Which ones? The ones financed by big veg?

>>77207135
Cmon man even to the antivax nutjob the evidence is overwhelming. Significantly increases the risk of colon cancer and cardiovascular disease. And I'm not even talking about proccessed slop like sausages and bacon, just good ol fashioned stake.

File: 558699_636110693072791_53(...).jpg (94 KB, 706x564)

94 KB JPG

>>77207149
Oh wow! A new study! I'm sure there is no flaws in it AT ALL! Today's health doctors are so fucking money, even Dr. Mike is dimes

>le red meat kills you here's an ambiguous questionnaire where they asked 20 fat fucks that only eat charcuterie and 10 vegans whether their grandma has anal cancer or no
>Proceeds to replace it with turkey (nastiest most antibiotics and pesticides filled meat ever)

>>77207128
I've been cutting mainly because of cholesterol. I don't believe beef is bad per se but just the shit they are fed and injected with seem to me to be the culprit.
In any case I'm mainly eating chicken (whole, yellow skin (none of that bleached shit), roasted) ; some homemade pulled pork ; salmon, tuna in moderation (mercury etc) ; deenz ; shrimps ; eggs.

But I'm a DYEL rooner so my opinion is irrelevant

>>77207165
Yeah dude the building block of your hormons is literal pois..
>i'm a trooner
Oh ok nvm. Scoot, move along

>>77207128
>>77207165
There's no point in making this thread on /fit/ where retarded niggers literally believe carnivore grifters and low iq retards like goatis when it comes to their nutrition instead of actual scientists. I'm willing to bet most of them don't believe that we went to the moon either.

>>77207128
I like the way you think. Mote people shpuld give up red meat. It's so evil ahahah don't buy it think of the cow farts

>>77207128
I eat 15kg wings and 900g mayo per week.

I’ll have pork or beef maybe once a month, that’s all

>>77207128
>Anyone else cut out red meat after the new studies came out?
Yeah but I don't need new studies, the fact that farmed meat is disproportionally and unnaturally high in saturated fat and low in unsaturated fat compared to wild game we evolved with has been known for decades now. It's just that red meat is especially affected, due to how cows respond to a sedenary, grain-fed lifestyle.
>How did you fill in the nutritional deficiencies left by it - zinc, iron, creatine?
Iron and creatine are plentiful in fish and white meats so its not an issue. Zinc is a bit of an issue because both white meats and fish are much lower in it, so it is good to supplement.
>I have switched to chicken, turkey, eggs and fish as my main protein sources.
Pretty much the same, but i also eat game when i can.

>>77207210
This, retards who use the whole "but our ancestors ate red meat all the time" ignore the major difference. Lamb, pigs, and cows in their natural habitat and on their natural diet aren’t meant to be super fatty. They’re not meant to sit around and be lazy. But people are so obsessed with muh marbling no one cares

>>77207215
Ok let's switch to vegetables sprayed and genetically modified x1000 times.

>>77207216
The genetic modifications we do to plants don't fundamentally alter the plant's lifestyle and nutrition like we do with cattle, it's mostly resistance to insects/viruses/bacteria/pesticides/etc.

Pesticides are a problem, but also not one that fundamentally changes the nutritional profile, and one you can manage by discarding outer layers of the vegetable/fruit or at least washing them in a solution of vinegar.

There's also the fact that there is much more nutritional variation in plant foods compared to animal products, which makes it easier to pick and choose. No one will insist you should be eating exclusively x plant food or that it belongs in every diet.

>>77207128
I've been making smash burgers with bacon and steak sandwiches, chicken is for getting a shitload of protein, fish is for vitamins, pork is ribs, lamb is for europeans, what I really want is a ton of sushi brisket and wings. Eggs are good like 1 or 2 a day. Also eat avocados and olive oil and fish idk man.

>>77207216
What Mexican is spraying my fucking salad with poison

>>77207237
Plants are less nutritious than their pre-industrial revolution counterparts due to multiple factors that include soil depletion and being genetically modified to grow and stay fresh for long enough as well being sprayed with ten different cancerigens
>There's also the fact that there is much more nutritional variation
Lmao liver + fruit literally covers every single one of your needs, macros and micros while tasting good. You need like 5kg of 10 different legumes and root plants to even get close to the dv% covered by 250g of liver
>>77207240
The one you see in the mirror every time you wake up

>>77207248
Mi no comprende no la vehetables es needo la nutrientos

>>77207254
Ci no este le pipi no pipi no papo la dahinglos ho pipi poop poopoo mi pipi

>>77207248
>Plants are less nutritious than their pre-industrial revolution counterparts
This is generally true, but solved through eating proportionally more, which doesn't usually come with a disproptionate intake of a nutrient that happens to be very bad in an abundance, like saturated fat happens to be.
>Lmao liver + fruit literally covers every single one of your needs, macros and micros
Please go in great detail how you're hitting 100ish grams of protein per day with just liver and fruit without also causing hypervitaminosis A. Where are your calcium and E coming from?
>You need like 5kg of 10 different legumes and root plants to even get close to the dv% covered by 250g of liver
Is this the part where you try to poorly defend your position by attacking the vegan strawman?

>>77207263
>hypervitaminosis A
Never been observed, the only cases had heavy metal poisoning from eating sea lions and polar bears
>Is this the part where you try to poorly defend your position by attacking the vegan strawman?
No one mentioned veganism. Im just pointing out how plants are fundamentally devoid of nutrients and modern farming making it even worse makes eating vegetables a net negative and redundant
>Please go in great detail how you're hitting 100ish grams of protein per day
>Where are your calcium and E coming from?
The burden of proof is on you on this one since you think cow products are inherently vile when everything that's not wild caught fish (canning and presveration is also dubious and refrigeration kills some nutrients but that's beside the point) is as sprayed if not more. You're incoherent

>>77207135
>The ones financed by big veg?
The ones written by pajeets and ching chongs.

>>77207273
>Never been observed, the only cases had heavy metal poisoning from eating sea lions and polar bears
Wrong.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32861618/
>Im just pointing out how plants are fundamentally devoid of nutrients
But they aren't, you just drew an arbitrary line in the sand as to what "devoid" is. You can reach the RDA for various micros through farmed plant consumption within a reasonable caloric budget, that's a fact.
>The burden of proof is on you on this one since you think cow products are inherently vile
The detrimental effects of excessive saturated fat intake are well documented.

This also has nothing to do with you answering how you're hitting 100ish grams of protein per day and where your calcium and E are coming from on your liver + fruit diet. Whenever you're ready, or just admit the idea was silly and you didn't quite think it through.
>everything that's not wild caught fish (canning and presveration is also dubious and refrigeration kills some nutrients but that's beside the point) is as sprayed if not more
Farmed animals don't develop disproportionally and unnaturally high saturated fat and low unsaturated fat from spraying, they develop it from a combination of grain based diet and sedentary lifestyles. Lean cuts of white meats such as chicken are less suspectible to this issue purely because they just don't have the saturated fat deposit there. To consume the much needed unsaturated fats, especially DHA O3, you absolutely should consume wild fish and wild game if you can, which I do myself. Wild fish is available, even uncanned. It's also not that hard to pick up hunting or just buy game if you can't/won't.

>>77207319
>Posts heavy metal poisoning symptoms
Kek !!
>you just drew an arbitrary line in the sand as to what "devoid" is
"Nutritional variation" is even more arbitrary so i preserve the right to make my own lines in the sand. The fact stands : vegetables dont cover +30 nutrients and are poor in the ones they contain compared to animal sources.
>Le saturated fat boogeyman
Never been proven outside of weak correlation, calcification and artherosclerosis can be more attributed to seed oils and omega 6 in general being instable and rancid and full advanced glycation byproducts at room temperature which are proven cancerigens and heart disease inducing chemicals
The rest of your post is just admitting hat im correct that you should eat more meat

>>77207171
Hormone test came back pretty good. Aside from building some muscle I'm relatively fit and have pretty great cardio.
But retards like you don't believe in balance, just in pushing iron while listening to some grifter on YT.
I would tell you to kys but you do that everyday with your lifestyle choices

>>77207325
Total testosterone bloodwork doesnt matter
>Balance
Meaningless buzzword

>>77207324
>hypervitaminosis A has never been observed, the only cases had heavy metal poisoning from eating sea lions and polar bears
>wrong, here's 3 cases of vit A poisoning from liver consumption outside polar regions, across different generations, examination showed high serum retinol levels, no mention of heavy metals

>t-that's clearly heavy metal poisoning too
Desquamation is not a typical symptom of heavy metal poisoning while being a typical symptom of hypervitaminosis A. Headache, nausea and emesis are non-specific. Missing symptoms of heavy metal poisoning such as anemia, neuropathy, diarrhea, shock, cardiac issues. Your differential diagnosis skills suck.
>"Nutritional variation" is even more arbitrary
It is not. We have a decent idea of how many different micros the human body requires. Not all of them are easily acquired purely from animal sources and not without overdosing some of them.
>The fact stands : vegetables dont cover +30 nutrients and are poor in the ones they contain compared to animal sources
Which isn't mutually exclusive with plant food being capable of providing sufficent quantities of some nutrients.
>Never been proven outside of weak correlation
Correlation coefficients are high enough to be considered a strong correlation. It is one of the strongest correlations within nutritional science period.
>calcification and artherosclerosis can be more attributed to seed oils and omega 6 in general being instable and rancid and full advanced glycation byproducts at room temperature
Single fact to back that up?
>cancerigens
carcinogens*
>The rest of your post is just admitting hat im correct that you should eat more meat
The argument was never about whether animal products are bad as a whole or about specyfing their ideal quantity, the argument was always about modern farmed animal products, especially red meat, being harmful compared to wild game and alternatives to alleviate this.

1/2

>>77207324
>>77207339
This was the 3rd post where you still didn't adress how your liver + fruit diet would provide enough protein without causing hypervitaminosis A or how it would provide sufficent calcium or E, which forces me to assume you're simply too proud to publicaly admit the idea was very silly. I don't particularly blame you, your posts paint a clear picture of someone who doesn't really have an in depth understanding of human nutrition. Can't read studies, can't do basic differential diagnoses, misspells carcinogens as cancerigens, etc. Dunning-kruger is easy to spot with enough prodding.

>>77207339
>hypervitaminosis A
No such thing has been observed btw to have a reference, your own article points out the possibility of thiamine allergy
>>"Nutritional variation" is even more arbitrary
>It is not. We have a decent idea of how many different micros the human body requires. Not all of them are easily acquired purely from animal sources and not without overdosing some of them.
>>The fact stands : vegetables dont cover +30 nutrients and are poor in the ones they contain compared to animal sources
>Which isn't mutually exclusive with plant food being capable of providing sufficent quantities of some nutrients.
Btfo with one single fact : why are vegans deficient in practically everything that's not carbohydrate ?
Yeah that's right.

>>77207345
>Vitamin E
Unnecessary
You're latching onto it as an escape from admitting that liver/offal is the most micronutrient dense food ever alongside fruits
>Calcium
Milk, easily solved

>i have vitamin e deficiency im so dizzy im gonna die if i dont eat the bitter toxic glyphosate green leafs
Said no one ever

What are you faggots even arguing about. Every study that says "OMG red meat le bad!" is unscientific dogshit written by indian and chinese dodgy-arse "scientists" trying to push vegansim and bug eating. One was even bandied around the news services about a year ago with the talking heads saying it was an "Australian study" but look at the authors... and yep, pajeets neck deep in their own shit.

Just shut the fuck up.

>>77207359
The only takeaway from these studies is that synthetic preservatives and high sodium intake from processed cuts is bad.

>>77207349
>hypervitaminosis A is not real actually
Very compelling.
>vegan strawman again
Very compelling.
>>77207348
>vitamin E isn't an essential nutrient, it's useless actually
Very compelling.
>You're latching onto it as an escape from admitting that liver/offal is the most micronutrient dense food ever alongside fruits
Liver/are among the micronutrient dense foods. In your desperate pursuit to justify your carnitard delusions and btfo the began boogeyman, you still fail to see the argument was never about whether animals products are bad as a whole, despite being reminded twice already.
>Milk, easily solved
Changing the goalposts, you said, quote
>Lmao liver + fruit literally covers every single one of your needs, macros and micros
are you ready to admit this was a silly thing to say?

>>77207357
>let me double down, vitamin E isn't an essential nutrient, it's useless actually
Very compelling.

>>77207327
You need to log off the internet a little.
>balance
Because you don't understand a word doesn't make it bullshit. Balance as in being fit in both strength, cardio and flexibility. 3 of which are complementary and contribute to longevity.

I know retards on /fit/ and in the gym conflate esthetics and health but you're embarrassing yourself.

>>77207128
the price of beef tripled in my country (Fuck EU regulations) and i am really sad that i have to buy more pork and chicken.
Why would you ever want to give up beef?
Boggles my mind

>>77207365
Vitamin D is synthesized from saturated fat after exposure to UV rays, non issue. Oranges and figs are also good calcium sources, same for offal, bone marrow. It's such a weird hill to die on, you're only embarrassing yourself by latching onto this because you have no rebuttal.
The fact stands : vegetables are not only redundant due to being poor in all nutrients, but they also block absorption of nutrients from other sources and add to your pesticides intake. Even if a vegetable contains x amount of X vitamin or mineral, the dv is so laughably low you'd need to eat a kilogram of it to cover half of what a speck of liver would. Nothing anti-vegan about this, simple dietary facts.

>>77207375
Except you're weak (as proven by you thinking strength and flexibility or flexibility and cardio being complimentary lmao) and unhealthy.
You're what we call jack of all trades master of none.

>>77207128
>after the new studies came out
What are the new studies?

>>77207254
>>77207255
>points gun
TELL ME WHERE THE BIBLIOTECA IS

>>77207324
>Never been proven outside of weak correlation
>>77207339
>Correlation coefficients are high enough to be considered a strong correlation
Recommend reading up on the Minnesota Coronary Experiment and the Sydney Heart Trials if you haven't already.

>>77207381
>Vitamin D is synthesized from saturated fat after exposure to UV rays, non issue.
D was never mentioned.
>Oranges and figs are also good calcium sources, same for offal, bone marrow. It's such a weird hill to die on, you're only embarrassing yourself by latching onto this because you have no rebuttal.
One orange is about 50 mg calcium, one fig is around 15 mg. Calcium RDA is around 1000-1200 mg. Now please confirm, unironically, that you consider 20-24 oranges or 67-80 figs per day to be reasonable dietary advice. Go ahead, keep doubling down on this.

Offal and bone marrow are not liver or fruits. You can't weasel your way out of admitting you were wrong.
> the dv is so laughably low you'd need to eat a kilogram of it to cover half of what a speck of liver would
>but oranges and figs are good sources of calcium, simply eat 4 kilograms
Meanwhile you can satisfy vit A RDA with 2 medium carrots, vit K RDA with one small basil plant, etc.

>>77207394
>No control group
>Low N=x
>No actual control of diet habits outside of "do you eat meat ? If yes do you have cancer ? Yes. MEAT CAUSES CANCER BUCKLE UP"
>>77207400
>Meanwhile you can satisfy vit A RDA with 2 medium carrots
Non-bioavailable. Only vit a that your body uses is retinol, beta carotene is flushed in the toilet.
>Offal and bone marrow are not liver or fruits. You can't weasel your way out of admitting you were wrong.
But im still correct, you're latching onto a generalized statement desperately because this is the only framework from where you can shill your toxic tubers. You can eat ONLY liver and fruits and live long and healthy and have better markers than any vegantranny out there. Matter of fact thats pretty close to the diet of the last surviving person from the 19th century

>muh just eat lean cuts retards when they find out saturated fats are more essential than carbohydrates
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_toxicity
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/underactive-thyroid-hypothyroidism/

>>77207403
>>No control group
>>Low N=x
>>No actual control of diet habits outside of "do you eat meat ? If yes do you have cancer ? Yes. MEAT CAUSES CANCER BUCKLE UP"
Didn't bother to even Google it.

>>77207409
Ok
>Google it anyways
>Serum cholesterol went down (meaningless metric)
>No other OBSERVED change, the study even stopped short and half the data challenges villifying saturated fats
>Republished data expunged before basically shows it was a big fraud to push seed oils

>Sydney study
>Replacing saturated fat is actually beneficial and seed oils directly affect heart health outcome negatively
Did you respond to the wrong anon ? Am i not following the replies chain properly.

>>77207403
>Non-bioavailable. Only vit a that your body uses is retinol, beta carotene is flushed in the toilet.
Beta-carotene is a precursor to retinol and retinoic acid through splitting into two retinal molecules through the BCO1 enzyme. This is why vit A RDA is measured by retinol activity equivalents. The bioavailability of a raw carrot is around 11%, which puts an average medium carrot at 500-800 µg RAE, while the RDA is roughly 700-900. You couldn't show you know little about nutrition if you tried at this point.

> I said "Lmao liver + fruit literally covers every single one of your needs, macros and micros"
>let me move the goalposts to "you can eat ONLY liver and fruits and live long and healthy and have better markers than any vegantranny out there"
>therefore I wasn't wrong!
lol

>>77207403
>>77207417
Also
>still didn't adress his inane claim of eating 20-24 oranges or 67-80 figs to satisfy calcium RDA
>didn't adress one small basil plant, a leafy green vegetable, taking care of vit K RDA for the day
It's not a good look when your arguments rely primarily on moving goalposts, denying reality or flat out ignoring when you're wrong.

>>77207417
Except beta carotene absorption is extremely low, you've just repeated the pathway that chatgpt gave you without taking in consideration the most important parameter that animal offal/liver already have readily-absorbed retinol/vit a in greater quantities
It's also a fat soluble compound so it still relies on dietary saturated fats which liver also provides readily.
All in all, you're getting 0 value out of that carrot, might as well us it as a buttplug or pacifier.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3407609/

>>77207419
>>still didn't adress his inane claim of eating 20-24 oranges or 67-80 figs to satisfy calcium RDA
Why would i address something i never said you fucking jew ?

This thread is sad. Daily reminder YOU are a shitskin and YOU will always be an animal compared to white people. Only shitskins worship rivers and cows. Your betters use rivers for commerce and eat cows to enslave you.

>>77207415
>Did you respond to the wrong anon ?
No. You said saturated fat intake is weakly correlated with heart disease but it's inversely correlated. That's allI wanted to point out.

>>77207419
>>didn't adress one small basil plant, a leafy green vegetable, taking care of vit K RDA for the day
Phylloquinone, same case as vit a, non bioavailable, blocked by phytates and other anti nutrients. The effect is also negated by the high content of oxalates in green leaves.
Vegans are so pathetic just close down the tab you disingenuous rat

Also k1 is redundant when k2 is more readily available AND bioavailable, k1 is bound to chloroplasts and you have to destroy the plant in and out to get anything off of it.
This retards calls me ignorant about nutrition but (i suppose out of convenience and snarkiness, not actual ignorance) dodges the fact that those numbers are about raw content that ignore nutrient loss via cooking, freezing, over time and malabsorption

>>77207433
>>77207426
Forgot to point out another fact : you still need...you gussed it ! SATURATED FATS for K1 absorption

>>77207420
>Except beta carotene absorption is extremely low
Adressed, read. Roughly 11%. Which is suffcient, given the sheer amount of beta-carotene.
>you're only right ans know more than me because uhh you must be using AI
lol
>it doesn't matter that the carrot meets the RDA, >even though i just claimed beta-carote is flushed down the toilet, ignore that let me move goalposts more
>it now matter than liver has more
lmao even
>All in all, you're getting 0 value out of that carrot
kek, if you will. Lets add that you your collection of reality denial, together with vit E being useless and hypervitaminosis A not being real.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3407609/
Does not conclude beta-carotene is not converted to retional. Concludes the variation in bioavailability is significant enough to be concerning for dosage of pure beta-carotene in clinical settings. You really can't read studies.

>>77207421
You said, quote
>Oranges and figs are also good calcium sources
Would you like to admit you were wrong, or will you deny reality again and say they actually have orders of magnitude more calcium than stated, or that the RDA is order of magnitude lower? Take your pick.

>>77207426
>Phylloquinone, same case as vit a, non bioavailable
I see, so the same case of conflating low bioavailability with no bioavailability and lack of understanding what precursors are.

>>77207440
>If i latch onto statements to desperately try and exagerate them maybe i will avoid the embarrasement of being proven wrong 10 replies ago
>Let me just brush off any parameter that isnt just x contains y (predicted a couple posts ago >>77207433) because it's convenient and btfo my shilling
>If i pretend that a precursor lack of procession or bioavailability doesn't affect the "vitamin"s absorption (and also avoid addressing the necessity of saturated fats in all of those processes) i might avoid once again embarrassing myself by throwing red herrings every other post
I accept your concession
Another vegantroon bites the dust

>>77207433
>there is tax on my money
>therefore i receive no money
>i cannot earn more money to have more money despite the tax, the tax means i receive zero money period and will starve to death
>if you disagree you're vegan
Average carnitard's understanding of nutrition

>>77207451
>>If i latch onto statements to desperately try and exagerate them
Look, the facts are simple, you said
>Lmao liver + fruit literally covers every single one of your needs, macros and micros while tasting good
Then, when pointed out this is wrong, you desperately tried to escape adressing it. Then, when pressed, changed the goalposts multiple time, including
>adding milk
>adding bone marrow/offal
>changing the argument to "You can eat ONLY liver and fruits and live long and healthy and have better markers than any vegantranny out there"
>saying oranges and figs are a good source of calcium, then denying it when confronted with the fact it would take 20-24 oranges or 67-80 figs to meet the RDA
It's really embarassing, even by zimbabwean basket weaving website standards.
>Let me just brush off any parameter that isnt just x contains y
Ironic, considering your idea of considering oranges and figs good sources of calcium because they contain it.
>If i pretend that a precursor lack of procession or bioavailability doesn't affect the "vitamin"s absorption
Conflating low bioavailability with no bioavailability with no bioavailability again.
>also avoid addressing the necessity of saturated fats in all of those processes
Saturated fat is an essential nutrient, yes. It is also provably bad for you if there's too much of it, which is the common consequence of consumption of red meat of farmed animals. Which has nothing to do with plants being nutritious. Fighting the vegan boogeyman again.
>I accept your concession
I will let other Anons be the judge of how much merit both sides of the argument had. It's the only reason we had this conversation, I'd just like others to see the average carnitard's faulty line of reasoning for themselves, rich in ignorance, logical errors, delusions and ad hoc.

>>77207452
Except the tax (bioavailability, antinutrients, cooking...) is like 80% here and your basic necessities would normally take like 30% and now you're in the negative

>>77207468
>yes. It is also provably bad for you
Btfo by >>77207394 you dont need to eat entire sticks of butter, there's also no carnivore here you're actually a schizo why would a carnivore advocate for fruits

>>77207471
>all major meta-analyses are btfo by my two cherrypicked studies actually
We already know you have no academic background or intelligence sufficent to understand how scientific research works without it, no need to confirm it any further.
>why would a carnivore advocate for fruits
You're right actually, I apologize you're not a carnitard. Your line of reason is just very in line with the average carnitard, but you have a bit more sense to recognize the nutritional value of fruit. But then you also overestimate it by claiming oranges and figs are a good source of calcium, but that's just your overall inability to admit you're wrong.

>>77207440
>Except beta carotene absorption is extremely low
>Adressed, read. Roughly 11%. Which is suffcient, given the sheer amount of beta-carotene
The conversion to usable vitamin A is also low, somewhere between 10-20%
>>77207452
>>77207469
The tax is more like 98.35%. Trying to get your daily Vit A requirement from carrots is basically a waste of time.

you're arguing with a troll, he makes the same thread every day and spends the entire day posting in them

"red meat" is very nearly the dumbest, most retarded and most disingenious bullshit nutrition "science" has ever come up with
it's a dump category that has VASTLY different food items listed as being the same: being on a diet of bacon and hot dogs get listed as "red meat" the same as eating grass-fed beef and wild elk, which is obviously UTTERLY FUCKING RETARDED
we'd need decades worth of studies focusing on more granular food item groups and then meta-analysis from that to even start to draw any real conclusions, and this would need to be controlled for different population groups as well
in other words it's all hazy bullshit, like ultimately all nutrition science
nutrition science runs into the same problem as economics: you can't properly control your studies, especially not for long and in large groups. So what we have are guesstimated theories masquerading as hard rules and facts.
"red meat" is one of the dumbest psyops ever

>>77207469
>Except the tax (bioavailability, antinutrients, cooking...) is like 80% here
Alright, fair.
>your basic necessities would normally take like 30%
You do realize basic necessities become a lower percentage of your total income as income increases, yes?

If you earn $1000, taxed at 80%, leaving you at $200, but your rent+food is $300, you can earn $2000, leaving you with $400, making it possible to afford your rent+food.

You can earn (eat) more money (plants) taxed (bioavailability, antinutrients, cooking) at a fixed 80% to cover what was 30% basic necessities (RDA) at a lower income (total consumption)?

Am I making this simple enough for you?

>>77207481
>Trying to get your daily Vit A requirement from carrots is basically a waste of time.
Do you have a single fact to back what is contrary to all established scientfic consensus regarding the nutritional value of carrots, or is the source just your ass?

>>77207484
>you earn $1000, taxed at 80%, leaving you at $200, but your rent+food is $300, you can earn $2000, leaving you with $400, making it possible to afford your rent+food.
>You can earn (eat) more money (plants) taxed (bioavailability, antinutrients, cooking) at a fixed 80% to cover what was 30% basic necessities (RDA) at a lower income (total consumption)?
>Am I making this simple enough for you?
Just as there is a limited amount of time in the day to work, there is a limit to the amount of stuff you can eat. Filling your diet with nutrient devoid fibrous things is objectively worse that filling your diet with nutrient dense things.
Am I making this simple enough for you?

>>77207484
You do realize your tax percentage also goes up proportionally with your income ?

>>77207490
>there is a limit to the amount of stuff you can eat
Dictated by the caloric budget and overall volume, yes. Can be an issue in some cases, not so much in others. Just like some people earn very little per hour, but others don't particularly care.
>Filling your diet with nutrient devoid fibrous things is objectively worse that filling your diet with nutrient dense things.
Not if those nutrient dense things have other consequences to them. Is that better salary really worth being in a high risk profession?

>>77207496
>nutrient dense things
I guess we're not arguing about vegetables anymore

>>77207489
Beta carotene has a low conversion rate to retinol. 15% was generous.
11% (your number) * 15% = 1.65%
If you want to use a different % for the conversion of beta carotene to retinol, that's fine. The important part is that there are two stages of efficiency loss for getting vitamin A from plant sources, not one.
>contrary to all established scientfic consensus
Whose consensus? Everything I see online seems to agree that there are two stages of loss.
You're better off just eating the bioavailable vit A from animal sources.

>>77207493
Well I don't, because it doesn't. It goes up in brackets, and the rate never reaches 100%, and it doesn't affect the fixed cost of basic necessities. You could make the tax rate 99% for billionaires and they could still afford to live in a studio apartment.

>>77207502
>>77207484
You sound like a leftist.

>>77207501
>Whose consensus?
That carrots are a good way to meet your vit A RDA?
>https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=are+carrots+a+good+source+of+vitamin+A%3F
Go ahead, browse and get me the first scientific source that heavily disencourages relying on carrots for vit A and warns it will lead to a deficency.

>>77207482
come on ...

File: 2668a0f2-9846-48d2-9404-3(...).png (109 KB, 1160x770)

109 KB PNG

>>77207504
>you proved me wrong, therefore you must be [insert political affiliation]
Didn't that feel embarassing to even type out? Genuinely asking.

>>77207496
>Not if those nutrient dense things have other consequences to them.
Like what? Heart disease? Saturated animal fat doesn't cause heart disease.
Hypervitaminosis A? No person has ever gotten it from eating a normal amount of liver per year.
(I would define normal as 2 whole beef livers per year, since an adult male can live on 2 cows per year)
Why are you scared of something we've been eating for like 7 million years?

>>77207513
Nothing to do with nutrition. The way that you talk about personal finance tells me you're a leftist. Do you have a job?

File: i wonder who.jpg (55 KB, 600x600)

55 KB JPG

>>77207128
sure i did, mr shekelstein

>>77207509
I see a lot of sources saying that carrots have vitamin A in them, which isn't true.
Why don't you tell me: how much of the absorbed beta carotene is converted to retinol?

>>77207128
I don't give a shit about science anymore since covid.

>>77207518
>The way that you talk about personal finance
What personal finance? We are using taxation as an analogy with no personal opinions involved. It is true that taxes don't scale proportionately but in brackets and that you could still afford to rent a studio apartment earing billions at a 99% tax rate. Do you disagree somehow?

File: smh.jpg (29 KB, 480x360)

29 KB JPG

>>77207178
>If you eat meat you can only be carnivore
>If you eat carbs you can only be vegan
/fit/ low IQ in a nutshell.

>>77207523
>see a lot of sources saying that carrots have vitamin A in them, which isn't true.
This isn't the same as denying carrots will leave you deficent in vit A.
>Why don't you tell me: how much of the absorbed beta carotene is converted to retinol?
It depends, but in the range of 3.6–28:1 by weight apparently. Even in the worst case scenario, that means 10605 μg in 128 g of raw carrot is converted to 378,75 μg of retinol. The RDA is 700-900, that's 2-3 carrots.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2854912/
https://ods.od.nih.gov/pubs/usdandb/VitA-betaCarotene-Content.pdf

>>77207509
>>77207523
I found one that measures it using isotopes, in live human test subjects.
>The retinol equivalences were determined to be 21 μg spinach β-carotene or 15 μg carrot β-carotene to 1 μg retinol.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2854912/
1.6% turned out to be a low estimate. Still, 6% is... not very much.

>>77207128
>cut out red meat after the new studies came out
>(((studies)))
i cut out fish and chicken, i'm all in on red meat

>>77207383
And you're what we called a roided, closeted retard, the kind that dies at 60 because their heart is too weak to support their big boy body.
Jack of all trade is amazing when it comes to health. You're a complete idiot. Brown mentality.

I promise you any "study" showing red meat is harmful is total bullshit and has lot of flaws.

>>77207128
Thank you for eating less beef. That means more for me. If anything, red meat prevents colon cancer and heart disease. I eat a pound of raw beef every day. I don't want to reduce or increase that amount.

>>77207502
So you're poor and financially illiterate gotcha. What a midwit.

>>77207648
It's ironic that you call me brown when you unironically believe just because you suck at everything equally that it's "balanced" ergo good
Maybe this is just how autistic people think equal parts or 33%+33%+33% = good because almost symmetric but the 1% isnt registered in your brain no matter how important it is because it's just 1% and is numerically small.

>>77207655
This is my position as well. I gave up on these studies a long time ago because I knew what I was looking at, and they’re so poorly done it’s just a joke, clearly just done to provide fodder for media so they can scare the average nightly news watcher out of eating beef. Idk why, but the system seems hellbent on getting people to eat less beef, via whatever lever it can use.

>>77207128
Jew propaganda. I will not eat bugs

>>77207502
This is really, really deviating from the argument, but if a billionaire had all taxable income (they don't) and it was taxed 99%, they would still be rich as fuck. They would still be able to afford living in a mansion.
>>77207493
It's only proportional if you're poor. For the giga-rich, it caps out, and it is only on taxable income anyway, which is a tiny percentage of the ultra rich's wealth. Warren Buffett literally pays less in taxes than his personal assistant (in actual dollar amount, not just percentage). He's stated such many times.

>>77207153
>new

>>77207210
>>77207215
This is so fucking wrong its not funny. When man relied more on meat for survival, he needed the meat to be fatty, in addition to eating organ meat.

Eating lean muscle meat exclusively (in terms of animal product) is a modern preference when food is abundant.

Your "muh factory farming" is as retarded as the "muh seed oils" cope. No studies show modern steak is worse for you than free range beef in 1880. Red meat intrinsicly tends to cause cardio issues and colon/bowel issues long term. The flip side is red meat and eggs are the GOAT food for growing boys to develop into big, strong, smart men. Nothing else matches this nutritional benefit for development. As you grow older you should probably moderate the amount you consume for longevity.

>>77207135
Don't slander vegetables like that, we all know those studies are straight from Big Nose.

>>77207149
Retards like you "read" a single study and treat it like scientific law. It's insane. 1/10 people who cite a study on this board have any ability to discern its validity. This is dumb as fuck when it comes to things like nutrition cause you have to isolate for a thing to prove that it's the cause of shit. It's literally impossible to do anything more than make a link to meat, WHICH MEANS FUCKING NOTHING, because of the sheer number of people eating meat and the sheer number of other things that can contribute to the issues faggy vedge bought scientists intentionally look for.

File: 1732076477649.png (2.12 MB, 1008x1699)

2.12 MB PNG

Vegans will never stop shilling on /fit/.

Even they don't believe their own lies.

>>77209094
I eat more meat than all of you trannies combined, i just dont eat beef and only eat pork on special occasions. Nothing to do with being vegan, just dont want my heart to give out before i see my grandchildren.

>>77209094
If you think that guy is natty then you are dumb as fuck lol that size and leanness combo at that advanced age is absolutely not possible without steroids

I have pretty much given up red meat because I can't afford to buy the fucking shit thanks to joe biden

>>77209131
>absolutely not possible
For grain-fed cattle.

>>77209112
So you dont eat meat got it

>>77208917
>intrinsicly tends to cause cardio issues and colon/bowel issues long term.
Never been proven

>>77207163
>ambiguous questionnaire
oh I didn't realize you were a part of the study and were familiar with it.

Oh wait you're just parroting what YouTubers told you. And you have zero idea of epidemiology research looks like.

>>77207128
>Anyone else cut out red meat after the new studies came out?
No, I'm straight.

>>77209094
>calls others liars and shills
>gets debunked every time that retarded graph is posted. Knowing full well it doesn't control for socioeconomic status and all of the high meat countries are first world and the low meat countries are 3rd world

>>77209706
That's literally what epidemiology is, 90% questionaires 10% speculation.

>>77207216
How come people who eat more vegetables have less disease and mortality?

How come there is zero difference in people who eat GMO and non-organic produce?

How come you're such a fucking tool who believes everything he hears online?

>>77209710
So what you're saying is turd worlders are like that because they dont eat meat ok got it should eat more meat to become civilized

>>77209713
Give me an example of a questionnaire they use and how it is "ambiguous".
Provide any evidence that they are unreliable.
If you're getting filtered by "how often do you eat red meat per week" then you might be too retarded to qualify for the study in the first place.

>>77209717
Never been proven either, extremely weak correlations
>>77209723
All of them
Red meat is a buzzword that includes everything from spam and mortadella up to offal

>>77209718
It's actually because they don't have access to healthcare and are generally dying on average to random things. But continue your dishonesty and continue to post that graph knowing full well that it is a lie.

Also hilarious you will rely so heavily on population cohorts, but I bet you shit on epidemiology.

>>77209724
>Never been proven either, extremely weak correlations
Millions of people from all over the world with repeatable results is not "extremely weak". You're absolutely delusional to think those results are just coincidences. Show me any study EVER that has had a group with high vegetable consumption have worse health outcomes than a group with little to no vegetable consumption. It does not exist. If it was truly a coincidence, then the results would be more mixed.

>>77209726
They should eat more meat and become civilized to develop proper healthcare
>>77209730
Yeah millions and all you can cite is n<1000 ambiguous questionnaires

File: FFQ_part1.png (64 KB, 831x434)

64 KB PNG

>>77209724
>Red meat is a buzzword that includes everything from spam and mortadella up to offal
Most questionnaires do specifically separate these, which again shows you're just believed whatever YouTuber told you that.

>>77207153
This pic hurts to look at. Like what the fuck.

>>77209745
>Most
>Posts (1) random sheet table
Sure

>>77209735
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29739681/
>This prospective study suggests that a higher cruciferous vegetables intake is associated with reduced risk of all-cause mortality.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21593509/
>Our findings support recommendations to increase consumption of vegetables, particularly cruciferous vegetables, and fruit to promote cardiovascular health and overall longevity.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34929422/
>Consumption of cruciferous vegetables was associated with a reduced risk of all-cause mortality, cancers, and depression.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23211939/
>Findings from this meta-analysis provide evidence that high intake of CV was inversely associated with the risk of CRC and colon cancer in humans.

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22537070/
>After 4 weeks, consumption of 10 g/d BSP resulted in a significant decrease in serum insulin concentration and HOMA-IR (p = 0.05 for treatment effect)

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16084154/
>Higher intakes of cereal fiber and whole-grain products are associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women with established CAD.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115152/
>This meta-analysis provides further evidence that a higher consumption of fruit and vegetables is associated with a lower risk of all cause mortality, particularly cardiovascular mortality.

>>77209735
>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8084888/
>Higher intakes of fruit and vegetables were associated with lower mortality

>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28338764/
>Fruit and vegetable intakes were associated with reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and all-cause mortality.

>https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32253-5/fulltext
>Higher total fruit, vegetable, and legume intake was inversely associated with major cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, and total mortality

>IL-6 levels significantly decreased (mean values from 4.76 pg/mL to 2.11 pg/mL with 70 days of broccoli consumption, p < 0.001) and during control phase the inflammatory levels were maintained at low grade (mean values from 1.20 pg/mL to 2.66 pg/mL, p < 0.001). C-reactive protein significantly decreased as well.

File: slide9-l.jpg (131 KB, 1024x768)

131 KB JPG

>>77209748
Yeah 4chan only lets you upload one at a time. Christ you coward just admit you're wrong.
How do you think they came to the conclusion that processed meat is worse than non-processed. Obviously by separating it out.

>>77209756
All i take from this is that fruits are good, vegetables are redundant
>>77209750
>N=10000
>We asked people 10 years later and 300 died of car accidents that means vegetables prevent car accidents
>>77209766
Excel tabloids arent proof of anything

>>77207128
>new studies
What the fuck are you talking about retard? Is this bait?

>>77209860
moronic propaganda to placate the masses ahead of the increasing beef prices

>>77207128
>Anyone else cut out red meat after the new studies came out?
No, I eat more red meat than before. After Covid, I don't trust science anymore.

>>77209860
There are none, but beef is getting more expensive now, so it's only a matter of time before the international communist cabal decided to cut it out of our lives for good. Think I'm joking? Schizo? Crazy? You will see and think of this post in a few years.

File: 1767278177975048s.jpg (4 KB, 125x121)

4 KB JPG

>>77207128
>>77207149
>studies
>antivax nutjob
Ok mate

File: G6hVPkXbEAAgcl-.jpg (719 KB, 1638x2048)

719 KB JPG

>>77207128
Take your vegan propo elsewhere.

The longest living nation (Hong Kong) also has the highest daily meat consumption per day. Any negative effects caused by eating red meat (grass fed and ecological) can be negated by having an active lifestyle and getting enough dietary fibre from vegetables, fruit and whole grains. The positive effects on muscle, brain health and hormonal profile far outweigh the risks

File: 65138061_720594828360012_(...).jpg (58 KB, 768x651)

58 KB JPG

>>77210680
>No pork
Nice try, Ishmael

>>77210761
>getting enough dietary fibre from vegetables, fruit and whole grains.
Fiber is cellulose, unusable and indigestible plant matter. Nice well poisoning tho jew

Yall can still afford to eat red meat? I didn’t realize /fit/ was full of billionaires

>>77208786
The old ones were debunked for bullshit too.

>>77210975
Cool emotional language bro. Not an argument. It's 100% associated with living longer and having less disease.

>>77211094
Mashed paper extends your life that's kinda new

>>77211094
You're arguing with someone who doesn't believe what they are saying. They just want to argue.

>>77209112
>just dont want my heart to give out before i see my grandchildren.
then fucking do some cardio. That's all it takes. Everyone dying of heart problems is a sedentary lazy sack of shit. Well except vegans who bike and run. They die of deterioration.

File: ackchyually.png (31 KB, 700x700)

31 KB PNG

>>77207128
>cut out red meat after the new studies came out?
>>77207149
>significantly increases the risk of colon cancer and cardiovascular disease.
"Significant" as in like the biggest red meat eaters had maybe a roughly 20% higher risk with a p value barely under 0.05 in some population-based studies?

I'm anti-carnie or mostly red meat diets, but I'd sooner just throw MORE chemicals in the mix than fully cut out red meat. I just acid cook it, eat a bunch of sneed oils, and take a whole bunch of "unnecessary" prophylactic chemotherapies.

But here's a new reason why I'm throwing scare quotes on "unnecessary"...
>Eating more fruits and vegetables tied to unexpected lung cancer risk
>https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/04/260417224454.htm

>>77211521
Post body

File: 1559400569758.jpg (449 KB, 1122x2208)

449 KB JPG

>>77207128
>Anyone else cut out red meat after the new studies came out?

File: 1718595004803288.png (301 KB, 630x413)

301 KB PNG

>>77211525
Post prophylactic chemotherapy and anti-diabetic stacks; bet you ain't even on basic bitch BromAC, Berberine, or Banaba.
>t. frame-mogger depriving u of fap material

>>77207128
No, I will always be eating as much red meat as I neec, which is a lot.

>>77211730
So you're a mentally ill dyel ok understood

>>77211735
Based and same.