what's its deal? campaign by Big Meat? psyop to make adjacent Paleo seem unreasonable?
>>22022275 Psyop but also a legitimate physical phenomena. It does create a state change within the body. Is it healthy? Not really. Do you look and feel different? Yes. Are people willing to try it? Sure.
It's ok
>>22022289>Do you look and feel different? Yes.Bloated and exhausted from extended fiber-less shits?
>>22022275Feels more like a hobby than an actual diet, people just want to brag about how much meat they can eat when it’s getting more expensive. It’s only carnivores who push the idea that consuming lots of saturated fat carries no health risks. >eating ribeyes and beef tallow everyday is actually goodEven people who meat as a part of a varied diet don’t think this. There no nutritional studies showing long term benefits of consuming high amounts of saturated fat and there’s never been a dietary requirement for it>
Some people get obsessive about their hobbies.
>>22022275Its just a fad to counter the vegan movement. Paleo is also a meme since most people who go by it have no idea what paleolithic people ate.
>>22022359>Paleo is also a meme since most people who go by it have no idea what paleolithic people ate.fish, game, fruit, roots, nuts, insects. what's so hard about that?>inb4 muh genetic modification and domestication
>>22022390Humans were consuming grains before agriculture started. There's pretty clear evidence of humans consuming grains during the Paleolithic era. Of course that doesn't mean it was in the same amount people generally consume grain today, plus some people genuinely do better excluding grains and legumes. There is also clear evidence of people adapting to drinking milk with genetic changes.The diet may work for some people but it's not because it's actually what Paleolithic people ate or because we haven't adapted since then.
>>22022407>Of course that doesn't mean it was in the same amount people generally consume grain today, plus some people genuinely do better excluding grains and legumesExactly, so shut the fuck up and stop eating pasta and bread. I'm so tired of disingenuous arguments:>>heh, you know bananas had seeds and modern citrus and vegetables were artificially selected?>>modern cattle and fowl didn't exist, let alone cured bacon>>that means Paleo is fake and the Standard American Diet is goodPaleo isn't even obnoxious like Vegan. what about it makes normalfaggots strawman the ever-loving shit out of it?
>>22022437NtaWhen people get this tilted I just assume they aren't eating enough or aren't eating enough carbs. Different people feel better on different diets, it's really that simple. No need to get so mad
>>22022437You didn't really address the arguments I actually made. I'm guessing you do paleo or carnivore.
>>22022298>muscle fibers exist>this nincompoop thinks fiber only comes from trees to make paper
>>22022439>>22022443I'm fat and not diligent enough to adhere to Paleo. I just like arguing and shitposting.No arguments were made, just weak implications and assertions defeatable via greentext.
>>22022453>paleo claims humans didn't eat grain and legumes before agriculture >there is evidence they did>claims we haven't adapted to dairy>multiple genetic adaptations have been identified in different people so they can drink milk as adults You just started addressing things other people might've said elsewhere and doing your own strawmanning about paleo bad SAD good. I don't think you can really debunk archeological and genetic evidence that goes against what the paleo diet claims. It still doesn't mean the diet has no merit and won't work for some people but the reasons why are erroneous.
>>22022457>>paleo claims humans didn't eat grain and legumes before agriculturemost don't claim that they didn't eat it at all. in any case, pre and early humans didn't eat *refined* grains, and the grains and legumes they did eat were incidental and not any significant portion of their diet>>claims we haven't adapted to dairy...multiple genetic adaptations some portions process it. but milk-drinking into adulthood isn't something most mammals do, nor is it advisable for people to integrate notable amounts of milk and processed dairy into their diet.Ironically, it's the debookers that try to ackchyually the soyence like some kind of gotcha while they eat like shit. even if someone doesn't put the "paleo" label on it, the diet is immensely more beneficial than what most people eat. It's my honest opinion that the people who argue like this (not you, but in general) are ashamed that their diet is shit so they try to be "technically correct" instead of face the reality that they eat garbage and don't have any real dietary convictions.
>>22022472>most don't claim that they didn't eat it at all. in any case, pre and early humans didn't eat *refined* grains, and the grains and legumes they did eat were incidental and not any significant portion of their dietMaybe that's changed in later years but I remember when paleo was trending earlier on that they mostly treated grains and legumes like poison and said nobody adapted to eating them. Nobody said it was okay to eat a little because paleo humans did. Also some evidence actually shows that grain farming may have been due to some people wanting to make more beer rather than just eating piles of grain every day.Anyway, another issue could be that tree nut allergies are fairly common and severe too yet paleo says they're okay and a natural part of the diet. Plant seeds in general seem to cause the most issues for plant foods whether it's grains or legumes or nuts, but some people tolerate them just fine.>nor is it advisable for people to integrate notable amounts of milk and processed dairy into their diet.For everyone, no. Some people do well drinking a lot of milk and there have been plenty of pastoralist groups doing that and thriving. Consuming lots of cheese and butter is probably not as good as just drinking milk if you're able to do that though.>the diet is immensely more beneficial than what most people eat.>they eat garbage and don't have any real dietary convictions.Yeah anything that tells you to limit processed food is going to result in benefits but that's really the only advice that works for everyone. Beyond that there are still too many differences in biology to say one specific diet works for everyone. Something I found interesting lately is that there seems to be a decent number of people who are mostly unable to digest starch at all, or sucrose, so even some fruits and root vegetables can cause them all kinds of problems ranging from being malnourished to being obese along with digestive discomfort.
>>22022453Malnutrition leads to irritability
It's so weird that humans can agree what diets animals/pets require for optimum health. But we can't agree what is best for our species.
>>22022573>malnutrition>fatmost literate /ck/poster>>22022670kek
>>22022670There's constant debate around the optimal diet for pets, actually. Even for dogs, the oldest domesticated animal, you can go into any pet store and find a huge range of foods. Some with more meat, some with more vegetables, some with no legumes, some with no grains at all, some that are mostly potatoes, some that are mostly meat. Dry, wet, cooked, raw, there are dozens of very different options and every one will have people strongly advocating it as the optimal diet. For most animals, we can look at what they eat in the wild, but this gets harder for adaptive omnivores. You can set some domestic dogs loose in America, China, and Africa and they'll all adapt to their environment and find something to eat but what each dog ends up eating will likely be very different. How do you decide which is optimal?People also refuse to do something similar for humans, where we can look at what primates or hunter-gatherers eat and get a pretty clear picture of the optimal human diet (sugars from fruit or honey prioritized above everything else, meat whenever it can be successfully obtained, starches from tubers or grains as a fallback when preferred foods can't be found) but diet is massively politicized and commercialized and people will invent endless reasons to avoid this sort of simple reality.On that note, shit like carnivore >>22022275 is just the endgame of politicized diets, the ultimate reactionary response to those evil leftist vegans. It's an avenue for the sort of men who are massively insecure about their masculinity to larp as some imagined ideal of a badass caveman eating nothing but the megafauna he killed with his bare hands. You take 10 seconds listening to carnivore shills and you can understand exactly where they're coming from.
>>22022449>he thinks muscle fibres are the same as dietary fibres nice american education you got there
>>22022760>hunter-gatherers eat and get a pretty clear picture of the optimal human diet (sugars from fruit or honey prioritized above everything elseI thought it was pretty interesting how honey consistently ranks as the top favorite food for so many of those groups. But a lot of us aren't really hunter-gatherers anymore. The increase in lactase and amylase genes for people who started relying on domesticated crops and dairy animals means some of us probably need more milk and starch may have shifted from just being a fallback food to something more consistent.Tubers aren't just starchy either and I know I read for some hunter-gatherer groups they prefer the ones that are sweeter. Not everyone digests starch well but some other people can eat tons of it every day and thrive. Then you have some groups of people who lived closer to arctic regions having higher rates of CSID which means they can't digest starch or sucrose very well probably because those things weren't common in the diet until more recently, and they may have had diets that were traditionally closer to carnivore though they'd still consume whatever edible plants when available even if it was a smaller amount. There is just so much variation in where people lived and what they ate and adapted to that we can't just look at one group who is healthy and say another group will be just as healthy on the same diet.
>>22022800>But a lot of us aren't really hunter-gatherers anymore.By lifestyle, not by genes. We're still the same homo sapiens sapiens we've been for the last 300,000 years, and still humanoid from before that.Mapped to a single 30 year old life, that's like eating organic grassfeed freerange game, and fresh plants for your entire life. Then you're suddenly eating processed dairy and grain products, thinking your body has magically "adapted" in the last year. That shit takes much more time, and the foundations for the diet are superior.
>>22022800>The increase in lactase and amylase genes for people who started relying on domesticated crops and dairy animals means some of us probably need more milk and starch may have shifted from just being a fallback food to something more consistent.I'd say that just because certain groups have adapted to different diets, that doesn't mean that they've lost the ability to do better on the basic human diet of fruit, honey, and meat. Panda bears are my favorite example of this, where these bears have spent a long time developing genetic adaptations to a vegan diet but despite being able to survive on it, it's clearly not optimal. They have low energy, they have to eat constantly because they can't digest bamboo very well, and above all they still have the digestive system of a carnivore.>Their field metabolic rate, the amount of energy used by an animal in its daily life, is one of the lowest reported among mammals, comparable to that of sloths.But if they're made to eat a more typical ursine diet, they thrive. Their metabolism revives, they suddenly have energy and start acting more like regular bears.Similarly, you can look at human settlement and find all sorts of extreme diets brought on by the necessity of living in extreme climates. Herding populations developed adaptations for lactase persistence, Inuit developed adaptations for a diet very low in plant foods, etc. But while someone from Ireland might digest lactose much better than someone from Japan, the optimal diet for both remains one that probably doesn't include lactose at all. I think this is where the bulk of the confusion around human diet comes from: humans are by far the most adaptive omnivores on the planet, as evidenced by the way we comfortably settled in every climate that exists. But like the panda, a dietary adaptation brought on out of necessity shouldn't be used as a guide now that we live in a world where our diet is no longer restricted to what's available locally.
>>22022298You need to drink a lot of water, and have some fatty meat, fatty. Meat does not automatically mean constipation.>>22022694>also goes on five long-distance vacations
>>22022816>By lifestyle, not by genes.No, there have been genetic changes. Lactase persistence is not common outside of a few regions on Earth with people who relied more on dairy animals in the last 10,000 years and it's the result of genetic changes. These people can drink lots of milk and do well, but if you do the same with a random hunter-gatherer they'll just have diarrhea all the time. Similarly some groups have much higher rates of amylase enzyme production to digest large amounts of starch which likely wouldn't be that useful for a hunter-gatherer who only prefers roots as a fallback food but it would be for a farmer producing a lot of starchy foods.
>>22022694Literate, and not ignorant> https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malnutritionIf you don't like that source just search "obesity and malnutrition" to learn
>>22022823No population on the planet has changed so much that they would be better off long-term on a grain + dairy diet over a meat + plant diet.>>22022826Ok, fair, but let's be real: What percentage of people suffering malnutrition are obese? That's like someone saying they're bald and you reply "lel, watch out for headlice!" Is it possible for a bald person to get headlice? Sure. Is it common enough to warrant mentioning? No.
>>22022820I get your point about pandas but I think you have to be careful when comparing to other animals. And there would probably be some issues involved if you tried to completely change their diet anyway. They might do better with some more animal products like they'd get in the wild if you're comparing them to captive pandas who may not be on ideal diets but I don't think completely removing bamboo from their diet would only result in improvement.>But while someone from Ireland might digest lactose much better than someone from Japan, the optimal diet for both remains one that probably doesn't include lactose at all.Why? There aren't any issues from them drinking milk. It feels like an appeal to nature fallacy to say anything else is wrong like this. Myself and others I've known with Irish heritage have shown a natural preference for dairy along with a higher rate of intolerances to other foods and digestive issues when consuming them. Milk doesn't require the same kind of enzymes as meat would to digest the fat and protein and while it may not be true for everyone, a lot of pastoralists didn't eat meat very often and may have not retained the ability to digest it as efficiently. Fruit generally seems more tolerated and true issues with fruit are pretty rare. The way fruit is demonized by some people for carbs or sugar content probably isn't going to help improve the general health of people.
>>22022857>No population on the planet has changed so much that they would be better off long-term on a grain + dairy diet over a meat + plant diet.I didn't say anything like that and it seems like a pointless thing to discuss because it's just a theoretical restriction. One restricted diet being better than another restricted diet doesn't mean it's ideal.
>>22022857Did you look up the definition of malnutrition?
>>22022857>Ok, fair, but let's be real: What percentage of people suffering malnutrition are obese?https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6214863/>The dual burden of malnutrition (obesity or a non-communicable disease coupled with malnutrition) is prevalent in more than half of all malnourished households that reside in the US. Obesity is overconsumption of macronutrients, malnutrition is mostly underconsumption or poor absorption of micronutrients at this point since most people aren't dealing with a complete lack of food anymore. Ultraprocessed foods are great for this because they're high in refined fat and sugar but low in actual nutrients otherwise.
>>22022868The grain and dairy diet seems to work pretty well for India.
>>22022872I'm really happy for you that you linked academic journal articles and stuff, but the fact that you can't be arsed to answer a simple quantitative question makes me think you're bullshitting. I'm not reading that whole thing to do your homework for you.>>22022874Take a look at the entire Indian subcontinent and say with a straight face that things are going well. >>22022868>le enlightened centrist
>>22022874It's not terrible and can technically provide everything you need assuming you have no other issues digesting it, but vegetarians still usually have lower iron levels at the very least. It's more of an issue for women and iron deficiency in women is underdiagnosed. Milk is a decent source of zinc and if you consume enough of it then it probably won't be a problem but copper can be an issue for vegetarians too. Also, the majority of Indians still eat meat at least sometimes. They have the highest percentage of vegetarians but it's not the majority of the country.
>>22022881>but the fact that you can't be arsed to answer a simple quantitative questionI wasn't the person you were asking anything. Just pointing out that obesity and malnutrition at the same time is more common than some people think.>>le enlightened centristNothing I said has anything to do with being a centrist. I don't think you're able to handle basic discourse.
>>22022886>I don't think you're able to handle basic discourse.Perhaps not. And it's your problem now.
>>22022891lel
>>22022860>I don't think completely removing bamboo from their diet would only result in improvement.This is actually the case for a few animals that have for whatever reason ended up on weird and fucked up diets. Koalas are another good example; their diets are almost entirely eucalyptus leaves which are extremely low in nutrients and very toxic to most animals, koalas included. They get so fucked up from eating a diet that is literally poisoning them that they sleep 20+ hours a day and typically to die from starvation after their diet wears down their teeth so much that they can no longer eat.They're extremely retarded and will refuse other food but in the few instances where they've been forced to eat more nutritious food, not surprisingly, they have a massive improvement in health and metabolic rate.>There aren't any issues from them drinking milk.That's a very debatable statement. Personally, I'm of mostly British heritage and I don't have any problems digesting dairy but if I eat it for a day or two I start getting acne, which is likely tied to the massive amount of hormones found in milk. So then you have the very reasonable suggestion that a food full of growth hormones might spur unwanted growth ie cancers.>appeal to nature fallacyAssuming that a "fallacy" is never correct is itself a fallacy. When it comes to diet, most animals developed their specific diets over a very long period of trial and error and adaptation and in most cases, what is natural is also what's optimal. It's only animals that have been forced to adapt to environments very different than what they evolved in that bring this into question.
>>22022916>Personally, I'm of mostly British heritage and I don't have any problems digesting dairy but if I eat it for a day or two I start getting acneThat's you, though. My acne clears rapidly if I drink nothing but milk for a day. And unfortunately it seems common for people who personally have some kind of issue with dairy to then say it's bad for everyone else too but that's not the case. It could be the hormones or a mild allergy or the way it's processed or something else. Low vitamin D for example can make your immune system overreactive and that's a common deficiency. Some people say regular "A1" type cow milk causes problems like that for them too but that A2 or goat milk doesn't.>So then you have the very reasonable suggestion that a food full of growth hormones might spur unwanted growth ie cancers.People say the same thing about carbs in general sometimes and use that as proof that we're not supposed to be consuming carbs too. Personally I think basic natural foods causing cancer is pretty low on the list of things to worry about compared to other known major risk factors that can be eliminated. And at the same time there are fruits that are toxic to humans and high meat intake is possibly associated with an increased risk of cancer, although that's debated but it does seem like some people overestimate how much meat they really need for general health and if that's the case then it could be causing problems too.
>>22022916>>22022950Supposedly the reduced fat milks have a higher association with acne. I just like to through that out there>>22022891KEK>>22022881You just have to read the definition of malnutrition: > Deficiencies or excesses in nutrient intake, imbalance of essential nutrients or impaired nutrient utilization. Obesity falls within malnutrition because it involves excess nutrient intake and impaired nutrient utilization
>>22022964>you know you need to touch grass and have sex when you're this focused on being "technically correct" on a Hainanese rice painting forumNobody on the planet hears "fat" and thinks "malnourished", even if it's technically possible, especially in the absence of any other evidence.
>>22022950>>Personally, I'm of mostly British heritage>>22022964>through that out theresaar!
>>22023130Have you considered that you're just ignorant though? I called you irritable due to malnourishment and you're not beating the allegation
>>22023444checked.you're still an idiot and the bait is becoming less delicious.
>>22022275Yes
>>22023931> Gets ignorance thrown in face> Lashes outYeah, you have some irritability going on
>>22022694You can me malnourished and fat. If you aren't getting enough of certain vitamins or minerals (especially if you eat only one kind of food), you will be malnourished. Malnourishment is not a measure of how much total food you're eating, or how full you are. Just see rabbit starvation, where someone is full, but malnourished, and dies of starvation.
>>22023951>>22023942The point, which you either were too stupid to understand or are deliberately ignoring, is that how often does that happen?>anon: lel malnourished>me: nah, I'm fatAll this casuistry is pointless because it's 1) not applicable and 2) not probable and 3) not really on-topic. It's mildly amusing to keep up the shitposting since it keeps people interested and bumps the thread. But after a certain point, if the discourse devolves to literal autism or "u mad", and people move on to more engaging threads, what's the profit?
>>22023969you seem slowyou are both fat AND malnourished, and you also almost certainly lack vitamin D because I can't imagine you walking outside all the much
>>22023972
>>22023969> Still doesn't understand the definition of malnourished> Telling other people they're missing the point
>>22024001his malnourished brain cannot comprehend ithis brain has been operating under such heavy fog for so long, he doesn't know you can live any other way
>>22022453>angry fatty smashes keyboard in diet rage
>>22024008Tragic
