most part lived in the area all their lives and had been eating the same foods native and traditional to that area, so that the mortality data would reliably match the dietary data. Just read through this critic: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html#allornothing

I mean help me out here, I'm really trying to understand and maybe even follow this vegan diet advice but so far I'm just feeling a moral Hintergedanke in all of this, instead of empirical evidence. Yeah sure they always talk about Esselstyn's reversal of heart disease but it's such a small study group, there's just no large scale evidene for it yet. I'm not diminishing it, I'd honestly just want more evidence before I start praising him as a revolutionary.

I like McDougall, I think I'll look more into him after this. The old lady is balls to the walls awesome, 70 years old and running past by other similarly old people who're just sitting there like vegetables. Hell yeah baby, keep on rocking.

I'm really not sold on the "vegan farming" thing though. I'd promote a lifestyle change in our whole society where everyone should have a small garden with some chickens. It'd teach people something and relieve stress in my opinion. Not to mention the huge amounts of back and front yards of Americans that are currently unused. All dat soil, think about it...

The narrator gets his results back and sure his Total Cholesterol is down to 154, whatever that means, but his triglycerides are at 169. 169!!!! Are you kidding me? That's freaking huge. If he doesn't have enough lipoproteins to keep them moving, man he's not really looking to good... I don't get why they'd include this in the documentary as it seems quite damaging to their diet advice, no? Funny how the MD completely neglects it, even though it's marked in fucking RED. Pretty shitty HDL too, I gotta say. 40? Really? That's horrid, I'm personally approaching 90 at this point, whereas my LDL is down to 70. No idea what this guy's doing, but his HDL and triglycerides don't look so good. I also have to say if your CRP is above a 2.0 you're at risk. Okay? At risk. Unless you're an athlete, in which case inflammation is usually occuring throughout your body, but even that you can keep in check with Vitamin D for example. Too bad they didn't check LpPlA2. That would've been fun...

Stooop. There are multiple studies that show meat is carcinogenic and you only fucking watched 20 minutes into it and decided it was bullshit so you will not be taken seriously. Admit it, you started watching it just waiting to be able to point out a "flaw" because you're a typical defensive meat eater who doesn't want to have to change their ideas about nutrition or acknowledge that what they've been doing all their lives is not only pointless but harmful.

>>5609572
Shut the fuck up. They've shown that properties in animal protein are carcinogenic. It doesn't matter if it's charred or not, you're still going to get IGF-1 from it.

Everyone loves to make absolute statements like, "the studies only show charred meat is bad!" No, fuckwit. That's just ONE study you heard about on the grapevine and you know fucking nothing about nutrition and new studies come out all the time but you wouldn't understand that because all you read are paleo blogs.

>>5609441
If you have the time to type this up then you have the time to do some of the citation research for yourself and see.

Oh and all this wall of text will be, "too long;didn't read" for 99.999% of /ck/.

>>5609572
SOY PREVENTS CANCER AND THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE STUDIES SHOWING THIS SHUT THE FUCK UP. STOP SPREADING IDIOCY.

>>5610484
Wrong. I watched the whole thing Mr. I-Know-It-All Vegan. I was interested in what the giants of veganism had to say about their food choices and guess what? It's lackluster at best. If this movie was supposed to convert me, it failed at it. I'm sorry you're so gullible.

>>5610499
>lel he reads paleo blogs
I don't even promote a high protein/paleo bullshit diet. There goes your assumption. On your point of studies coming out all the time, you're completely right. They do and guess what? I'd rather trust studies post 2008 than whatever your nutritionfarts is linking from the 1980s. Also check AllTrials, it's a fucking campaign by MDs to get better studies transparency out there. You didn't reply to any of my questions, instead you ignored my initial interest in the subject and started getting all defensive without explaining shit on any of my points. You just failed, son.

>>5610500
I did. There's enough counter studies, as there is to everything in nutrition science because it's not set in stone and nobody has a 100% holistic picture of it.

>>5610501
>capslock
>my opinion matters
Show me the studies, because I can show you numerous ones that show increase in breast cancer by whole unfermented soy intake.

>>5609441
>veganism

ok, here's the summary:

good intentions
some good data
some bad interpretation
moral imperative makes it highly political and evangelistic
people _want it_ to be true and avoid peer reviewed research contrary to the worldview they adopted around their feelings/prescience sandwich
defensive reflex further aggravates sense of purpose and surety

in short: nutritional science is relatively new and impoverished and is unduly affected by politics and money. if you remove the moral imperative of popular veganism it falls apart as quickly as the equally ludicrous idea of fully carnivorous humans.

but that doesn't mean you can't eat that way and use technology to supplement the missing macros.

>>5610525
OP here. I agree with you that it's highly political and even zealous in some cases. The idea that nutrition is a science we have mastered is ridiculous and the movie itself showed no peer review of the trials. I'm sorry I'm not so easily fooled and made to jump on the next fad whether it be paleo, veganism or whatever. The suggestion that we should model our lifestyles on a culture whose average lifespan was under thirty years is absurd. We should be using technology to boost our performance.

All religion aside, it is best to eat foods that will promote good health, rather than to eat foods out of tradition.

>>5610522
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/breast_cancer_survivors-soy_good_alcohol_harmful.aspx

It's important to pay attention to the dates on the studies and look for the most recent ones. I've seen blogs citing really old studies and if you look up the study to read it you will easily find that there's an update for it. I saw one posted on a paleo blog from like 1988 and the in the updated version the researchers themselves admitted they were wrong.

It's very hard to get a well balanced view of nutrition for the average person. That's why I use people with PhD's or over 20 years of experience in their fields to help point me in the right direction.

>>5610525
I would have thought you were talking about meat eaters... There's an overwhelming amount of evidence showing that a vegan diet is most beneficial. There's a reason it's being promoted by Kaiser Permanente and Dr. Oz and it definitely has nothing to do with the government. facepalm.jpg

>>5610522
>I did. There's enough counter studies, as there is to everything in nutrition science because it's not set in stone and nobody has a 100% holistic picture of it.

Then why dont' you start harping on those people or do they not fit your anti-whatever-agenda?

Look at the gem about Eskimos who have genetically evolved to avid ketosis. Where is the chemical energy process coming from? Willpower?

>>5609572

>Why not show some sous-vide prepared grass fed beef?

Why do you believe that's more healthy? It's the inherent properties of the meat that cause problems, from the heterocyclic amines that form in all cooked meats (not just charred meats, but especially poultry), the protein itself that raises circulating IGF-1 levels that promote the growth of cancer cells and tumors, compounds like carnitine and choline that are converted to trimethylamine oxide by gut bacteria which contributes to atherosclerosis, the satured fat content that raises ldl cholesterol and leads to plaque formation in the arteries.

Say what you want about Dr. Esselstyn's analysis of Norway, but the man himself is an extremely accomplished cardiologist. By the way, Chris Masterjohn is an very biased, backwards source of information. It's like watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos while reading a Christian Science website that lies every step of the way to persuade you that what you're hearing is wrong. Also, before you disregard Esselstyn's study as a fluke, look up Dean Ornish. Two doctors have done a study with this kind of diet and had success reversing heart disease with it. Ornish's program is even covered by medicare now. These are the people you should listen to for health and nutrition, not a website that tells you high cholesterol is a good thing

And about soy being harmful, that was made up by the Weston Price Foundation. For breast cancer specifically, it's generally found to decrease cancer risk

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/expertvoices/post/2012/08/02/the-bottom-line-on-soy-and-breast-cancer-risk.aspx

>>5610609

Why would I take nutritional advice for a cardiologist? That's like asking my plumber for legal advice.

>>5610640

>why would you take nutrition advice from people who are using diet changes to cure our nation's top killers?

Probably because they're demonstrably correct. Why would you take diet advice from fringe doctors who have demonstrated no results whatsoever yet run websites where they claim they know the truth about health and that all the guys actually finding answers to our health problems are wrong because the theories they made up say so?

>>5610609
I agree that poultry isn't the best source of protein, it's maybe even one of the worst but I'd argue it's because of how less nutritious its fat is compared to beef.

To your point about IGF1. Cancer cells depend almost exclusively on glucose. The mitochondria of cancer cells are dysfunctioning (because of UCP2), which prevents them from metabolizing ketone bodies or free fatty acids. Chronically elevated glucose levels feed tumors and cancer cells. Elevated insulin levels also promote the growth of tumors.

“Evidence exists that chronically elevated blood glucose, insulin and IGF1 levels facilitate tumorigenesis and worsen the outcome in cancer patients.”

The best way to fix this problem is to lower both glucose and insulin levels. This method is especially effective in people with advanced stage cancer (like Steve Jobs). Again, IGF-1 is insulin like growth factor which does have a huge impact on cancer cells because they have nearly twenty times more receptors than normal cells. The study fails to point out that the vegan diet is high in carbohydrates and especially high in sugar which drives insulin production up to dangerous (like diabetes inspiring) levels. Which one do you think has a greater impact on cancer?

Please understand that I'm not promoting high intake of protein (I actually advise against dairy, because casein really isn't good for you and I totally agree with you on here), just low-moderate amounts and even then I'd suggest you take it from salmon or sardines and do a detox every other month just to be safe. Keeping your body low in toxins and cell damage will automatically decrease your chances of tumor growths.

>>5610668
>Probably because they're demonstrably correct.

Well then say so. Saying you should listen to him because he's a cardiologist is largely meaningless.

>>Why would you take diet advice from fringe doctors who have demonstrated no results whatsoever....

I wouldn't.

I read papers and draw my own conclusions. People on both sides of the fence are prone to spin things to support their own interests. The way to cut the bullshit on either side is to see what the data says, not what other people with an agenda tells me.

>>5610670
A vegan diet has actually been shown to be more effective than the diet recommended by the American Diabetes Association to help cure diabetes.

"Plant-based diets may offer an advantage over those that are not plant based with respect to prevention and management of diabetes. The Adventist Health Studies found that vegetarians have approximately half the risk of developing diabetes as nonvegetarians.19 In 2008, Vang et al20 reported that nonvegetarians were 74% more likely to develop diabetes over a 17-year period than vegetarians. In 2009, a study involving more than 60,000 men and women found that the prevalence of diabetes in individuals on a vegan diet was 2.9%, compared with 7.6% in the nonvegetarians.17 A low-fat, plant-based diet with no or little meat may help prevent and treat diabetes, possibly by improving insulin sensitivity and decreasing insulin resistance.

Barnard et al21 reported in 2006 the results of a randomized clinical trial comparing a low-fat vegan diet with a diet based on the American Diabetes Association guidelines. People on the low-fat vegan diet reduced their HbA1C levels by 1.23 points, compared with 0.38 points for the people on the American Diabetes Association diet. In addition, 43% of people on the low-fat vegan diet were able to reduce their medication, compared with 26% of those on the American Diabetes Association diet.18"
https://www.thepermanentejournal.org/issues/2013/spring/5117-nutrition.html

>>5610670

If that theory is correct, then why is there such a consistent body of evidence to say that vegeterians and vegans have lower cancer rates? Why does data not show decreased cancer rates in heavy meat eaters (as well as decreased diabetes rates)? I think I've talked to you about this in another thread, but whole plant foods are natural cancer fighters. Glucose doesn't matter in regards to cancer if the food that's paired with it has the ability to activate cancer cell death.

>>5610609
contains lectins = compromised leptin sensitivity
goitrogens = thyroid and iodine issues
protease inhibitors = protein digestion issues
Monsanto has the monopoly on production = gmo etc

even if the phyto estrogens in soy are not harmfull it's no worth it, a proper diet can detox

"a teaspoon of wine in a barrel of sewage is sewage, a teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of wine is sewage"

not op, but I figured I'd point some things out about why i personally avoid Soy

>>5610539

indeed. be reasonable; be moderate; exercise regularly.

>>5610560
try to understand: a spider overwhelms a fly yet both are infinitesimal at a human scale.

step back. reduce certainty. seek new information.

>>5610692
Most people don't have to worry about goitrogens. Only people who already have thyroid conditions MIGHT want to avoid them. But you'd have to eat a ridiculous amount of them for them to have significance to your health.

>>5610702

Reminds me of that guy who said kale is bad for you because some goats who ate 24 kilograms of raw kale a day for 6 months had enlarged thyroids

our brains were able to develop and flourish because we ate animals cooked over a fire...

meat isn't bad, too much meat is probably bad for you though

veggies aren't the answer to everything, but having lots of veggies doesn't do any harm

>>5610689
I doubt you have, it's my first thread on this subject here on /ck/ but in any case I haven't seen those studies so I'd have to seriously look into this before I can make any sort of educated comment. In regards to glucose not being important to cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0005064/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xaV2UsLJwVs&list=PLP3Vvthvwn0FfDpQnfFvq24X97WWB4z9C#t=1769

I highly recommend picking up some biochemistry and looking at the Krebs cycle for one. Once you change the body's pathways from glucose to fat you'll notice tremendous benefits. Again, I'm not promoting a high protein diet, rather a diet that lowers your carbs below 125g (mostly from vegetables and resistant starches) and increases your fats with ghee, coconut, avocado and olives.

>>5610704
Alls I know is stay away from gluten

>>5610716
I know this isn't all of you vegans out there, but this is what kind of damage these self entitled youtube gurus can do. I saw this thread a while ago on here and it's insane to recommend this type of diet to an average person. You'd kill them within a week or two. I just can't stand these people, if you want to do this to your body, go ahead. My only tip would be to exercise all day long as to not mess yourself up.

>>5610716

I didn't say glucose wasn't important to cancer, I said the sources that glucose comes from often have factors that hinder cancer cell growth. Lack of carcinogenic properties that would create cancer cells in the first place, antioxidants, and phytochemicals that inhibit cancer cell growth.

http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/337301
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23169929
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048091/

The "glucose feeds cancer so eat a bunch of fat instead" theory doesn't really hold up when you realize the people eating the most glucose and the least fat (particularly from animal products) tend to be the least afflicted by cancer. Plus the fact that no matter what you eat, even if you eat 0 carbohydrates, you would still have glucose in your blood.

>>5610753
you seem very certain about many things. you should reconsider that.

>>5610689
In part, because there's a selection bias at play: people who become vegans and vegetarians tend to belong to the "health conscious" set to begin with. They are less apt to smoke or drink heavily (and many are teetotal), and less apt to eat a diet high in refined carbohydrates. Many of them are into herbal medicine and avoid industrial drugs as much as possible. There are any number of risk factors that tend to be lower among vegetarians/vegans than with your AVERAGE meat eater, and many of them are hard to adjust for in studies.

>>5610719
because reasons

>>5611775

>They are less apt to smoke or drink heavily (and many are teetotal), and less apt to eat a diet high in refined carbohydrates

And they also don't eat meat

VEGAN STRONK!

VEGAN STRONK! NO DIE CANCER!

VEGAN STRONK?

AH FUCK!

>>5612347
>>5612349
>>5612353
>>5612355

I don't know why you'd post these even after being shown that vegans as a group have less cancer than meat eaters. Hell, half your list weren't even vegan at the time they were diagnosed with cancer.

http://www.imdb.com/search/name?death_cause=cancer&gender=male&sort=starmeter,asc

There's 6,441 celebrities who died of cancer. How many do you think were vegan?

>>5612347
Jobs went vegan as a holistic approach to his cancer, which he was going to die from. He didn't die because of vegan eating.

It was all bullshit, he cherry picked facts from within those studies which sounded bad and presented the ones that fit his narrative.

Newsflash: vegetarians are a specific health-conscious demographic more so than joe-blow who lives on sloppy joes, burgers, and deepfried oreos

Compare the health of vegetarians with meat eating macro-biotics or people on a good paleo-diet

its like this, I could come out screaming that fruit causes cancer and get a bunch of people to eat really really healthy and exercise but never eat fruit. They would be so much healthier than your average american.

Then I could run around screaming like I found the holy grail

it was fruit all along!!

>>5612920

http://www.bulletproofexec.com/low-carb-paleo-diets-vs-cancer-a-follow-up-note-to-steve-jobs/

>“Over the last years, evidence has accumulated suggesting that by systematically reducing the amount of dietary carbohydrates (CHO) one couldsuppress, orat least delay,the emergence of cancer, and that proliferation of already existingtumor cellscould beslowed down.”

>By limiting carbohydrates, you can decrease your risk of cancer and improve your chances of recovery. You can also slow down the progress of an existing cancer.

>The researchers went even further to suggest a low-carb diet could bepreventativeagainst cancer. So much for“no statistical evidence a vegan(ahem, high-carb)diet contributes to cancer.”

if megadoses of plant chemicals are the cure to cancer why isn't it used in hospitals to treat patients?

mind you ketogenic diets have been used to treat cancer patients....and cured them.

>>5612953
>good
>paleo
lmao

>>5612958

It doesn't have to be good. It just has to be statistically better than some random kid living on ramen and digiornos

http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1662484,00.html

the cancer patients in these studies had exhausted all other avenues of treatment. it was their last chance to survive. imagine if they took the ketogenic approach in the early stages of their cancer.

think so wheat grass juice would work?

>>5612954

>bulletproofexec.com

Great source you got there

>if megadoses of plant chemicals are the cure to cancer why isn't it used in hospitals to treat patients?

It's more complicated than that. Look up the Pritikin Research Center. You drip plant extracts onto cancer cells in a petri dish and you can see cancer cells die and be unable to spread. The human body isn't a petri dish though, and the compounds that are effective against cancer are diluted throughout the body and excreted after circulating for a time. As a preventative measure, we've seen regular consumption of plant foods to keep cancer from forming, while if you take someone with a large, developed cancerous growth (or several) and have them eat more strawberries, it's much less likely that it's going to help. Too little, too late

>mind you ketogenic diets have been used to treat cancer patients....and cured them.

Can you provide some evidence for that? It seems weird that you've found the cure for cancer, but nobody in the mainstream medical world seems to notice or care, they're all busy telling you to eat more plant foods.

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/07/21/man-with-stage-3-colon-cancer-refuses-chemotherapy-cures-himself-with-vegan-diet/

>>5612976

where are the studies of late stage cancer patients cured by shots of wheatgrass?

>>5612980

time magazine vs your link.... hmmm.... which one is reputable?

Just came here to say that my culture is in the top three longest living cultures in the world. The other two ahead of us have very similar dietary ideas to ours: heavy vegetable consumption, light meat consumption, moderate carb consumption, little sugar, little added fat, no animal fats beyond incidental occurrence in other animal products (intramuscular fats, for example).

We eat meat only once daily, seldom twice and never at brekkie, usually eating no more than about 100g of meat per day. We often forgo meat some day or other altogether but we still eat meat, just in smaller amounts compared to other western cultures.

Meat is important but shouldn't be overeaten. Just as water is important but having too much will cause
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_poisoning
meat is important but having too much will cause other health problems. Having too little water is also detrimental. While not as extreme as that, having too little meat in one's diet is also bad.
Balance, guys. Balance. Do not go to extremes. Veganism is a silly extreme. Paleo/carnivorism is a silly extreme. Just eat, drink and be merry. Just don't do too much of the first two!

>>5612985
>>5612995

If you want to claim a ketogenic diet is the cure for cancer, go ahead and show us that. I'll pass it along to the world's top cancer researches who seem to be completely unaware that we've found the cure.

>>5613015

>meat is important
>having too little meat in one's diet is also bad.

Why do you think that though?

>>5612976
not him, but bulletproof is a great source my friend. it's not a paleo diet, if you actually gave a crap and looked into it you'd maybe find out why his diet is called the state of maximum performance. because it works and it deals with a lot of shit in the food and overall health paradigm. just go on their forums and check how vegans are trying to counter with plantpositive bullshit and getting smashed. those people are actual health nuts that care for their own health through technology - they're highly educated on the subject, whereas most you faggots just quote nutritionfarts and plantpositive all the fucking time.

>>5613022

where are the wheatgrass studies proving plant chemicals cure cancer?

>>5613027
There are several cases where children raised on meat free diets have died of severe malnutrition both in my country and several neighbouring ones as well. Studies have also revealed that milk from vegan/vegetarian mothers to be less nutritious in comparison to those from mothers who do not follow such extremes.
Look it up.
Do you read German, French or Italian? If so, I might be able to link you to a few scholarly articles, otherwise, gimme a sec and I'll try to find some in English. As far as I understand (or as is displayed in media in my country), veganism is wrongfully championed in the English-speaking world as some panacea for all ills when studies conducted here have shown entirely contradictory outcomes to what studies performed in English-speaking nations have found.

>>5613043

>if you actually gave a crap and looked into it you'd maybe find out why his diet is called the state of maximum performance.

Because he called it that. Everyone says their diet is "maximum health diet." This guy is also a supplement seller, so I guess "maximum performance diet" isn't really maximum performance, huh?

>>5613054

says the vegan that can't survive without b12 supplements.

>>5613052

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1408943

>>5613069

I said cure.

>>5613053

I've seen a few of these cases, but these cases are not exclusive to veganism. Children die of malnutrition because of the specific diet they're given, the fact that it makes headlines when a baby who was raised by vegan parents dies should tell you it's not a common occurance. I remember one case where the baby was fed exclusively "soy milk and apple juice." That's a vegan diet purely by technicality, it doesn't represent any other "vegan diet." You might as well talk about starving children and Africa and use that to say black people everywhere are unfit to raise children

>>5613082

Nobody talked about curing cancer to begin with, just preventing it from developing in the first place. You've been given studies that show this. So far, nothing has been demonstrated to reliably "cure cancer"

>>5613088

refer to the German study.

>When Nebeling last got in contact with the patients' parents in 2005, a decade after her study, one of the subjects was still alive and still on a high-fat diet.

why not stop being such a contrarian and dogmatic religious asshole?

>>5613112

>one of the subjects was still alive

One person lived, which doesn't even sound like you can attribute it to the diet since cancer has a possibility of going away on its own. It seems like a better idea to me to simply not get cancer in the first place, which is a well-documented benefit of plant-based diets.

>>5613054
You clearly just showed me you have no idea in the subject of biohacking. You're just an idiot who calls something he doesn't understand a supplement. I bet you also shop at Trader Joe's and Sprouts. He's selling products that are of high quality without any toxins or by products of typical western production. I bet you also eat your oreos thinking it's all fine and chocolate is chocolate. You have no idea of what quality food means. Dave never makes an attempt to sell you anything on his store, he even tells you to go out and get it locally if you can. He's just offering it to people who can't get those things in a high quality locally. The guy is a tech giant in Silicon Valley, nutrition is his hobby and his wife's job. You're just an idiot who associates everything with meat as bad and doesn't give a crap to look into someone else's argument or lifestyle.

That's why we hate you. And it's why you're always going to be hated. You have no empathy or compassion, you're just riding your high horse thinking everyone is beneath you.

Go ahead, do whatever you want. I'm not going to weep for you one bit when you come down with colon cancer.

>>5613084
Nope. The reports specified that the children were given breast milk from their mothers in addition to a varied, plant-based diet. The breast milk was nutritionally insufficient for newborns due to the mother's veganism.
Newborns to vegan mothers have been documented time and time again in my country for having shockingly low birth weights despite otherwise normal gestation. 2kg? For a newborn? WTF, M8?
I remember a newspaper article back in 1998 that reported that an American study that revealed similar findings to our own studies (exceedingly high infant mortality amongst children born to vegan mothers and frighteningly low birth weights) was muted in the US for reasons inexplicable.
Other studies have shown commonality of nephritic immaturity in children born to vegan mothers.
Yet, in the UK, US and English-speaking Oceania, studies contradict the findings of studies performed in France, Benelux, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Italy and Denmark. Why?

I really wish you read German, French or Italian. Or even Dutch. There are many respectable, peer-reviewed studies in those languages that suggest that purely vegan diets are detrimental yet very few in English.
I mean, they have studies that also deride the excessively meaty American and traditional German diets, as well.

I don't know why my people live such a long time. It could be genetic. It could be diet. But considering that the top three longest living cultures in the world have strikingly similar philosophies when it comes to food consumption, I'm inclined to lean towards championing diet as a significant factor.

>>5613069
>fruits and vegetables are good for you
>"you stupid meat eaters you only eat meat!!!"

see faggot, thats where you are so wrong. i eat a shit ton of veggies and fruits but I also eat around 8oz of animal protein daily and on top of that a fuck ton of saturated fat. i'm doing a cyclic keto diet and it works wonders for me, I haven't had mental clarity like this in ever. changing your energy pathway from glucose to fat is also highly beneficial for the reasons laid out in this thread near the top.

>>5610560
>It's being promoted by Dr. Oz
You're fucking around, yeah? He's a snake oil salesman

>>5613191

>You clearly just showed me you have no idea in the subject of biohacking
>He's selling products that are of high quality without any toxins or by products of typical western production.

Do you by chance watch anime?

>>5613084
yet you faggots always claim that "look he eats burgers and fries" "what a stoopid paleo guy ahahaha" is synonymous with cancer and a horrible lifestyle. Well yeah, of course. You act as if we just eat grilled steak and deep fried french fries all the time. You're so behind on things man it's almost as if you're trolling.

Get down that double standard and stop being a hypocrite. You're like those evangelists.

>>5613204
I give up, mate. Again do whatever, but if you're too arrogant and you got yourself too big of an ego and can't be bothered to look into the opposition to your idea then I can't and don't want to help you. It's hard to free someone from the shackles of bondage.

>>5613194

Well let's see what the American Dietitic Association says

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19562864

>It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes

You would have a point of a large number of vegan children were dying like this and if it was an unfixable problem specific to veganism, but fortunately that isn't true. Sometimes children die. It's sad, but it happens for meat-eating families and families who don't eat meat. Nutrition education is an important thing.

>>5613208

I don't mean to be a dick, but I mean come on. Why do you think this young, inexperienced guy who runs a website knows more about nutrition than everyone else in the world, and yet nobody accepts his ideas into the mainstream? Everybody on the internet claims to know the truth

http://www.amazon.com/The-Health-Benefits-Tobacco-Smokers/dp/9962636434/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405713723&sr=8-1&keywords=william+douglas+smoking

This guy, for example, claims mainstream science has smoking all wrong, and that tobacco is actually good for you, and he has what he considers valid scientific evidence and references to prove this. Coincidentally, he's also a member of the Weston A. Price foundation. I think we can agree the book is untrue and misleading, and the reason it was written was to make money from people who want to think that their unhealthy habit is actually beneficial.

>>5613213
>ADA
embrace your fat cow overlords /ck/

>>5609441
>>5609460
>>5609572
>>5609605
Hey, guess what? Soy is good for you and it prevents cancer. Vegan diets are good for your health only because they reduce fat intake and increase intake of fiber and nutrients. Eating meat does not magically make you unhealthy. Humans evolved to be omnivores. We are true omnivores like rats, we can eat almost anything except overly fibrous plants such as grass and highly toxic organisms. Overcooked meat is bad, undercooked meat is also bad (including you rare steak foodie faggots). Dr. Oz is a quack and an alternative medicine shill.

>>5613224
Problem is Dave actually doesn't promote anything, again you're not indulging in his ideas because of your own firm believes in veganism. I gave veganism a try for two years, it did enough damage to me. I looked through the literature and Dave's research has been profoundly life changing for me. The diet works, not something he has told me to eat, but things he's pointed out to avoid and quality check. If you think every spinach is the same then that's up to you, I personally don't hold that belief. The guy's smart enough and educated enough in nutrition and health to hold his beliefs to scrutiny and discussion. If you challenge him intellectually he'll reply and has done so numerous times on several boards. Just go on the BP forums and you'll see how different people are there, everyone has their own diet and does things that work for them. These people heavily invest in technology to guide them to the best diet, because guess what, we're not all equal as your Veganoverlord would like you to believe. If your vegan diet works for you and you have no issues and feel 100% clarity then I'm not going to get you off of it. But if this doctrine makes you blind to any counter arguments and ideas then you should really consider what kind of human being you are and if you really want to be like that. Then again, this is 4chan and you could just as well be a 14yo basterd with high trolling skills.

>>5613239
>implying fat isn't nutrient dense
what the fuck dude. go on google and look up what nutrition ghee and grass fed beef holds and come back here with a straight face.

>>5613241

I'm looking around the site and I see him attacking grains, which is a pretty bold move since virtually every health organization on the planet recognizes that whole grains are good for you. The sources provided to justify this are ridiculous. He even contradicts himself in two sentences back to back. "Saturated fat does not raise cholesterol over time" and then the next point he makes is "Saturated fat raises HDL cholesterol," and of course when you look at the studies' funding you see "supported by a grant from the National Dairy Council."

I don't have "firm beliefs" in anything, I have rational views based on the available information of the medical world, verified by a consensus among top health professionals that jive with what I see as convincing and true. If reasonable information is presented to challenge the mainstream viewpoint, I take them into consideration. Most of what people present are just ridiculous though, including the bulletproof paleo guy.

>>5613261

Oh yeah, and when you see a website say "Saturated fat is not associated with cardiovascular disease" and then provides links to the two Siri-Tarino meta-analysis, you know you're being bullshitted.

These threads are always the same
>China Study
>Hurr durr vegans are health conscious
>Cancer
>Fuck raw gurus
>Vegans kill kids
3/4 of the thread is just resorting to ad hominem, strawmans, and studies of varying worth.
I don't understand why these threads even exist. All it results in is a either a massive circle jerk or people shit shooting each other.
No one is really willing to listen to what the opposition has to say, and because everyone was taught and raised that it's okay to eat animals, omnivores in particular are unwilling to listen to vegans.

>>5613213
>argues against a poster who states that only English language, particularly American, studies claim veganism is healthful
>by providing a quote from the American Dietetic Association
...

Forks over knives shouldnt be considered a vegan movie, being about health rather than ethics.

Plant based diet =/= vegan

>>5613137

lowcarb is a preventative cancer diet.

>>5613213

their dieticians. think about it.

>>5613261

>Grains contain omega-6 fats, lectins, phytates, damaging fiber, and gluten. Anything that contributes to inflammation will make cancer worse, but gluten has several special characteristics that exacerbate cancer growth. Gluten overstimulates the release of zonulin, a protein that regulates the space between epithelial cells in the small intestine. This causes dysregulation between cells which promotes cancer growth throughout the digestive tract.

this might explain vegan butt cancer. not like you care. anything that contradicts your religious beliefs upsets you.

>>5613481
and what the hell do they offer? i look at food and judge it by its nutritional values, hence why i dont eat dairy and grains. i just eat meat and veggies and fruits. why should i eat dairy? i can get most that stuff better from veggies without the side effects. why should i eat grains? its heavily deprived of nutrients.

unless you tell me you love your dinner rolls and milk, in which case i don't care, have at it. just don't make these foods look like they're the best around. newsflash: even esselstyn was promoting dairy until a while ago. think about it, vegans. even your guru can change his mind any time.

>>5613481

>damaging fiber

You're ridiculous. Grains are also not associated with inflammation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17556700
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24478050
https://www.landesbioscience.com/journals/gutmicrobes/article/24707/

And while people with gluten sensitivites should avoid gluten, gluten isn't found in all grains and people who aren't gluten sensitive can even see benefits from having gluten in the diet, in regards to its beneficial effect on gut bacteria

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3023594/

>vegan butt cancer

As you've been made aware a few times now, cancer, including colon/colorectal cancer rates are usually seen to be significantly lower in vegetarians/vegans

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8172115

Maybe it has to do with the FIBER, which some studies show to be protective of colon cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22074852

And lack of RED MEAT, which has been shown to be siginificantly associated with colon cancer

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16991129
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21674008

>>5610501
Soy raises breast cancer risk. Not to mention causing moobs in men. Enjoy your saggy mantits, brah.

>>5614407

What do you base that on?

Would people stop bumping this thread? The amount of ignorance and idiocy and arrogance here from defensive meat eaters is too overwhelming. I feel sorry for the people who are actually bothering to correct them... These people are deluded and will never learn because they've already decided they're right. Even when you prove that they're 110% without a doubt wrong, all they're going to do is go off on yet another topic that will take pages and pages of text to correct. It's not worth it. It's not even about health for these people.

>>5614414
Outdated and false information they probably saw on some paleo blog.

>>5614424

>I feel sorry for the people who are actually bothering to correct them... These people are deluded and will never learn

I'm not correcting them for their own sake, I'm correcting them for the sake of anyone who might be watching the thread and who might think they'll get cancer or diabetes or whatever if they eat barley and lentils, or that their diet should be based around fatty meat. It's annoying to respond to when it's someone like the "butt cancer" guy because I know everything he says is pulled out of his ass and he repeats himself even after you prove him wrong and ignores any point you make, but some of the other guys I've talked to were more reasonable and able to think beyond whatever conspiracy theories they've read. I don't even care if people follow a vegan diet, I just want to make it clear that a diet based primarily on whole plant foods is going to be the healthiest kind of diet, as virtually the entire medical community unanimously agrees and which we see in populations across the world.

I think one of the reasons this low carb fad has caught on is because, atleast in America, people's idea of a carbohydrate-containing food is very skewed. Pic related, most people think of "carbs" as the foods on the left side, and of course those are unhealthy and everyone should cut them out, but being unfamiliar with the foods on the right side, in their mind the choice of what their diet should be can only be between refined junk food and greasy animal foods. Also, one of the most annoying arguments to read is "America followed the low-fat diet guidelines and now we're fatter than ever." If you give that premise even a second of thought, you can realize immediately that it's bullshit. People love to think they're part of a revolution that's overthrowing conventional wisdom though, to the point where they don't even bother to critically analyze it before they completely invest themselves in it

>>5614450

>pic related

Forgot the pic

>>5614450
I admire your patience.

>>5614450
OP here, I just checked and can't believe the thread has this many replies. Anyhow, nobody has responded to my initial questions or observations so just saying.. don't act so highly, mr. vegan. The first few replies I got in a serious question where pretty dumb if I say so myself. But oh well, enjoy your butt cancer I guess? lol..

>>5614510

Having never seen FoK, I can't speak for it, nor do I know if I would be defending it anyway if I had. I think the take-home message is a "plant-based diet" though, which doesn't necessarily mean strict veganism. The people of Okinawa for example, highest concentration of centinarians in the world, diet is less than 4% animal foods but not strictly vegan, just heavily reliant on plants. In their case, purple sweet potatoes with some grains and lots of vegetables. This is very similar to the highlanders of Papua New Guinea, who traditionally lived on a diet made up of up to 96% various varieties of sweet potatoes. Both cultures are known for their longevity, lack of heart disease, and low rates of most types of cancer. I'm familiar with Esselstyn's work, and the Papua highlanders are one of the cultures he studied to develop his diet that he used to cure heart disease in his patients. Dean Ornish also cured heart disease with a very similar diet. Neal Barnard has had success curing type 2 diabetes with virtually the same diet. It makes more sense to me to take advice from the professionals who are active in the medical community and making waves with proven results and decades of real world experience, rather than book sellers with internet blogs who claim to know the secrets of health that the mainstream medical world is apparently clueless of, who present all of these cherry-picked theories that simply don't hold up to reality.

>>5614545
The only thing that keeps me personally from doing this is the genetics. I'm not Asian and I have no relations to Asia whatsoever, so I'm just kind of dubious of eating the way they ate. Heck, most modern Japanese don't eat that way anymore, ever since the end of World War 2. Okinawa is its own little biome. It's as you say, if you're gluten intolerant don't eat gluten. So if I have the genes and gut bacteria to eat meat, why not source the best quality (not just beef, but salmon and game) and eat it? Just in moderation. As in like 100 lbs a year or less. What makes you think that's a bad idea? I'd of course also be consuming vegetables (green, orange, red, purple..) and fruits (all sorts). That's where the bulk would be. I don't see what's so bad about that?

>>5614568

Why do you think you need Asian genetics to follow a successful diet? The sweet potato isn't native to Okinawa, it was introduced about 400 years ago, and possibly slightly earlier in the Papua highlands. They aren't any more genetically adapted to it than anyone else.

>>5614584
Uhm, because it's shown that some ethnicities have different predispositions to foods? Just look at Africans, they have blood diseases that make them immune to malaria. Makes kinda sense if you eat just vegetables through generations you never express those carnivore genes.. so you wouldn't want to be a carnivore.

I eat sweet potatoes. Pretty much every other day, hannah, jewel and japanese ones. I love the shit out of them. Doesn't mean I'm dropping my coho salmon or local AGA beef.

>>5614633

There's no predisposition powerful enough to support what you're saying. You don't have "the genes to eat meat" any more than native americans (or the papua highlanders for that matter) have "the genes to smoke tobacco." The point of pointing out that separate parts of the world with this general eating pattern of high carbohydrate, low fat, low protein diets heavily centered around plant foods like Okinawa, Papua New Guinea, and Sardinia, is that this sort of diet creates populations who have virtually undetectable heart disease rates. Esselstyn and Ornish's studies didn't focus on genes and ethnicities either, they simply took people who had severe coronary disease and put them on this diet and it worked remarkably well. The only genetic aspect in play is the fact that we're all genetically human and that kind of diet is what is best for us. Hell, William Roberts, the chief editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, even considers humans to be herbivores

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

>>5614660
>humans to be herbivores
>proof is one study and another one he did himself which you have to pay $35 to see
sure sounds legit, bro

to the obsessive vegan shitposter who haunts every /ck/ thread, lying in wait to bury them under walls of text and dumptrucks full of nih links he has either misunderstood or applied in a vacuum of mental derangement: please, if you care about yourself or your family, speak to a mental health professional.

i wouldn't attempt to diagnose you remotely but your behavior is very disturbing. i really hope you can work on whatever troubles you.

>>5616331

When someone shows you you're wrong, wouldn't it be more rational to listen to what they have to say instead of forming excuses and slinking back to your now debunked beliefs?

>>5616519

i dont giv a fuck whats rational im fucking paleo bro. caveman 4 life.

>>5616519

i'm so sorry. i hope somebody you know can help.

>>5613194
>I really wish you read German, French or Italian. Or even Dutch.
>>5613053
>Do you read German, French or Italian?

What is Google Translate you pretentious swine. Is knowing another language your only skill that you have to secretly tout it everywhere?

>>5613239
this