why would anyone chose chicken breast instead of pork steak and then go and get the fats macro he needs from fucking nuts am i missing something here ?
>>76674121Real men eat beef.
>>76674130im not Muslim so fuck off
>>76674121shrimp gods wwa?
>>76674130Beef and Fish are shit. Both are polluted more than any other type of meats. Especially Fish. >>76674121Pig and Chicken are the safest sources currently. Everything is poison in current times, but pig and chicken less so.
>>76674130Chicken thighs mog
We only need fatty acids we can't synthesize ourselves. These fatty acids are called essential fatty acids. We need a very small amount of those, and meat isn't a good source of them. >but muh sat fat increases testIt doesn't. It increases LDL though. Don't eat sat fat unless you're retarded.
>>76674202saturated fat has been exonorated of CVD. No reason to avoid saturated fat unless it puts you over how many calories you should be eating. Grass fed ruminant meat absolutely is an adequate source of essential fatty acids
>>76674130Beef kinda sucks, the less I eat it the more I realize it's just underwhelming, burgers are still fine but steaks are eurgh
>>76674236how about lamb instead?
>>76674121Variety is the spice of life. Lately, I'm a lot more into turkey.
I'm not gonna eat meat that has Neu5gcThis is the reason why red meat always looks bad on studiesHumans can't handle this, its like eating small doses of poison
>>76674121I eat all of these because I don't needlessly restrict my diet because I'm not fat nor have I ever been fat and also because I'm tall and can eat more than others without caring feels nice just preparing meals without having to count numbers
>>76674236I thought that for years but it really depends on the cut and the cooking.Try a minute steak. It's a 125g (4oz) steak that you cook on each side at high heat for 1 minute. Rub oil on it and season generously with salt and pepper and let it sit for 15 minutes before cooking.
>>76674366>I'm not fatyou are not lean ether
>>76674381correct. I hang around a very healthy and comfortable 15-16%
>>76674121I like chicken and pork the most. Salmon is peak as well. I don't like how beef tastes. And don't bring up wagyu, I really don't like eating meat that's falling apart without even chewing, it just feels wrong.>>76674177Love me some omelette with shrimp, ngl.
>>76674443so you are 20% got it
>>76674528anon has truly become enlightened
pork also has the most creatine. what did spartans eat? black soup of pork meat and blood.
>>76674121Animal fats are saturated whereas vegetal fats are not fully saturated, the later being healthier.
>>76674121literally everything in this pic is delicious why would you not want to eat it all. nuts are delicious too. food tastes so fucking good bros. WAGMI.
>>76674121Pork is haram
>>76674710pork costs 1/2 of everything in the pic and you don't have to buy extra nuts for fats too
>>76674720i dont give a shit poorfag i like eating nuts. i like eating chicken. i like eating pork. i like eating beef. i like eating duck. i like eating salmon. i like eating lobster. i like eating broccoli. i like eating bread. i like eating pasta. i like eating raspberries. i like eating melon. i like eating avocado. i like eating asparagus. life is so fucking beautiful there's all these delicious foods here for us to sample.
>>7667473725% bf
>>76674763>he finds pleasure in eating a varied diet? he must be a fatass!!!
>>76674121I honestly dont really like the taste of pork all that much. Even bacon is pretty meh to me. Pork sausages and such are fine but that's such a mix-up of other stuff it doesn't really count. Similar to liking ketchup, but not tomatoes.
>>76674121>why would anyone chose chicken breast instead of pork steakDepends on the calories and macros you need for a given meal. Leaner meats can hook you up with the protein you may need, but you might still be short on fats, carbs and calories, and that's where nuts can come in handy to help fill the gaps. Peanuts and raisins are pretty cheap, and both come in handy at the end of the day to help fill in some of the calorie/carb/fat gaps in my daily nutrition goals.
>>76674130Real men don't try and tell other people what real men are while posting on an anime website.
>>76674202
>>76674354Remember when we hunted mammoth and other giant fauna to extinction just so we could cut open their stomachs and eat the pre digested plant matter? Good times, thanks science!
>>76675518When we hunted mammoths we just needed food for survival In modern times we’re looking for longevity
>>76675553Who's "we're"? I guarantee 99.9% of people aren't focused in any way on longevity.
>>76674354People who see a diagram and think they know medicine. The human body is complex and the extent this actually affects us could be insignificant.
>>76675425>lack vitamin Ahuh?
>>76675576It just matches up with all the other evidence against red meat specifically
>>76675425https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26502280/>Despite substantial differences in intake and deficiency between groups, our results indicate that by consuming a well-balanced diet including supplements or fortified products, all three types of diet can potentially fulfill requirements for vitamin and mineral consumption.
>>76675610If it did, then each box after each arrow should have a source.
>>76675616>Sample size entirety was 153 people.>Vegan sample size was half the population of omnivores.>Study was done via food record.>Activity level was self-reported.>Study lasted three days.Try again, this time actually reading the articles after you Google them.
>why would anyone chose chicken breast instead of pork steak and then go and get the fats macro he needs from fucking nuts am i missing something here ?Nope you are just smarter than most fags in the fitness world. You can always tell who is a real one because they will be eating chicken thighs instead of breasts.
>>76675619if you need a 'source' for the fact that red meat has been shown countless times to be linked to cancer, diabetes and heart disease then you're a worthless schizo conspiracy tard anyways
>>76675648>linked toreal experimental tests disprove any causation
>>76675631You obviously didn't read it. There were 206 people total and they measured plasma levels. Not just food record, which I don't even know what is wrong with that, studies have shown food records to be very accurate. >Study lasted three days.The vegans had been following the diet for at least one year prior to the study and were shown to have zero deficiencies.
>>76675518>Remember when we hunted mammoth and other giant fauna to extinction
>>76675648Red meat is included among the keto diets given to cancer patients to help treat their cancers.https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9435310/#TAB1Pretty interesting imo, and clearly demonstrates the "red meat bad" narrative is bullshit.
>>76675833>case study of 1LOL
>>76675842even at 49,000 people theres no difference>Most importantly for the IARC report, two major dietary intervention studies that should have contributed to the assessment of the claimed relationship of red meat and cancer were not considered. The first was a study of colon polyps, the precancerous growths that greatly increase the likelihood of developing colon cancer. Almost 1,900 subjects with a recent history of having a polyp removed were divided into a control group that ate their usual diet and a group following a diet characterized by significant decreases in total fat, red, and processed meat along with increases in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes (Schatzkin et al., 2000). Participants were followed for 3 years and at the end of that time, the recurrence of colon polyps was identical in both diet groups. It is possible that the precancerous stage may not have been the proper time for dietary intervention. The Women’s Health Initiative, therefore, studied a low-fat diet, achieved in large part by reducing red- and processed-meat consumption, among almost 49,000 women (Beresford et al., 2006); about 30,000 followed their normal diets and almost 20,000 were assigned to low-fat diets. After 9 years, the rate of colon cancer was almost identical in the low-fat and control-diet groups. These studies strongly suggest that the observational studies are not supported by dietary intervention studies at either the precancerous or malignant tumor stages of colon cancer.
>>76675850>low fat diet>no mention of red meat>Intervention group participants significantly reduced their percentage of energy from fat by 10.7%yeah of course there's gonna be almost no differenceEspecially if you have such a low incidence rate, this is why you can't have intervention studies on long term diseases such as cancerOnly epidemiology works
>>76675877>Only epidemiology worksoh no its retarded...
>>76675882Epidemiology is how we know smoking gives lung cancer
>>76675891>The increased relative risk of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes is 1000–3000%. The increased relative risk of liver cancer from eating moldy grains contaminated with aflatoxin is about 600%. In fields outside nutrition, the usual threshold for confidence about relative risk is in the range of 200–400%. At the higher end of that range, one can be guardedly confident but “we can hardly ever be confident about estimates of less than 2.0, and when estimates are much below 2.0, we are simply out of business” (Shapiro, 2004); relative risk of 2.0 translates to an increase of 100%. So, an 18% increase equals a relative risk of 1.18, and this score falls substantially below the threshold that epidemiologists in other fields generally accept as worthy of further investigation.nutrition epidemiology is a farce and youre retarded for not knowing the difference
>>76674130Its too expensive when compared to pork and chicken.I like beef, but it's not 3-5 times as good.
>>76675583beta carotene isn't vitamin A
>>76674354Counter argument: India
>>76675903The reason smoking has a higher causal reference is because when we do studies on smoking we are comparing non-smokers(0% smoking) to smokers(high percentage smoking). This isn’t the case with saturated fat. We always compare small amounts of saturated fat to medium amounts of saturated fat so there is a much smaller variance.Interestingly when you compare low percentage smokers(low but not zero) to normal smokers, you actually see comparative relative risk similar to red meat and cancert. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29367388/> The meta-analysis included 55 publications containing 141 cohort studies. Among men, the pooled relative risk for coronary heart disease was 1.48 for smoking one cigarette per day and 2.04 for 20 cigarettes per day, using all studies, but 1.74 and 2.27 among studies in which the relative risk had been adjusted for multiple confounders.This is just a case of you not understanding how statistics work. Unironically why you should just trust the experts and not YouTubers.
>>76676066You're borderline illiterate and a moron. Mixing up arguments of cancer and heart disease. Once again there's no good evidence for meat causing disease red, processed, or otherwise. The best evidence exonorates it. Anything else is copium
>>76676117I don't think you understand statistics enough to be able to make those claims. People who have spent their entire lives studying this almost all agree on the obvious link between red meat and cancer. It's why every major dietary and cancer board all recommends to limit red meat. >Once again there's no good evidence for meat causing disease red, processed, or otherwiseThere is tons, which is why people who can actually interpret the data all lean towards meat causing cancer. >https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21674008/>https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)00444-1/abstract>inb4 you sperg about observational trials. Explain which variable isn't being accounted for that could influence this data that has been repeated in hundreds of studies from all over the world. >Anything else is copiumIronic
>>76674121Because animal fats are not a very good source of fat
>>76675425Vegans are retarded but that guy is a literal grifter who doesn't practice what he preaches and hired a guy to throw acid on his wife and toddler, you should not be using him as an example
>>76674664>vegetalRetard
>>76674130They hate him because he spoke the truth
>>76675921/thread
>>76676238>posts the cherry picked IARC reportyou are in fact a moron. try reading this again which i know is hard for you>>Most importantly for the IARC report, two major dietary intervention studies that should have contributed to the assessment of the claimed relationship of red meat and cancer were not considered.
>>76676265sounds based to me
>>76675921just gotta know where to source your beef.i can get american wagyu bottom round or other rounds for about $1 more than the price of pork belly, and about $2 more than costco wholesale chicken price. definitely lower than some fancy grocery chicken price (so called air chilled chicken and whatever). it's also about 1.5 times as much as pork tenderloin, but it's worth it. i simply can't enjoy eating pork tenderloin or chicken breast consecutively. i do indulge on some fancy ass shabu shabu cuts once in a while that's over $10/lb, but usually american wagyu lean cuts at half the price will do me good (also usda prime for slightly less price if american wagyu is OOS).
>>76676238>People who have spent their entire lives studying this almost all agree on the obvious link between red meat and cancer. It's why every major dietary and cancer board all recommends to limit red meat.Hint: Science isn't a democracy. It's doesn't matter how many scientists agree on something, if it's wrong, it's wrong. Example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis>This is just a case of you not understanding how statistics work.The problem is that you don't know how stats work, neither do the guys you're believing.
>>76677493>if it's wrong, it's wronghow do you know that its wrong? have you done tests or surveys on it? or are you just talking out of your ass
>>76677505They have done the tests A>>76675850
>>76674121Boar meat is the best
>>76674121i love eating shrimp for lunch
>>76674121Pigs eat anything and I guarantee factory Jew is feeding them plastic and other literal garbage.
>>76674121Eggs and smoked salmon for breakfast, chicken for lunch, beef for dinner. Pork maybe once in a while. Not muslim i just raised pigs and ive seen them eat their own shit
>>76674443>15% isn't leanyeah, you're not 15%
>>76674121Chicken breast is definitely the least filling way to get 50-80g of protein if youre good at cooking, and i find carbmaxxing and having 200g of protein is way better than trying to time protein minus having .5-1lb when low as insulin and calorie surplus is way more important than being high protein.Pork is basically more nutritious chicken but different cuts of steak/beef definitely has more available nutrients especially iron and the fat is more appetizing and healthy than butter for absorbing nutrients throughout the day(beef stir fry, burgers+veggies, bbq, roasts/stews). Also since cows are so heavy they have thicker tendons and eating a lot of beef stock and slow cook cuts definitely can help add protein/collagen. But i just cant eat 1lb of beef or pork like i can make fried chicken or general tsos and actually wanna keep eating to keep carbs high.
>>76674121if I wanted fat I would eat beef.I eat chicken breast because it's lean.
>>76680134There is lean beef and fatty chicken.
>>76674121>why would anyone chose chicken breast instead of pork steak and then go and get the fats macro he needs from fucking nuts am i missing something here ?I eat whatever I want. I'm not a farm animal
>>76674236Have you tried having testosterone?
>>76674223>saturated fat has been exonorated of CVDNope. Every single health institution on earth still advises to limit saturated fat. The only people who say otherwise are grifters and/or chiropractors on social media.
>>76674121because he wants less fat (and calories) for the amount of protein he needs than pork would give
>>76674373holy shit you are such a faggot. how does someone get to your age and feel like salting/resting the steaks before cooking it is some esoteric knowledge. and you're not even resting it properly. you're not room temp in 15 minutes. and why are you cooking this "quarter pounder" bitch steak. european and redditor all over your post.
>>76680603Lol fat insecure American. I never acted like it was esoteric knowledge you fucking retard, you'd be surprised how many people don't season before cookinggo eat your 50oz t-bone yeehaw steak and make posts about BBC amerimutt
>>76680647>oh you don't like steak>why don't you try cooking it like anyone who isn't retard does>also use a razor thin 4oz steak because your country is cucked and you can't afford beef>>whoaaa coping burger see the more!
>>76680924>why don't you try cooking it like anyone who isn't retard doeswhy would you assume he's not retardedmy country is 95% cattle farms dipshit, it's called minute steak for a reason and it's deliciousyou are definitely fat
>>76680525institutions are just stuck defending their old dogma. the evidence has exonerated saturated fat
I can't cook chicken properly. Every time I try it's either undercooked or overcooked. Last month I accidentally cooked spoiled chicken and had diarrhea for two weeks. Yuck. On the other hand, I've never failed at cooking beef. I don't know why, but I only watched one (1) youtube tutorial and it's been perfectly medium rare every time. I must be a genius.
>>76674121>pork steakthe what now? Its so ass you cant eat it without a sauce. Thats why beef wins
>>76681187Says who? Grifters and chiropractors?
>>76682454says most or nearly all meta analyses of RCTs on the topic. you are obsessed and mind broken by these so called "grifters" living rent free in your head. take meds and get help