Listen, I have an honest question, please don't deride this into a simple matter of vegan vs. non-vegan mudslinging. I would like for this conversation to be as objective as possible.
Now, here is my question. Most people in medicine agree that we should avoid saturated fats and trans fats. In fact, so much so, in the case of trans fats, that the recommended daily allowance for trans-fats is 0g per day.
We know that most saturated fats come from animal products, and that trans fats come from either animal products or partially hydrogenated oils and junk foods. So, wouldn't it be a wise recommendation to avoid animal products for health reasons?
Again, I am not trying to start a flame war or anything. I just want some good scientific answers because nutritional information seems to be shrouded in misinformation. I would love to argue that meat is healthy, I mean in the case of fish, it obviously is because of the OMEGA-3s, but even chicken to some extent has trans and saturated fats. Ideally, should we only be consuming fish as our main source of protein?
>>35487315
It says something of the zeal of internet vegans that even on an obscure, bankrupt Transnistrian crock-pot and watercolor painting forum, that the notion of vegan vs non-vegan could even be a thing.
I didn't read all your faggot post. But Trans fat should be 0. A half gram a day (which can be acquired from milk and eggs and shit) is going to do nothing. Grams of it is different.
Saturated fat is harmless in moderation and in the context of a healthy individual (eating veggies, exercising, is lean, etc). Maybe 1/3 of total fat intake as saturatrd fat is more than acceptable.
Also realize that only like half, not even, of fat in meat is saturated. Probably the best source of sat fat is some specific oils from plants (coconut, palm oil, etc) and fatty dairy products. The amount of saturated fat in meat is definitely overstated.
>>35487315
>Most people in medicine agree that we should avoid saturated fats and trans fats.
That's not true - you're already wrong Anon. You did not evolve getting fat only from Avocados and nuts.
Look, if you want to eat vegan then eat vegan. If you only want to eat fish then only eat fish. I choose to eat what I want... Will you allow me that freedom if I allow you the same freedom?
>Most people in medicine agree that we should avoid saturated fats
that's outdated now, no-one thinks that anymore.
Red meat is healthy, humans have been eating it for thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years.
this thread is another vegan agenda-pusher, terribly disguised under "i'm gonna tell you not to eat meat but you know i'm just saying this is what i heard and stuff you know"
>The effect of saturated fat on risk of disease is controversial. Many medical professional associations and scientific reviews recommend a diet low in saturated fat, because they argue it will lower risks of cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, or death.[5] However, other reviews have rejected those arguments.[6]
>>35487367
I would say both sides play guilty into all of this.
Vegans have a fervor that would embarrass even the most fundamental Islamist. However, they do make good points shrouded in their zealotry.
Omnivorous individuals claim to be the reasonable side, however, they are almost as malicious in their attacks on veganism. In fact, we have even made it a point to take the whole movement and paint them as a bunch of raving lunatics, without even considering the information and arguments they bring to the table.
I think both of us need to have a rational conversation about nutrition, and sort out what is fact and what is fiction. There is a ton of great evidence for plant-based dieting, it easily has the most scientific research than any other diet. However, paleo and ketogenic diets are definitely making great progress from where they were 5-10 years ago, when the data was almost non-existent. Hopefully now we can get better answers on what should be considered the optimal diet.
>unironically using mainstream medical recommendations to decide what is healthy
someone who is sedentary and overweight having a higher risk associated with higher sat-fat intake is of zero relevance to you as an active, healthy-weight individual.
>>35487315
>Now, here is my question. Most people in medicine agree that we should avoid saturated fats and trans fats.
No.
Trans fats are artificial to our dietary needs, and in long term use are one of the driving factors of cirullary system diseases. In short - long term use of trans fats causes inflammtion of blood vessels and that leads to nasty stuff happening.
Saturated fats are merely energy dense food source and our western diets is rich in them, which makes it easy to overeat, which leads to obesity and related problems.
>>35487390
>I didn't read all your faggot post
It is obvious, since I already stated that the recommended intake for transfats is 0g per day. I would argue that the "trivial" amounts that you consume through meat are going to do nothing, as food producers have been clever, and even if they do contain transfats, if they still put 0g on the nutritional label, as long as it is less than .5g. So in fact, the amount of transfat we consume on a daily basis may be much higher than even 1g a day.
>Saturated fat is harmless in moderation
So, are you willing to grant me the assumption that the more saturated fat we consume, the less health we will be? Wouldn't that be grounds to consider saturated fat as bad?
>>35487434
>You did not evolve getting fat only from Avocados and nuts
We should not assume arguments for nature of evolution, as early man was simply eager to consume whatever we could get our hands on, and had no idea about what was healthy for us. In fact, if you gave early man the choice between icecream and snickers bars or apples and vegetables to eat for the rest of his life, I think we all know what he would consume.
As for your other point, I am simply trying to find out what is the most optimal diet for nutrition.
>>35487456
I am sorry you feel this way. However, while there is some studies that claim that saturated fat is not bad, the great majority of data suggests that it is. I would even liken this to the study that showed that while 97% of research shows that climate change exists, there is still 3% that argue against it. Hell, it even took more than 7000 scientific articles to convince the Surgeon General to make his famous report against cigarettes. The important thing for us is to look at the evidence as a whole.
>>35487580
i really don't see the purpose of you keeping up your soft touch play. you open with "I just want some good scientific answers because nutritional information seems to be shrouded in misinformation", and go on to tell us that your mind is made up, you've already read the scientific evidence, and it's so clear cut you compare it to a literal scientific consensus
>hey guys i'd like to discuss this, personally i think X is true
<actually there's no consensus and X may very well not be true
>no, i've read the evidence, this is clear cut, i'm actually here to discuss the fact that i've come to the objective truth
>>35487580
it isn't about what early man "understood" about nutrition, it's about what our systems have evolved in relationship with. Some animals produce their own vitamin C, humans don't.
>>35487639
My mind is not made up, it's just that the arguments you have presented are not good. You say nothing about the values and benefits of meat consumption, and only try to argue that saturated fats are not bad for us, when most studies show that they clearly are. This is something that we have known since the 50s.
I am genuinely open to the idea the meats and even dairy can be good for us. As I have said, it is clear that fish is an ideal form of protein. I just want to be known if the same can be said about other meats.
>>35487580
>he didn't even interpret my post properly
kek just go faggot
and at least here in Canada, products need to be marked if they contain as little as 100mg of Trans fat.
I seriously doubt anybody eating a reasonable diet is consuming more than a g a day and in most countries that aren't 3rd world shit holes processed foods aren't allowed to be packed with trans fat. I've never seen a food product here with more than 100mg of Trans fat.
and my point was that a minimal amount of saturated fat will have no real detrimental effects. Nobody but an idiot thinks it's a linear relationship.
Plenty of plant foods have saturated fat, so does fish (even your beloved fucking salmon has sat fat, maybe even Trans fat..) and our bodies can handle it just fine.
Just don't eat a fucking block of cheese a day or a stick of butter
>>35487660
So then what do we get from animal products that is nutritionally necessary to us that plants cannot provide, and that outweighs the consequence of saturated fat and trans fat intake?
>>35487719
I'm this guy
>>35487731
Iron, heme iron is only available from meat and is the most bioavailable form. Calcium is the same way. Absorbtion factors are a thing.
And you can't forget protein. No plant protein has a huge amount of BCAAs and is digested/absorbed as well as meat.
Yes, I would personally argue plant products are more important in the diet and if you had to choose between lots of meat and lots of plants, I'd go with plants (from a health perspective that is..). Plants have plenty of good shit. So does meat though. IMO you should have both, lots of vegetables and fruit, and a decent amount of ideally lean meats (red and white).
I also forgot to mention vitamin B12.
And let me mention a study (I don't have a link though, look it up). They took healthy, lean CYCLISTS who excercised almost daily. over the course of 2 months, saturated fat intake (there was a lot fat and high sat fat group) had no relationship with good or bad cholesterol. The consensus was that in healthy, active individuals, it doesn't matter. When you look at obese people that don't excercise, it's a different case.
And some studies show sat fat temporarily increases cholesterol, but in the long term it returns back to normal amounts. That's one issue many studies have. Short term is different from long term.
In the (very) short term lifting makes you weaker and probably more prone to injury.
In the long term, it does otherwise since your body adapts.
>>35487719
>and at least here in Canada, products need to be marked if they contain as little as 100mg of Trans fat.
Not my fault that everything in America is fucked because industry has it's hand in public health
>I seriously doubt anybody eating a reasonable diet is consuming more than a g
1 3oz serving of beef contains .9g of transfats. I know I could eat a 12oz steak with mashed potatoes and a salad on the side. One tablespoon of butter has .5g, it really isn't that hard.
>Plenty of plant foods have saturated fat, so does fish
Yes, and I would think it wise to avoid those foods as well (I think most of us agree that coconut oil was just a shitty fad)
> minimal amount of saturated fat will have no real detrimental effects
Wouldn't containing this "minimal amount" involve reducing consumption of meat?
>>35487731
If you haven't researched which nutrients only red meat has in high quantities how are you able to assess the risks of removing it entirely?
You seem not to be very educated about nutrition so I recommend what I recommend to everyone - sticking to the most natural diet we have information about - some red meat and seafood and a lot of plant variety. Nutrition is still in its infancy so I suggest not radically altering ancestral human eating-patterns around a handful of studies.
If you think trans fat is an issue I'm not able to help you because I've never heard any evidence of moderate meat consumption being harmful even to sedentary and overweight individuals - and sat fat I think you'll find was always a correlative link and one that has since been dismissed.
>>35487794
you also forgot to mention any of the non-essential nutrients.
>>35487794
>if you had to choose between lots of meat and lots of plants, I'd go with plants
I appreciate your intention but I think this is a really harmful dichotomy which lends itself easily to people saying "plants are healthier therefore I don't eat meat" - there's no reason to choose, they complement each other.
>>35487796
>(I think most of us agree that coconut oil was just a shitty fad)
some of us are trying to add mass and it has some of the highest caloric-density.
lol at all the vegans getting btfo
>>35487794
Thanks, this is the kind of posting I wanted to see. I am glad you took the time to compile all of these great points.
I still want to argue with you a little if you will indulge me.
>Iron, heme iron
So heme iron is agreed to be the most bioavaliable form of iron we can get through diet, no question. Do you know how important this bioavaliability is? Like, if we were to obtain iron through plant sources, would it still be enough for optimal health, despite the bioavalibility? Also, I have a few studies that suggest heme iron might be linked to a few detremental effects, do you know anything about this?
W Yang, B Li, X Dong, X Q Zhang, Y Zeng, J L Zhou, Y H Tang, J J Xu. Is heme iron intake associated with risk of coronary heart disease? A meta-analysis of prospective studies.
EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food. Scientific Opinion on the safety of heme iron (blood peptonates) for the proposed uses as a source of iron added for nutritional purposes to foods for the general population, including food supplements.
>Calcium
A lot of my argument would be similar to the heme iron one. Calcium is found in dairy, but dairy products have been found to cause a loss in bone density anyway, so the effects negate each other. I can look up some studies real quick if you are interested.
>BCAAs
This definitely is a good point to make. I admit I am confused on the matter though. So lets say I were to eat 50g of protein through chicken, and get a complete amino acid profile. Then, let's say I eat 25g of protein through whole grains and 25g of beans to get that same amino acid profile. Would these two methods be equivalent?
What really triggers me is that when people compare non-vegan and vegan life spans they are based in the United States and then make a rule out of it. The people who live the longest in the world are Southern Europeans and Japanese people. Both who have a diet of meat and fish but just little compared to the bacon worshipping Amerilards.
>>35487794
-iron is in anything that grows in the ground.
-calcium in spinach has more bioavailibitily.
-most the nutrition found is meat is lost upon cooking
-you don't need to intake b12. Though its harmless to and even beneficial to have more but your body literally makes it own even without it.
meats only benefit is much like milk, its a calorie sink. Thats it. Thats why you eat it. Everything else is a meme and good hearsay
>>35487894
who are you? always roaming through these vegan threads saying vegans are getting btfo...what is your purpose? what do you gain from always without a fail ending vegan threads with "vegans getiting btfo" even when that isn't the case you still type it...I wonder who you are
>>35487863
Just freeze olive oil and eat it in cubes.
>>35487850
I agree and I think I made that point in my post. Both is more ideal than one or the other.
>>35487796
Some lean meats have such a minimal amount of fat. Chicken breast/tenderloins can give you 100g of protein with (I'm pretty sure) less than 10g of total fat. Shrimp and many lean seafood are similar. Some red meats get pretty lean too (and to reap the health benefits of red meat you don't and maybe shouldn't eat it every day either, a serving or two 2x a week is adequate. Fry your chicken and whatever in olive oil and it's delicious. Oh, but olive oil has saturated fat too? How about we just don't eat any fat?
But the thing is certain fats have health benefits. And I think even eating some meats can actually REDUCE the ratio of sat fat to total fat in your diet. E. g. if you've eaten 50% of your fat as sat fat today and eat a meat that's 1/3 sat fat.. its going to be a reduction. Now, olive oil may reduce it more, but it's a compromise.
We've pretty much known forever what's the right way to eat. Lots of fruits and veggies, some meat, whatever. Eat whole "hearty" foods and in moderation and eat a wide variety of food. It's simple enough.
>>35487825
>If you think trans fat is an issue I'm not able to help you
Trans fats are bad for you, no matter how much you consume you will see a negative effect on your health, at least on the molecular level. This really isn't up for debate.
> sticking to the most natural diet we have information about
But what is a natural diet in the age we live in? Each region had it's own specific diet, and at least in my case, my ancestral region is not where I live currently. Not to mention the amount of damage that we put on our food supply in terms of preservatives and growth hormones and all of that kind of stuff. I would go so far as to argue that a "natural" diet is almost impossible for any one individual.
>>35487863
I would argue that if that were the case, olive oil would be a better alternative.
>>35487905
>dairy products have been found to cause a loss in bone density anyway,
I thought this was confirmed for one misleading study promoted by vegans?
something about it being high dairy consumption linked with higher hip fractures but it was in a scandinavian country where the icy winters lead to more hip fractures.
>>35487936
>you don't need to intake b12
it's an essential nutrient (that's another way of saying you need to intake it).
>>35487315
>wanting an objective discussion
>on a taiwanese basket making bulletinboard
pick one
>>35487443
It's also a but calorie dense. Also, the nutritional value of American corn fed beef is dubious. Everyone else can eat beef, just not Amerifats.
>>35487936
>-you don't need to intake b12.
Definitely not the case. Here is a great video explaining why B12 is essential for EVERYONE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7KeRwdIH04
Yes his voice is annoying and its an hour long, but it contains great information regarding B12.
The only point I would make is that B12 is not naturally found in animals, they get it through unfiltered water and bacteria and supplements in their food, the same way we would get it if water had no filtration.
>>35487950
Great points. I think we all can agree that lean meats are typically better than their fatty equivalents. Although maybe we should ignore red meats, as the WHO, and many more have linked them to various types of cancers, even if that link is a small one.
Would you say that we should typically get our protein and amino acids through lean chicken, turkey, and fish for the omega-3s, and leave everything else up to plant sources?
>>35487936
>Everything else is a meme and good hearsay
are you able to tell me what a non-essential nutrient is?
>>35487950
>Just freeze olive oil and eat it in cubes.
I'm not worried about sat fat, though - and that sounds really unappetising.
>>35487951
>no matter how much you consume you will see a negative effect on your health, at least on the molecular level.
Oxygen is very destructive as well.
>>35487951
>But what is a natural diet in the age we live in?
the same thing it was when we last evolved. No area has a diet without any red meat or seafood.
>preservatives
you don't need to eat processed food.
>growth hormones
you don't always need to eat industrially produced meat.
>a "natural" diet is almost impossible
it isn't at all, unless we use an understanding of what humans evolved to eat we're chasing studies in a field which won't have any solid evidence for decades yet. It isn't scientific to use one or two studies to remove entire food groups because vegans think morally you should do so and they're prepared to lie and misrepresent evidence to make sure you do (like that scandinavian dairy/hip fracture study).
>>35487951
I consume a lot of olive oil as well.
>>35488012
is calorie dense meant as a negative? I wouldn't recommend eating mass-produced, hormone-injected industrial red meat - I eat grass-fed venison.
>>35487957
yes
many studies are misleading. that's the thing.
>>35487936
>vitamin B12 is non-essential
I will not even go into this with you. You're meming me.
"Neither fungi, plants, nor animals (including humans) are capable of producing vitamin B12. Only bacteria and archaea have the enzymes required for its synthesis, although many foods are a natural source of B12 because of bacterial symbiosis. The vitamin is the largest and most structurally complicated vitamin and can be produced industrially only through bacterial fermentation-synthesis."
it's been argued that unfiltered (so.. dirty water full of bacteria...) contains B12 and we don't need meat if we just drank filthy water... hm. I don't think it's ever been SERIOUSLY discussed though.
>>35487905
Realize correlation =/= causation.
PEOPLE that eat more heme iron? Maybe they're just obese Americans that eat tons of fatty red meat and that's why it's detrimental to them. Things aren't just this simple.
E. g. one study implied that fat people actually live longer and have less mortality (or however you say it..) than leaner people. The issue with the study however, is that it included old people who had lost lost of weight, ill people, etc. YOU need to control for that. They had a low BMI BECAUSE they were unhealthy. It's likely if they controlled for that, worked within a certain age group, the results would come out differently.
and as for BCAAs, you're confused kinda at the difference between amino acid profile and BCAA content. and protein source mixing is kind of a meme. If you just eat a lot of protein (and less importantly, vary your protein sources), amino acid composition isn't really a concern.
>>35487957
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24247817
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/77/2/504.full
I couldn't find anything about bone density, but it seems as if milk has no correlation with a reduction in hip fractures, which is what medicine uses to determine bone health basically. Even if it was done in an icy climate, wouldn't the control group be in the same climate?
>>35488056
I think the WHO red meat thing is a meme. None of the studies found detrimental effects from anything but correlation as far as I know.
High red meat consumption is likely to correlate with other unhealthy activities, e.g. smoking, being overweight, lazy.
My opinion is that some red meat is healthy. And you're definitely entitled to yours.
Also, I personally don't care about getting w-3 from diet. I used to eat salmon, but now I just supplement omega 3. I don't really eat seafood personally (although there is plenty of good stuff in it like seleniun).
The amount of salmon you gotta eat to get a decent amount of omega 3 is crazy. If you eat grass fed beef everyday, and a bit of salmon, maybe you can get by. But I just take (almost) 2g of omega 3 every morning. I don't care.
>>35488071
the underlying issue here is not only that studies are misleading, it's that vegan sites like nutritionfacts.org are intentionally misrepresenting the evidence.
this is why (same with yourbrainonporn) I think you have to reject someone who has an agenda and ignore any "science" they tell you about - confirmation bias is hard enough to remove even when you want to, let alone when your main interest is moral and not scientific.
>>35488146
we were talking about it causing a loss, now as I understand it you're saying it doesn't add anything which is another question I have no opinion on.
I heard the "milk causes bone loss" study was linking high-milk intake in the north with higher hip fractures.
>>35487315
well OP
cis-unsaturated fats (good fats) are found in veggies, but also fish
the jury is still out on saturated fats, there's some science to suggest that they're not really that bad
and in terms of trans-fats, when you heat up cis-unsaturated fats they can isomerize to trans-unsaturated fats, so fried shit is generally bad
nutrition science isn't real science anyway though so just listen to some broscience it is probably more valuable
>>35488070
>No area has a diet without any red meat or seafood.
Provably false, easily example are the ancient Greeks who viewed meat as "contemptible" and food for barbarians, so they actively avoided it. Meat was historically viewed as a luxury for other cultures, and the low and working class ate a primarily plant based diet.
If you want to get on the macro level, eating meat is way more unsustainable than relying on plant foods. If we were to all take the grass-fed approach, the amount of meat we could produce would plummet and the it would be again, a food reserved for the wealthy. The only thing that makes it sustainable is factory farming, which is definitely not natural.
>>35488071
I was able to find that what most of the researchers think attributes to heme irons correlation to negative health is thought to be because iron can act as a pro-oxidant contributing to the development of atherosclerosis by oxidizing cholesterol with free radicals. This does indeed need further study however.
Even if the study wasn't perfect, which no study really is. Wouldn't it still be wise to follow correlation when it comes to nutrition? I mean now that we know that red meat is highly suspected to be carcinogenic, we don't necessarily need the iron to be bad a well to convince ourselves to avoid consuming it.
>>35488311
no
and meat from ruminants can be argued to be more sustainable. cattle eat grass and derive energy from cellulose and other fibers which are useless to humans. cattle convert nutrients useless to humans (which are probably the most abundant in the world too... E. g. wood is high in cellulose) into fats, proteins and vitamins which our body can actually use for shit.
>Trans fat has been shown to consistently be associated, in an intake-dependent way, with risk of coronary heart disease.
>>35488161
>I think the WHO red meat thing is a meme
The problem with the WHO report is that it states that PROCESSED meats are carcinogenic, while red meats are highly suspected to be carcinogenic, but the exact reason why is still suspect.
People get confused and sensationalize the article, which leads to backlash. People argue against the people who misinterpret the article, rather than the article itself. Regardless, the WHO, and many other studies and institutions, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Cardiology suspect red meat is carcinogenic. Some of these correlational studies date back to the 80s and 90s, as well as today.
>>35488178
There is a difference between cherry-picking and misrepresenting data and what the science as a whole suggests. Telling people to ignore any science is just terrible advice, and is the reason why medical professionals have such a hard time getting Americans to eat right. The best advice to anyone is to read the science on their own and form their own opinions, rather than to just outright ignore everything.
>>35488198
I admitted in the previous post that I couldn't find the study about bone density LOSS. However, from these studies, we can conclude that milk has no benefit for bone health, at best. So in that light, and seeing as how full-fat milk is calorically dense and high in saturated fat and contains some trans fats, we should probably obtain calcium through better means, like Collards are sweet potatoes.
>>35488311
>viewed as a luxury
A luxury doesn't mean they didn't eat it. I view it as a luxury.
>ancient Greeks
in the country, hunting (primarily trapping) allowed for consumption of birds and hares. Peasants also had farmyards to provide them with chickens and geese. Slightly wealthier landowners could raise goats, pigs, or sheep. In the city, meat was expensive except for pork. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_cuisine#Fish_and_meat
>Primarily plant-based
I recommend a primarily plant-based diet, what I'm warning against is eating NO meat. I eat red meat once a week, seafood much more often and rabbit sometimes.
>the amount of meat we could produce would plummet
that's ok with me, most westerners should eat less of it anyway.
>it's unsustainable
living is unsustainable, I actively hate the use of sustainability as a virtue because it's completely unrealistic.
>>35488339
Can you show me those arguments in the form of peer-reviewed studies or journals? Because the world-wide consensus is that meat is unsustainable for our planet, whether it is the deforestation and enormous amounts of green house gas emissions from factory farming, or the simple numbers problem of grass-fed farms.
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/farm/hsus-fact-sheet-greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-animal-agriculture.pdf
>>35488395
>taking medication has been associated, in an intake-dependent way, with having a serious medical condition
>>35488428
>There is a difference between cherry-picking and misrepresenting data and what the science as a whole suggests. Telling people to ignore any science is just terrible advice
The science as a whole doesn't suggest that milk causes loss of bone-density yet it is repeated in "vegan" threads on /fit/. Science as a whole doesn't say red meat is carcinogenic yet it's repeated in "vegan" threads on /fit/.
Please stop being influenced by people with agendas. It's a waste of energy to turn over the same irrelevant veganism-related studies again and again because vegans want them to be true. You absolutely should ignore all vegans when it comes to science, unless you have some reason to believe they're an unusually dispassionate person.
>The best advice to anyone is to read the science on their own and form their own opinions, rather than to just outright ignore everything.
That's terrible advice, people do this now and it leads to them believing veganism has a lot of science behind it. Very few people are able to assess scientific studies. it would be wonderful if that changed but right now it isn't a realistic expectation. What will happen is you end up with pseudo-scientific "evidence" passed around to lend a convincing halo effect to moral agendas such as animal rights and Christian anti-pornography campaigns.
>>35488467
Agriculture only makes up 9% of the US's emissions. Source: EPA.gov
Your source says that all of agricultures emissions are due to animals, and that is simply not true.
It also doesn't count the pastureland (of which there is 750million acres in the US) as a hedge against animal greenhouse production.
>>35488475
Except we know why trans-fats are bad.... its not rocket surgery
You can't make this argument when something has been proven without a doubt to have negative health consequences. It's like arguing that cigarettes correlate to lung cancer, and since correlation does not equal causation, then cigarettes do not cause cancer.
>>35488428
>I admitted in the previous post that I couldn't find the study about bone density LOSS. However, from these studies, we can conclude that milk has no benefit for bone health, at best. So in that light, and seeing as how full-fat milk is calorically dense and high in saturated fat and contains some trans fats, we should probably obtain calcium through better means, like Collards are sweet potatoes.
I was never arguing for milk as a source of calcium, that isn't in my agenda at all. I still disagree with avoiding saturated fats, I like calorically dense foods and have no issues with over-eating so that isn't relevant for me and I'm not worried about trans fats so none of your objections make me any less likely to drink milk. I eat sweet potatoes as well, I think variety is more important than almost anything else when it comes to nutrition.
>>35488266
>>35487315
Saturated fats are generally fine to indulge in freely so long as you are active and eat a balanced diet.
I cite myself: I eat 100-120 grams fat daily, out of about 2700 calories total, 40-50 grams of which is saturated, 25 of which is polyunsaturated and the rest monounsaturated.
My testosterone levels are over 800 ng to the deciliter and my cholesterol is 67 LDL , 62 HDL. My Triglycerides sit around 49 mg/dl- exceptionally low and well into the optimal range.
Were i fat and inactive my diet would lead to heart disease, but for me it actually provides anabolic and health benefits
>>35488467
>humanesociety.org
anyone with an agenda is an unreliable source of information.
>>35488596
>proven without a doubt
well, if I see the evidence I'll believe it I guess - I won't stop eating meat because you say so, though. If it was really as destructive as you say I'd expect all the health authorities to be saying meat is harmful due to its trans fats.
>>35488070
Calorie dense is calorie dense. Whether that's a negative depends on yr goals.
>>35488266
>cis-unsaturated fats (good fats) are found in veggies, but also fish
Nigga, I can make you a pig that's got so much cis-unstaturaded fats, it's lards is a runny liquid. Nobody would buy that shit, though, so we don't feed pigs things that cause this.
Animal fat is mostly dependant on the animal's diet. It can be anything you want it to be and are willing to pay for.
>>35488557
This post contains really horrible advice and is generally terrible. Only few can argue for ignorance and be genuine in their intentions.
>The science as a whole doesn't suggest that milk causes loss of bone-density yet it is repeated in "vegan" threads on /fit/. Science as a whole doesn't say red meat is carcinogenic yet it's repeated in "vegan" threads on /fit/.
First of all, you cherry-picked the bone-density argument for this very thread, which was rectified by my subsequent posts. This is the very thing you are arguing against and yet you are the one perpetuating it. Same thing for the red meat, you took two examples from this very thread and used it to make a broad generalization. Again, both of the points were clarified in subsequent posts, so both of your points are nill.
>>>35488557
>That's terrible advice, people do this now and it leads to them believing veganism has a lot of science behind it
Wow, so when people actually try to read the science, and get their own opinion, they tend toward plant-based diets. No wonder you cannot support this. Let's just make everyone ignorant about anything, then all of our problems will be solved!
>>35488575
So can we assume that data does not count for overseas factory farming? Does it account for data which was overlooked? Because nearly every source I can find, that looks at WORLDWIDE factory farming and animal agriculture, would put the level of GHG emissions at around 50%.
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
>>35487315
Pescaterian is pretty much a diet that fits your requirements but also has meat
>>35488604
Sorry, the original poster I was talking to argued that Calcium was a good reason to consume dairy.
There has been a lot of talk about saturated fat in this thread. If you believe that it isn't so bad for you then all the power to you. My argument is that we should still reduce our intake, as it really has no nutritional value by itself.
>>35488626
Would you then say that there is no real benefit to saturated fat, and that ideally, we should consume other forms of fats? Your overall fat intake is optimal for someone eating that many calories. Do you think converting that 40-50g of saturated into healthier forms would reduce your cholesterol further?
>>35488669
>well, if I see the evidence I'll believe it I guess - I won't stop eating meat because you say so, though. If it was really as destructive as you say I'd expect all the health authorities to be saying meat is harmful due to its trans fats.
On 7 November 2013, the FDA issued a preliminary determination that trans fats are not "generally recognized as safe", which was widely seen as a precursor to a reclassification of trans fats as a "food additive," meaning they could not be used in foods without specific regulatory authorization. This would have the effect of virtually eliminating trans fats from the US food supply.[149][150] The ruling was formally enacted on 16 June 2015, requiring that within three years, all food prepared in the United States must not include trans fats, unless approved by the FDA
>>35488794
There are diminishing returns in regard to lowering cholesterol. Mine is already so good that I don't care to lower it, and I suspect that moderately high saturated/monounsaturated fat intake and lower polyunsaturated intake have contributed to my above average T, so I'm not interested in changing anything up.
>>35488720
>argue for ignorance
not all information is equal. The hardest type of misinformation to rid yourself of is the one which ties itself most closely to the evidence.
>cherry-picking
I've seen both of them posted elsewhere, that's why I used them.
>when people try to read the science
Most often they seem to read propaganda sites and follow the links, that isn't doing research it's swallowing an agenda. It shouldn't be dignified by comparing it to actual unbiased research into nutrition. I've multiple times seen people link nutritionfacts.org directly and I've yet to see any sign of someone doing their own research into nutrition, if you look a few posts above yours you'll see someone linking humanesociety.org.
>they tend towards a plant-based diet.
if you mean entirely plants then I disagree but if you mean mainly plants then I agree that's a healthy, well-established diet.
>>35488847
They're talking about French fries and Hostess products you moron.
>>35488794
>it really has no nutritional value by itself.
trying to reduce it because it isn't necessary by cutting out red meat is hurting yourself, if you agree red meat is necessary or at least hugely beneficial which is what I think.
>>35488847
I thought someone was saying trans fats were found in meat naturally.
>>35489002
>Medical Community understands trans-fats are bad
>Meat contains trans-fats
Make the connection.
I am sure the FDA, AMA, American College of Cardiology, every medical institution in the world would like to ban ALL foods high in trans-fats, but the fact that the meat and dairy industries are so pervasive in food regulation, and the fact that people like you are so attached to the concept of eating meat, that they can't.
>>35489077
Prove meat is high in trans fats compared to a chicken fried in them or a Hostess cupcake filled with them. Is the USDA banning all meat?
>>35489018
>I thought someone was saying trans fats were found in meat naturally.
They are, this isn't a disputable point, it is just fact. You can look it up yourself even, just type something like "transfats in chicken" or "transfat in beef".
>>35488720
>So can we assume that data does not count for overseas factory farming?
It is the US data in response to the US Humane society infograph that was previously linked
>Does it account for data which was overlooked?
wat.
> Because nearly every source I can find, that looks at WORLDWIDE factory farming and animal agriculture, would put the level of GHG emissions at around 50%.
You didn't look very hard.
24% of total worldwide emissions. 6% is fertilizer. This also includes the reductions of sinks via deforestation but does not include creation of sinks.
Accounting for this, the absolute maximum that meat could be would be 13.2% of total emissions, and that is giving meat 100% of all agriculture emissions and deforestation.
>>35489121
You see, in the case of trans-fats, to compare it to other foods that contains trans-fats would be a mistake, since any amount of trans-fats consumed is detrimental to your health. The AMA, Mayo Clinic, FDA, they all make the claim that the only health amount of trans-fats that you can consume daily is 0g.
>>35489187
>compare it to other foods that contains trans-fats would be a mistake
Can you link me to any of those organizations recommending eliminating meat from you diet completely?
>>35489077
>trans-fats are bad
dosage makes the poison.
and if there are significant advantages to eating red meat which it seems obvious to me there are - then even if there are risks you have to work out whether they outweigh the advantages. I think they won't.
>rTFA is ruminant trans-fats
>iTFA is industrial trans-fats
We have previously shown in men that a very high dietary intakes of rTFA (>3.5% of energy) leads to unfavourable changes in lipid cardiovascular risk factors that are similar to those seen with iTFA. However, our data also indicated that achievable intakes of rTFA that remain well above the current human consumption (1.5% of energy intake) had neutral effects on plasma lipids and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors in men.
http://www.bioportfolio.com/resources/trial/75294/Ruminant-Trans-Fats-And-The-Risk-Of-Cardiovascular-Disease-In-Women.html
In addition, paradoxically, recent research has now identified an important cardioprotective role for a sub-category of trans fats, the ruminant trans fats.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691515000435
as far as I'm able to work out, ruminant trans fats is the trans fats in ruminant animals - beef, venison.
>>35489316
Holy fucking shit. It's almost as if naturally occurring trans fats in animals isn't the same as man-made margarine.
>>35489131
http://www.animalfeedscience.com/article/S0377-8401(11)00517-7/abstract
http://www.worldwatch.org/files/pdf/Livestock%20and%20Climate%20Change.pdf
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v515/n7528/full/nature13959.html
The EPA looked only at what is done inside of the U.S. They say so, so we cannot use it for a look at what is happening worldwide.
As for the chart you linked, http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/197623/icode/
The publishers of this chart, admit that
>Total emissions from global livestock: 7.1 Gigatonnes of Co2-equiv per year, representing 14.5 percent of all anthropogenic GHG emissions. This figure is in line FAO’s previous assessment, Livestock’s Long Shadow, published in 2006, although it is based on a much more detailed analysis and improved data sets. The two figures cannot be accurately compared, as reference periods and sources differ.
When you look at the "Long Shadow" article, livestock accounts for around 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide emissions, and 64% of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, both of which are far more damaging than CO2 emissions.
This is all ignoring the other ways that livestock damages our environment, including water consumption and deforestation. Not to mention you ignored my previous article, which I linked in this post for your convenience (hopefully you will read it this time).
>>35489469
>This is all ignoring the other ways that livestock damages our environment, including water consumption and deforestation.
Think about all those forests being cut down in Texas to produce beef.
![QXCzOhW[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/fNPGOJn.png "QXCzOhW[1].png")
>>35489383
>>35489316
Those aren't trans fats they are cis fats.
Trans fats are bad
Cis fats are good.
A great analogy for real life.
>>35489541
>ruminant trans-fats are not trans-fats
how would that work? and the entire argument up til now is that they are trans fats and harmful, so that's thrown out if they're not trans fats.
![fatty_acid_chain[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wHg2iHO.jpg "fatty_acid_chain[1].jpg")
>>35489589
Check your privilege
>>35489316
>>35489383
>>35489541
I am not familiar with the difference betweeen cis fats and trans fats, and how it applies to our conversation, but it seems that the consensus is that trans-fats are bad, whether they come from animals or not.
http://tna.europarchive.org/20110116113217/http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa071207.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2830458/
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/1461.pdf
The first group even went so far as to say that there is no distinguishable difference between the two.
>>35489688
A type of trans fat occurs naturally in the milk and body fat of ruminants (such as cattle and sheep) at a level of 2–5% of total fat.[48] Natural trans fats, which include conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and vaccenic acid, originate in the rumen of these animals. CLA has two double bonds, one in the cis configuration and one in trans, which makes it simultaneously a cis- and a trans-fatty acid.
Nutrition is a snake oil science and you faggots are buying it hook line and sinker.
Guess they have to justify their research budgets somehow.
AYY LMAO
>>35489754
So in the rTFA, there exists CLA and VA, and the CLA is what we would normally think of as a trans fat, the detrimental kind?
Does that imply that rTFA has like 1/2 of the detrimental effect as a industrial trans fatty acid?
>>35489688
if 1.5% is well-above human consumption, one of those studies in the quantitative review you posted (the ncbi link) has that level of consumption associated with a really minimal increase like 0.04 - is that significant?
the quantitative review says "all trans fats raise the ratio", but current human consumption is so low that it seems like it hardly matters, especially if you're reducing your risk factor through exercise - if you find a quantitative review which says moderate human consumption of rTFA significantly raises the LDL to HDL ratio in a way which isn't correctible through exercise or other lifestyle habits then you'd have an argument to leave meat out.
from the food.gov pdf:
>Average trans fats intakes, of which 35-45% was from natural sources, was estimated at 1.2% of food energy by the National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) in 2000/1 – this is well within the maximum recommended average intake of 2%,
so they don't recommend a 0% intake.
cont.
>>35489688
from the efsa pdf:
>The available evidence indicates that transfatty acids from ruminant sources have adverse effects on blood lipids and lipoproteins similar to those from industrial sources when consumed in equal amounts. Prospective cohort studies show a consistent relationship between higher intakes of transfatty acids and increased risk of coronary heart disease. The available evidence is insufficient to establish whether there is a difference between ruminant and industrial transfatty acids consumed in equivalent amounts on the risk of coronary heart disease
so it affects lipids and lipo-proteins but might not raise risk as much?
>Dietary transfatty acids are provided by several fats and oils that are also important sources of essential fatty acids and other nutrients. Thus, there is a limit to which the intake of transfatty acids can be lowered without compromising adequacy of intake of essential nutrients. Therefore, the Panel concludes that transfatty acids intakeshould be as low as is possible within the context of a nutritionally adequate diet.
so they say you shouldn't restrict your diet any more than you have to, and most people in the UK are well within the maximum recommended anyway and I doubt they eat healthier than I do.
>>35487699
You. Pescentarian diet. Look it up. I'm at work on mobile so I can't be going willy nilly between articles getting data up. It's a very good diet, and I'd personally recommend it. You may think of taking it up as well after researching it a bit.
>>35490089
I think it is still wise to be cautious of how much you are consuming. Many of these studies tell people "eat iTFA or eat rTFA", but in reality we would be consuming both at the same time. So while you may be consuming 1% of rTFA, you could easily be getting 2.6% (FDA reports this as the average level of TFA consumption) of iTFA, if we are being generous.
The 0% intake is often made because there is no benefit or reason to consume TFA's in the first place, and that trans fats increase the amount of LDL while lowering your HDL. That is the basic reasoning behind it, according to the National Academy of Sciences. If I had to guess, the 2% recommendation is the result of not wanting the general public to completely ignore their advice, an attempt to appease the public mindset, yet this is only a guess.
>so it affects lipids and lipo-proteins but might not raise risk as much?
It MIGHT not, but they seem to suggest that it does. I mean, they say it adversely affects blood lipids and lipoproteins, which are key indicators of coronary heart disease risk. Hell, some would say it is the only indicator of CHD risk.
>so they say you shouldn't restrict your diet any more than you have to, and most people in the UK are well within the maximum recommended anyway and I doubt they eat healthier than I do.
I think they are playing it safe. They know people won't be supplementing B12 and Fish Oil any time soon, so they would have them get it through easy dietary sources.
>>35487315
>We know that most saturated fats come from animal products, and that trans fats come from either animal products or partially hydrogenated oils and junk foods. So, wouldn't it be a wise recommendation to avoid animal products for health reasons?
Lean poultry, meats, low fat dairy minimizes both SFA and TFA intake.
Sure, in absolute terms you would be better avoiding animal products, but given the small amounts in lean/low fat meats, dairy, etc, I really can't see it being that much of an issue.
I would be more concerned with what the rest of your diet looks like than the 5 grams of saturated fat you eat on the daily from a few hundred grams of chicken breasts.
>>35490329
>"eat iTFA or eat rTFA", but in reality we would be consuming both at the same time.
If you eat red meat it won't have any iTFA in it.
>So while you may be consuming 1% of rTFA, you could easily be getting 2.6%
average UK consumption of all TFA (r and i) is well-within 2%.
>(FDA reports this as the average level of TFA consumption)
that's due to higher US consumption of processed foods (iTFA).
>there is no benefit or reason to consume TFAs in the first place
I'll quote again from the efsa pdf
>there is a limit to which the intake of transfatty acids can be lowered without compromising adequacy of intake of essential nutrients. Therefore, the Panel concludes that transfatty acids intake should be as low as is possible within the context of a nutritionally adequate diet.
>an attempt to appease the public mindset
That seems to be ruled out by their statement that in a healthy diet some intake is necessary.
>some would say it is the only indicator of CHD risk
But if it isn't a significant risk for rTFAs then why demonise them? Not to mention they say not to restrict intake.
>B12 and Fish Oil are the reason to eat red meat
B12 is available in eggs and milk, I think - and Fish Oil is from fish. rTFA is from ruminants - cows, sheep, deer. So your sources are apparently saying it would be overly restrictive to cut beef out entirely. I agree, although I eat venison instead.
Supplementing is considered not to be ideal, and there are many things that I think you should supplement before you start trying to replace foods. I think you're stretching this too far and at the very least your sources aren't backing you up so until new evidence arises I'll assume I'm right in thinking red meat is a worthwhile addition to the diet. It is high in quantities of things we generally need, and even if it raises cholesterol exercise can lower it again, right?
>>35490496
>in absolute terms you would be better avoiding animal products,
the issue is you'd miss out on other things.
>>35490536
>the issue is you'd miss out on other things.
How so?
>>35490555
Animal products are very rich in certain nutrients, so I think if you ate none you'd be likely to be deficient.
Anti-meaters often reply:
>plant foods contain all essential nutrients
They do, but they don't contain them in the same concentrations. You'd need to eat a huge amount of avocado to replace one little portion of red meat. The other thing is essential nutrients aren't the only nutrients you need to live a healthy life - you need the non-essential as well.
>the body makes those nutrients, you don't need them in the diet
I think that it's asking too much to expect your body to make them all the time just because it can - there's also the question of in what amounts it makes them and if you want high performance it must be ideal to have external sources too.
Even if you find the nutrients are available in high enough quantities to meet the RDA, I think the RDA is too low - especially if you want to live a more active life, but even if you only want to be healthy I think it's too low in some areas.
>>35490649
>Animal products are very rich in certain nutrients, so I think if you ate none you'd be likely to be deficient.
I have no idea and I've never bothered to look into, the only one which springs to mind is b12 but you can just supplement that. I highly doubt a vegan diet so long as it is planned properly would be deficit in anything, then again I don't really care.
FYI, If you didn't clock it from my original post I eat meat plus OP question was solely about SFAs and TFAs. I haven't read the other comments.
>>35490524
>If you eat red meat it won't have any iTFA in it.
Yeah I know, I mean that the average person eats meat AND processed junk.
>average UK consumption of all TFA (r and i) is well-within 2%.
>that's due to higher US consumption of processed foods (iTFA).
Yeah, I'm just throwing numbers around to illustrate my above point.
>I'll quote again from the efsa pdf
I am just giving you the reasoning behind the 0% recommendations. Even the efsa panel suggest TFA intake to be as low as possible
>But if it isn't a significant risk for rTFAs then why demonise them? Not to mention they say not to restrict intake.
They say that rTFA's DO adversely affect blood lipids and lipoproteins. I am not getting the point you are trying to make.
> I'll assume I'm right in thinking red meat is a worthwhile addition to the diet
I would argue that it is most certainly not overkill to cut red meats. Ignoring even the TFA content, and we can assume that you are eating lean cuts as well, so we won't worry about saturated fat intake either, then red meats are still highly thought to be carcinogenic. WHO puts them in the Group 2A classification, and plenty of research has been done to show links between red meat consumption and cancer risk. I have a tougher time thinking of ways in which red meat is beneficial to our diets.
>>35490753
>I would argue that it is most certainly not overkill to cut red meats. Ignoring even the TFA content, and we can assume that you are eating lean cuts as well, so we won't worry about saturated fat intake either, then red meats are still highly thought to be carcinogenic. WHO puts them in the Group 2A classification, and plenty of research has been done to show links between red meat consumption and cancer risk. I have a tougher time thinking of ways in which red meat is beneficial to our diets.
I'm not that anon, but if the link is found to be casual then 100g equates to an 18% increase in colon cancer. At present we are already advised to limit intake, a piece of red meat once or twice a week won't make much of a difference.
Plus it's silly looking at things in isolation, given their are plenty of other foods which lower risk and possibly mitigate some of the suspected carcinogens in red meat.
>>35490721
>the only one which springs to mind is b12
it's the only essential nutrient which isn't in plant foods at all. I think the richness of some of the animal products is not something that should be overlooked, though.
If you're considering cutting out animal products entirely you should look into the non-essential nutrients. It might be possible to supplement all of them but I already use supplements and they supposedly aren't ideal (I think they're not absorbed as well).
>>35490753
>Yeah I know, I mean that the average person eats meat AND processed junk.
If we're talking about the ideal diet then we don't need to think about the average person.
>As low as possible
Right but 0% isn't as low as possible. They recommend below 2% and the majority of the UK are beneath that and I doubt they consume less meat than I do.
cont.
>>35490753
>red meats are still highly thought to be carcinogenic
"Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.
16. Should I stop eating meat?
Eating meat has known health benefits. Many national health recommendations advise people to limit intake of processed meat and red meat, which are linked to increased risks of death from heart disease, diabetes, and other illnesses.
This evaluation by IARC reinforces a 2002 recommendation from WHO that people who eat meat should moderate the consumption of processed meat to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer. Some other dietary guidelines also recommend limiting consumption of red meat or processed meat, but these are focused mainly on reducing the intake of fat and sodium, which are risk factors for cardiovascular disease and obesity. Individuals who are concerned about cancer could consider reducing their consumption of red meat or processed meat until updated guidelines related specifically to cancer have been developed." - http://who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/
so the WHO is not recommending eating no meat since it "has known health benefits" similarly to the advice in the links which were posted earlier. Limiting consumption is recommended for fat and sodium, if you're concerned you could consider reducing consumption, so not removing it entirely (due to health benefits).
I wonder whether the "other explanations" might turn out to be lifestyle-related - those who eat a lot of red meat are more likely to smoke, eat poorly altogether etc.
>>35490858
that's 100g a day, I eat 225g a week, and if it's a % increase how would you work out how significant that is?
>>35490995
I'm not a statistician so I have no idea. I doubt 200 grams a week would have a meaningful impact.
Plus life is too short to not enjoy the finer things in life, Häagen Dazs isn't exactly healthy but fuck that am I not enjoying a bowl every weekend with a couple of beers.
IMO it's all about finding a balance
>>35490858
>a piece of red meat once or twice a week won't make much of a difference.
Maybe, but why take the risk, especially considering there are much better foods out there.
>Plus it's silly looking at things in isolation, given their are plenty of other foods which lower risk and possibly mitigate some of the suspected carcinogens in red meat.
Yeah, which is why the WHO needs more evidence before they make any official statement regarding red meat. The evidence is apparently conclusive for processed meats, which is why they are willing to go ahead and say its carcinogenic, but they are waiting for more data on red meat to say the same thing.
>>35489469
No i read it, but when EPA.gov says your source is wrong, I don't really care about it.
from the EPA:
(24% of 2010 global greenhouse gas emissions) - Greenhouse gas emissions from this sector come mostly from agriculture (cultivation of crops and livestock) and deforestation. This estimate does not include the CO2 that ecosystems remove from the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in biomass, dead organic matter and soils, which offset approximately 20% of emissions from this sector.
This includes fertilizer (NO2)
Using data from the International Panel on Climate Change. I could really give no fucks about some stupid .org you found that thinks 50% of all emissions are due to livestock. That is some vegan stupidity if you think meat adds more than electricity. Really fucking stupid.
>>35491100
taste you fucking mongoloid.
Name a single thing on this earth that tastes better.
>Hurr I ate meat now have ass cancer
Vegan cuck sensationalism is straight tumblr. Next you will tell me about how me eating meat is cultural appropriation or erasure.
WHO
>Say red meat inconclusive
>Declares cell phones as carcinogenic
>>35491100
>Maybe, but why take the risk, especially considering there are much better foods out there
We all die brah, we all reach an age were by our chances of getting cancer becomes 100% regardless of our diet. Stressing about every foods which may or might increase our cancer risk is pointless, stressing about it would more than likely fuck you over before a weekly burger.
>Yeah, which is why the WHO needs more evidence before they make any official statement regarding red meat. The evidence is apparently conclusive for processed meats, which is why they are willing to go ahead and say its carcinogenic, but they are waiting for more data on red meat to say the same thing.
Yeah from what I gathered there is strong mechanistic data and limited epidemi data; most observational stuff when it comes to risk tends to decrease when meta-analysis's are performed. Mechanistic data would be animal in vivo and probs in vitro, since we can't exactly give humans cancer.
Like I said looking at stuff in isolation is stupid, I found this a while back, they fed rats red meat alongside some spinach and the the detrimental effects of heam iron where completely mitigated
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/2/387.full.pdf
I know there are other like the HCA's, but that can be avoided by not over cooking your meat.
Addition of a piece of lean red meat or lean animal product into a diet with plenty of fruits, veggies, legumes, etc won't fuck you over.
Health is not an On/Off switch.
>>35491100
Everything posted so far in this thread warns against cutting it out altogether due to the health benefits of meat.
>there are much better foods out there
Health authorities disagree with you on this, and based on my research so do I. There is no better food than meat when it comes to certain aspects of the diet. Even if they say red meat is carcinogenic they will probably not say to stop eating it altogether but to limit intake which I as a meat-eater already do (225g a week).
Itt people over complicating moderation to sound smart
>>35491038
>Häagen Dazs isn't exactly healthy but fuck that am I not enjoying a bowl every weekend with a couple of beers.
Every weekend? Anon, pls
If saturated fats are so bad, why does milk contain so much of them? You'd think mammalian evolution would select against these things.
>>35487315
We should all limit our red meat intake, fish + chicken is fine.
Eat less processed shit, more vegetables, actually, why am I even bothering.
Literally everyone in the entire world knows what a healthy diet looks like. Just don't eat shit all the time.
>>35493004
Saturated fats are anabolic in their effect on the body. Cholesterol and saturated fats, which are related, are both used by the body as a precursor to hormones.
Calves need the building blocks of protein as amino acids, fat for hormone production and immune defense, as well as carbs for fuel, so milk has developed to provide all of these nutrients for them. Once a calf is of age, he will wean and begin to graze. He will not consume the anabolic cocktail for long.
Anabolic activity in the body is a give and take- you are sacrificing longevity by elevating anabolism, because the anabolic state can further heart disease. Look at the effects of anabolic steroids- they raise anabolic activity at a slight or extreme, depending on the dose and drug, detraction from your longevity.
I have high testosterone naturally, and I consume much saturated fat, and luckily I have exceptional cholesterol and lipids.
(See >>35488626 >anabolic)
I am only in my early 20s though, so i imagine that at some point Iust make a decision between indulging in anabolic saturated fats and choosing longevity, because my lipids may not be ideal for much longer.
>>35493004
I guarantee that OP is a DYEL
>b-but ripped vegans!
Yeah no they didn't get yoked being vegan. They got big on a regular non-retarded diet and switched to being vegan for dat der vegan money
>>35493389
>Saturated fats are anabolic in their effect on the body.
Source?
>Cholesterol and saturated fats, which are related, are both used by the body as a precursor to hormones.
Do you have evidence that dietary supply is rate-limiting?
