/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15969715
Poor diet and metabolic issues, gut microbiome dysfunction, sedentary lifestyle, ever more viral disease, travel and *also* vaccines.
>Why can't people eat gluten and sugar and be fine?
Maybe we aren't meant to eat gluten and sugar as much.
Maybe all the glyphosate cancer being sprayed onto most of the food we eat today is actually, idk, bad or something.
I mean, it kills bacteria and mitochondria, it's enriched in plants which are advertised as healthy and it isn't even the only chemical to worry about.
https://doi.org/10.17179%2Fexcli2021-4478

https://europepmc.org/article/med/31952890
>link between organophosphate exposure and IQ loss/intelectual disability in children

>>15969744
>Maybe we aren't meant to eat gluten and sugar as much.
dude Humanity literally ate almost exclusivly bread and meal knit for centuries, and this shit does not happen.

Humanity literally poisoned food supply with arsenic, lead arsenate, DDT and BHC for 50 years from 1900-1970s and such issues did not happen, (instead neuroligical issues and wierd cancers).

What happened in the late 80s which fucked up the children.
it's not like the "older ones" get this, its primairyl the juvenile increase which is extremly suspicous.

>>15969789
>Humanity literally ate almost exclusivly bread and meal knit for centuries
stopped reading there
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41033-3
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/71.3.682
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281046865_Human_Health_and_the_Neolithic_Revolution_an_Overview_of_Impacts_of_the_Agricultural_Transition_on_Oral_Health_Epidemiology_and_the_Human_Body
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41418-023-01159-4

Don't even get me started on height and longevity.
Now tell me of what happened in the late 80s and how it would cause the issues we see today.

>>15969715
>immunesystem to attack the body
>chronic inalamtory bowels diseases
Brainlet detected. IBD is not an auto-immune disorder because the immune system does not specifically target the cells but the cells are damaged as a consequence of immune activity. This is a fundamental distinction so it's better to think in terms like disregulation.

>>15969883
>doesn't know about chronic diarrhea lore
>brainlet
you just exposed yourself shitcel

>>15969861
>https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41033-3
I stopped reading after the title of the first link. If you keep your carnivore erection in your pants for one moment you'd realize that immune disorders were not as prevalent even in times (1st - 19th century) when we ate a diet that you consider as unnatural.

>>15969889
You're the one shitposting. Why can't we have a serious discussion ad content?

Actually, i can explain it basically.
It has to be a mutated form of Cystic Fibrosis, which effects the gut, mucus membranes... and makes men sterile. Its also much harder for women to have kids lately too it seems.

>>15969715
>Why does the incidence of autoimunity increase`?
I suppose one important factor could be that everyone survives adulthood nowadays (compared to the past) and that everyone can breed with anyone else even if they would have perished in the past due to lack of medicine/technology. So people with bad genes breed generations that possess even worse genes. It is no longer a survival of the fittest population, as it was intended by nature.

>>15969897
>immune disorders were not as prevalent even in times (1st - 19th century) when we ate a diet that you consider as unnatural
Source?
Wasn't that the time we were constantly starving, going through plagues with an extremely short average height?
How would you accuretly measure autoimmune conditions?
Also I didn't ignore chemicals, but the fact of the matter is that they are primarily concentrated in and ingested via plant foods.

>>15969883
>Brainlet detected. IBD is not an auto-immune disorder because the immune system does not specifically target the cells but the cells are damaged as a consequence of immune activity. This is a fundamental distinction so it's better to think in terms like disregulation.

As far as I know the meme of calling it a "auto immune disease" originates from the fact that it is a mystery disease, like all so called "autoimmune diseases".
>if cause is not obious or known
>auto immune it is

For example in neurology there is a really plausible and demonstrable effect of neurotoxicity, leading to a fuck up of the enteric nervous system, which is also observed in IBD.

The enteric nervous system (ENS) consists of thousands of small ganglia arranged in the submucosal and myenteric plexuses, which can be negatively affected by Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis - inflammatory bowel diseases.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8678817/

it is a multifactoral disorder.
And the fuck up of the nervous system is not specific. becaus every system of your body is regulated by nerves.
If you ingest arsenic, you can get this, but also you can get paralyzed or get brain inflamation.
It entirely depends which nerves of your body gets distroyed.
Meaning a "autoimmune" or "toxic" insult to your nervous system, can express in multiple ways, including fucking up your enteric nervoussystem.

>>15969920
That's been the case for thousand of years.
Epigenetic factors and pressures on protein expression stand to be the much likelier candidate, especially with how quickly we were able to damage the health of indiginous people abroad.

>>15969921
>accuretly measure autoimmune conditions?
Clustering expression of the clinical symptoms, instead of assuming and using "ICD-10" diagnosis and meme terms.

The disease patterns were sadly mostly deadly befor WW2 because the literally poisoned people with:
>arenicals as emetics (which poisned and dehydrated people)
>Calomel, or mercurous chloride to increase salivation (because they asumed you would then salivate out the "disease")
>giving antimonial together with epsom salt to give you diarrhea to shit out the disease
>givng people high doses of heron, opium, tar, dimethylether or chlorophorm to sedate people which effectivle concealed symptoms and give pain relief by sedation and numbing the patients, leading to worse outcomes
>alcohol
>bloodletting
>ice baths
>whirlinchairs
>electroshock therapy
>wierd bismuth concoctions which did god knows what

>>15969921
>How would you accuretly measure autoimmune conditions?
The difficulty to differentiate and the lack of counting in earlier times is exactly the source. Since we can differentiate in recent times and observe an increase it must follow that incidence was lower in earlier times. Unless you want to argue that the industrial revolution may not have had any effect or a decreasing effect it can not be the case that incidence was the same or higher earlier.
>primarily concentrated in and ingested via plant foods.
And these concentrations were lower because of scarcity. In earlier times there was not as much access to orange juice, tomato sauce, seed oils and the like. Those are mostly industrial products.

Another indication is that less ''developed'' countries until recently had less incidence of immune disorders. Therefore immune disorders can't be entirely plant related.

>>15969715
>Why does the incidence of autoimunity increase`?
increased consumption of meat
start reading about Neu5Gc and its effect on humans, and you'll realize why

>>15969744
>>Why can't people eat gluten and sugar and be fine?
>Maybe we aren't meant to eat gluten and sugar as much
gluten is problematic, sugar is not, sugar doesn't cause anything autoimmune at all
meat does, though
see: >>15969961

>>15969921
>they are primarily concentrated in and ingested via plant foods
they are concentrated far more in animal products, especially meat
but that's not even the main issue, the main issue is compounds that are inherent to meat, like Neu5Gc, which has caused chronic systemic autoimmune reactions in humans since our CMAH gene was deactivated ~2 million years ago
even the most "pristine" meat from a "happy" grass-fed cow would lead to this severe chronic systemic autoimmune reaction

>>15969924
Big brain detected. Yes it has been observed that there are a lot of roads to Rome so to speak. In clear terms: any immune disorder can manifest as a result of a variety of physiological pathways and / or a variety of environmental factors. Disrusption of the nervous system is a big brain commonality because it would also explain why stress is both cause and solution for inflmmation and the correlation with ''mental disorders'' like autism, adhd, anxiety, depression. Teach me more senpai.

>>15969961
>start reading about Neu5Gc
Your reasoning seems myopic because both plants and animal products have costs and benefits to health. Therefore both vegans and carnivores argue about long term results rather than specific pathways.

>>15969958
Just because pesticide, herbicide and fungicide exposure cause pathology, does not mean that a diet based primarily on grains is harmless, anon.
Our sugar, grain and vegetable oil consumption has gone up dramatically over the past 60 years.
>>15969963
Excess sugar consumption spikes insulin, causes oxidative stress, glycation and mitochondrial damage.
This would have been fine in the past, where it was fairly limited in supply and balanced by repeated periods of fasting, but no longer today, where we are switching to an almost entirely plant-based diet, eating things like bread, HFCS and sunflower oil with absolutely terrible nutrient characteristics.
poor mitochondrial health and hormonal dysregulation -> metabolic dysfunction -> poor function of the immune system -> increased rates of autoimmunity
>>15969965
Meat isn't enriched enough in herbicides, pesticies and such, given the crazy concentrations found in most vegetables and fruits, which absorb many nutrients through their skin. Grass isn't sprayed, because it doesn't have to be sprayed.
Your argument about Neu5Gc is also nonsensical, considering how inflammatory fiber, gluten, lectin, high insulin, etc., as well as the countless supposedly cancer-curing flavenoids found in plants really are.
But that's beside the point, since your theory is really more vegan hypochondriac delusion, than factual reality. See >>15969861

>>15969996
>does not mean that a diet based primarily on grains is harmless
It's a tricky statement because it depends on production, preparation, digestion, absorption and proportion between nutrients which varies wildly between individuals. For example: bread is highly processed grain, mixed with all sorts of other ingredients, cooked with high temperature, prone to mold and therefore incomparable to oatmeal. Some guts are irritated by grain fibre and some guts are nourished by grain fibre. And so on ad infinitum. The ideal proportion of grain / meat is not 0 / 100 for everyone all the time nor is 90 / 10 of course like governments want us to believe.

>>15969983
>both plants and animal products have costs and benefits to health
fresh and ripe fruit and tender young leaves have zero costs to health, and have been found in tens of thousands of studies to be greatly beneficial to human health with no limit on consumption
it's what we've eaten for tens of millions of years, so that's not surprising at all
>Therefore both vegans and carnivores argue about long term results rather than specific pathways.
this is one of the most retarded statements I've ever read
trying to equate something as moronic as a "carnivore diet" with veganism, which can be done with an ideal human diet of fresh and ripe fruit and tender young leaves, is beyond ridiculous
>Excess sugar consumption spikes insulin, causes oxidative stress, glycation and mitochondrial damage.
high-carbohydrate diets based on tons of fruit have been proven to exert potent antidiabetic effects and lower levels of HbA1c, even with the presence of huge amounts of sugar in the diet, so this is just pure nonsense on your part
high-fat diets chronically elevate both insulin and blood sugar because fat and toxic fat metabolites block the action of insulin, causing higher levels of glycation (hence the higher amounts of HbA1c, which is glycated hemoglobin)
and nothing causes more oxidative stress than fatty acid oxidation, except perhaps high consumption of heme-iron
high-fat diets are associated with mitochondrial damage and a host of diseases, high-fruit diets are associated with supreme mitochondrial health
>where it was fairly limited in supply and balanced by repeated periods of fasting
you have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about
for tens of millions of years we derived 90-95%+ of our caloric intake from simple sugars in fresh and ripe tropical fruits
>argument about Neu5Gc is also nonsensical, considering how inflammatory fiber, gluten, lectin, high insulin
Neu5Gc is orders of magnitude worse
>cancer-curing flavenoids
correct, and they lower inflammation

>>15969996
forgot to quote separate post, see: >>15970065
also, since I reached character limit:
>how inflammatory fiber, gluten, lectin, high insulin
absolutely ridiculous
>fiber
not inflammatory at all, greatly reduces inflammation and risks of a host of diseases, extremely vital to optimal human health
>gluten, lectin
again, I already did say that gluten isn't ideal, and neither are lectins, but these are in grains and legumes, not in optimal human foods (fresh and ripe fruits and tender young leaves)
they're also still not even remotely as bad as compounds like Neu5Gc
>high insulin
as explained, caused by high-fat diets, because on low-fat high-carb diets you have a well-functioning insulin response, blood sugar goes up in response to eating, and is quickly brought back down again as the sugar is shuttled into the cells without fat and toxic fat metabolites blocking the action of insulin
there's a reason why sucrose, particularly the fructose component of it, has been used to cure diabetes for over a century

>>15970065
>ideal human diet of fresh and ripe fruit
>zero costs to health
There are costs of not consuming other foods that provide a different balance of nutrients. There are many examples of vegans exclusively eating fruit who look horribly malnourished and I don't mean low weight or lack of muscle but prematurely aged, wrinkled, sickly pale, dark eye circles and such symptoms. Why are you not concerned about that?

Dysgenics. Obesity.

>>15970084
>There are costs of not consuming other foods that provide a different balance of nutrients.
fresh and ripe fruits and tender young leaves literally provide the perfect balance of nutrients
again, it's what we've eaten for tens of millions of years
on the other hand various animal products provide horribly unbalanced nutrient intakes, and as already mentioned include plenty of known toxic compounds to humans, inherent antinutrients that are far worse than that found in most plant-based foods
>There are many examples of vegans exclusively eating fruit who look horribly malnourished and I don't mean low weight or lack of muscle but prematurely aged, wrinkled, sickly pale, dark eye circles and such symptoms. Why are you not concerned about that?
first of all, you're basing this nonsense on propaganda videos like those made by psychopaths like sv3rige, not on any objective assessment
secondly, you're talking about exclusively eating fruit even when I expressly explain that tender young leaves are just as important a part of a natural human diet, and tender young leaves perfectly complement nutrients that tend to be lacking in fruits, such as protein, calcium, vitamin K, and iron
also, all the symptoms you just described are commonly seen in people who eat a "carnivore diet" or any other diet high in animal products of long periods of time
not exactly very surprising considering how the populations on the planet that eat such diets, like Inuits, have the shortest lifespans and the most disease-ridden lives of all, with among the very highest rates of heart disease, atherosclerosis, strokes, cancers, kidney disease, diabetes, and on and on and on

>>15970102
>tender young leaves are just as important
This is how all sides of the debate argue no true scotsman when pressed to the limit. Granted there might be an ideal environment with the right ratios of the right fruits and the right leaves that we can munch all day and optimally absorp because our microbiome adapted to that diet since birth. That's not modern reality and given less than ideal circumstances currently meat is at least for some people at least in the short term the only relief from suffering disease that no other nutrition or medicine has provided.
>propaganda videos like those made by psychopaths like sv3rige
Yes and these videos show real people who really suffer for an audience who recognizes that suffering because they themselves experienced that suffering.

>>15970166
>This is how all sides of the debate argue no true scotsman when pressed to the limit.
imagine thinking I'm "pressed to the limit" in explaining something that simple
and again you're trying to equivocate between something retarded that humans have never done and provably live short disease-ridden lives doing, and something they've evolved to be optimized for over tens of millions of years
total nonsense
>there might be an ideal environment with the right ratios of the right fruits and the right leaves
more idiotic drivel
just plug in a day's worth of energy of a tropical fruit (e.g. mango) and add 500-1000 grams of any leafy green (e.g. spinach) into some nutritional calculator (like e.g. Cronometer), and you can see for yourself
>because our microbiome adapted to that diet since birth
the microbiome adapts relatively quickly to new diets
ideally it's best to transition over a few months if you're doing something retarded like a SAD diet or even more retarded like a "carnivore" diet, but anyone could have a decent microbiome in just a few weeks
>not modern reality
it's actually easier than ever in a modern context, but of course living in the tropics is ideal for humans, since we've evolved to be optimized for a tropical rainforest climate
>currently meat is at least for some people at least in the short term the only relief from suffering
such relief is only extremely short-lived, which is the only reason why there are a bunch of morons still clinging to it
with time all the problems and disease inevitably and invariably starts showing up, at which point people feel worse than ever, but still try to hold on to it because they've made an identity out of it
>these videos show real people who really suffer
sure, an extremely cherry-picked and non-representative collection of such people
actual health problems are far more prevalent on meat-containing diets, especially "carnivore" diets, but vegans don't tend to care so much as to make propaganda about it

>>15970409
>evolved to be optimized
That's not how evolution works. Whoever survives long enough to reproduce passes their genes. If humans are optimized for anything it's to not die before reproducing despite malnourishment. You seem to have a religious and utopic garden of Eden view of how ancestors lived and then they fell from grace. That's how carnivores think too.

>>15970455
>That's not how evolution works.
it's exactly how evolution works, organisms that have more fitness in a given environment survive and reproduce
>Whoever survives long enough to reproduce passes their genes. If humans are optimized for anything it's to not die before reproducing despite malnourishment.
that's a retarded and simplistic naive view of how evolution works
just surviving long enough to reproduce and pass on your genes doesn't itself guarantee that your genes will survive in a given environment long-term
the most successful organisms in the tropical equatorial rainforest tends to be those forming strong mutualistic symbiotic bonds with other organisms, and the relationship between angiosperms and a wide variety of other organisms, including frugivorous primates like humans, fits that bill precisely
over tens of millions of years there was a mutual selection pressure going on there, where humans would select for the angiosperms yielding the best-tasting fruits that simultaneously ensured their long-term survival and ability to reproduce, while angiosperms would select for the humans that ended up becoming the healthiest and thus capable of dispersing their seeds for many generations to come
>You seem to have a religious and utopic garden of Eden view of how ancestors lived and then they fell from grace.
except I haven't stated anything of the sort, so that's a downright stupid straw man
I'm just stating basic facts of evolutionary biology and paleoanthropology
>That's how carnivores think too.
still trying to make an analogy between that retardation and basic observations of human physiology and our history of a species
also, the term "carnivore" refers to the physiology of an animal, not its culturally acquired habits that go against its physiology
as such no humans are carnivores, because humans are all physiologically herbivores

>>15970475
>facts of evolutionary biology
There are no "facts" of evolutionary biology.

Evolutionionary biology cannot do scientific experments or apply the scientific method, hence not generate facts.

They can only observe and then come up with a plausible hypothesis which would fit the current understanding of evolution.
Evolutionary biologist are storytellers. Not scientists.
It is impossible to verify or prove or disprove any of the claims you or they made.
It's all hypothetical. Even if it may or may not be plausible.

>>15970556
>There are no "facts" of evolutionary biology.
yes, there are tons
>Evolutionionary biology cannot do scientific experments or apply the scientific method, hence not generate facts.
1) there's an entire field dedicated to precisely that, called experimental evolution
2) science is just as much about making hypotheses about future findings based on what we currently know, allowing those future findings to act as experiments, your idea of what science is is myopic and narrow-minded
>Evolutionary biologist are storytellers. Not scientists.
spoken like a clueless moron who doesn't know the first thing about evolutionary biology
>It is impossible to verify or prove or disprove any of the claims you or they made.
except there's tons of hard scientific evidence proving a wide variety of such claims in terms of e.g. physiology and biochemistry
>It's all hypothetical.
total nonsense, it is factual
your ignorance of the scientific field doesn't make it less scientific

>>15970475
>the most successful organisms in the tropical equatorial rainforest
That statement carries a lot of assumptions and evolutionary arguments for what humans ought to do based on what they've presumably done for a long time are prone to fallacies. For example: cherry picking ancestors as if they all lived the same way everywhere all the time and assuming that older adaptations are more significantly correlated with risks and benefits of modern diets than recent adaptations. The plants and meat our ancestors ate are not comparable to modern plants and meat.
>paleoanthropology
Conjecture that is either unfalsifiable or changes on a dime with a new finding or method of analysis.
>culturally acquired habits that go against its physiology
Culture versus physiology is a false dichotomy. Both are shaping eachother all the time. What was a harmonious relationship between genes and environment back then might be detrimental now. For example: a sedentary human has different needs than a moving ancestor that may not just be caloric and eating an ancestral banana has different consequences than eating a modern banana.

>>15970571
>experimental evolution
Which literally prove the exact opposite of your claims.
Experimental evolution is nothing more but selective breeding and exploiting pleiomorphism in bacteria.

And the main problem here is: bacteria do halt "evolution" as soon as their metabolism fits the mileu they find themselves in, and there is zero improvement or "spontanous" evolution or "mutation and forwarding of benefits" if the milieu does not change.

In contrast in plants and animals it is even harder and the exact opposite of your meme.
To breed and forward specific traits or generate a new breeds, requires extreme care and specific intelligent intervention to avoid contamination.
There is intelligent involement and extreme pressure and discrimination required to select and produce new breeds, alone one generation of cross breeding would ruin the whole thing, and reset it or generate a worse outome.
Especcially with fruits and vegetables.
It takes a lot of extreme care and pedantic selection to select and produce a well tasting plant.
Would your let Broccoli simply run its natural course it would turn back into shitty tasting variant of a mustard plant.
Same for apples.
Producing good tasting apples requires carfull grafting.
Same for citrus plants and various types of berries.

>>15970583
>That statement carries a lot of assumptions and evolutionary arguments for what humans ought to do based on what they've presumably done for a long time are prone to fallacies.
no and no
it's a basic factual statement about what humans have been optimized to eat physiologically and what makes them the healthiest
>For example: cherry picking ancestors as if they all lived the same way everywhere all the time and assuming that older adaptations are more significantly correlated with risks and benefits of modern diets than recent adaptations.
this is where you go wrong, because you don't realize the timespans involved here
we're talking tens of millions of years of evolution in the tropical equatorial rainforest
by comparison H. sapiens in particular only exited the rainforest ~200,000 years ago
we don't have any physiological adaptations to anything else, and in fact we have specific and significantly more ancient adaptations making it clear that we should e.g. not be eating meat (like the 2 million-year-old loss of the CMAH gene, causing Neu5Gc to trigger severe system-wide chronic autoimmune inflammatory processes)
>The plants and meat our ancestors ate are not comparable to modern plants and meat.
more absolute bullshit
first of all, our ancestors didn't eat meat in any significant capacity at all, that only started happening even more recently a measly ~50,000 years ago with the advent of effective projectile weaponry, and only because we had no other choice at the latitudes we had ended up at, despite how toxic it is to our physiology
secondly, the idea that the plant-based foods we eat today aren't comparable to what we've eaten for tens of millions of years is still more bullshit, an idiot talking point parroted by clueless idiots who don't actually have any idea how far back in time those foods actually reach
>>paleoanthropology
>Conjecture
more idiot bullshit, just like calling evolutionary biology the same is also retarded nonsense

>>15970596
>prove the exact opposite of your claims
wrong, and it was just to illustrate that you're a clueless idiot who doesn't know what they're talking about
>your meme
evolutionary biology is not a "meme" no matter how much you try to conflate you having your head buried in the sand for a lack of evidence and facts in that particular scientific discipline
>Especcially with fruits and vegetables.
yeah, excellent hypothesis, except it's blatantly false, which we know because we have great records of angiosperm evolution dating not just tens of millions of years back, but over a hundred million years, not to mention highly detailed contemporary knowledge of botany which shows that what you're claiming here is total bullshit
>It takes a lot of extreme care and pedantic selection to select and produce a well tasting plant.
except it doesn't required that at all, and tons of wild and ancient fruits that have evolved on their own for tens of millions of years are not just "well-tasting", but the most nutritious and delicious foods on the planet by a wide margin
>Would your let Broccoli simply run its natural course it would turn back into shitty tasting variant of a mustard plant.
humans have been eating delicious tender young leaves for those tens of millions of years too, you keep desperately trying to make it out as if even greens humans eat today must necessarily have been bred carefully
meanwhile the best greens are those that are wild, like goosefoot
>Same for apples.
hilarious, now you really demonstrate that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, because wild apples from Kazakhstan are actually very similar to most commercial apples today, and not at all like the small crabapples that I'm sure you thought they are
absolute fail
>Producing good tasting apples requires carfull grafting.
great hypothesis again, except they evolved naturally on their own through the exact mechanisms of natural selection I explained above
stop embarrassing yourself

>>15970599
>we don't have any physiological adaptations to anything else
That's impossible. The fact that we can eat meat, dairy, eggs, legumes and even industrial concoctions unlike other animals prove that you're exaggerating. We may not be adapted to eat that in your view but it's at least a side effect of adaptations that it's possible to live on that and sometimes even advantageous for example when there is scarcity.
>tens of millions of years
Doesn't matter. If there are no fruits to eat but there's a cow to milk then the exclusive fruitarian dies sooner than the milk man no matter the diarrhea, anemia or other unwanted side effects.

>>15970646
>That's impossible.
not impossible at all, but an absolute fact, all humans have done is use technology to avoid physiological adaptation, e.g. clothing and heating and better construction to make tropical microclimates, and cooking plant foods to emulate the textures and nutrient availabilities of fresh and ripe fruits
>The fact that we can eat meat, dairy, eggs, legumes and even industrial concoctions unlike other animals prove that you're exaggerating.
still proving that you're an absolute moron
even grass-eating herbivores can eat those things, and even do on rare occasions
just because you can put something inside you and derive some nutrition from it at the expense of your health doesn't mean your adapted to eating it, you could derive some nutrients from literal feces too
none of that has anything to do with any physiological adaptations we have
>>tens of millions of years
>Doesn't matter.
absolute matters, it'e exactly what matters
>If there are no fruits to eat but there's a cow to milk then the exclusive fruitarian dies sooner than the milk man no matter the diarrhea, anemia or other unwanted side effects.
that's literally exactly my point, humans have resorted to garbage like that despite the extremely detrimental effects it has had on human physiology since they started doing it (keep in mind that consumption of non-human milk for adults is extremely recent, even more recent than meat-eating in any significant capacity), all because even eating toxic garbage that yields at least some nutrition and energy to keep you alive is better than immediately starving to death

>>15970610
>wild apples from Kazakhstan

You know that apples that are now "wild" are simply abandoned?

Your assumption of "wild" and "ancient" is odd, because it implies that "human history" or "farming practices" are not older than 100 years.

And even within the last 100 years was a lot of displacement and abandonment because of war, which left fields to rot, and domesticated crops return to their bitter natural forms.

Apple and pear trees on the other hand can age 200-300 years old.
A simple war or pest, can erase human history and involvement from a place.

Elaborate please, how do you know that a apple is, so called "wild"?

>>15970667
>You know that apples that are now "wild" are simply abandoned?
I'm talking about the actual wild apples that evolved naturally BEFORE humans started using them, you clueless and ignorant moron
the apples that are the ancestors of modern commercial apples
seriously, get a grip, idiot
>Your assumption of "wild" and "ancient" is odd, because it implies that "human history" or "farming practices" are not older than 100 years.
see, more retarded bullshit
no, I'm not implying that, I'm talking about fruits and leaves that are TENS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD
in other words, they FAR PREDATE AGRICULTURE
seriously
get that through your skull, dumbass
>Elaborate please, how do you know that a apple is, so called "wild"?
genetic studies, you ignorant dumbtard
let me guess, "GENETICS IS NOT A SCIENCE HURR FUCKING DURR"
fucking moron

>>15970667
>domesticated crops return to their bitter natural forms
nigger, have you ever tasted young tender greens that are 100% wild?
they are fucking DELICIOUS, there's not a shred of bitterness to them, you just have to know which ones are good
and that's just talking about greens, not fruits, which have literally evolved for over 100 MILLION YEARS to attract frugivorous animals to disperse their seeds, and thus are not bitter, but delicious by design
seriously, how the fuck is it possible to be this stupid?

>>15970666
>despite the extremely detrimental effects it has had
Then you agree that other adaptations have taken place. Those who suffered the most detrimental effects did not pass their genes. The genes that mitigate the detrimental effects of animal products may also mitigate the beneficial effects of plants for example by creating a particular intestinal environment that invites a particular microbiotic diversity. Since there were radical changes in environments like humans spreading across the globe, ice age, starvation. agriculture and domestication of animals such huge selection pressures could radically alter millions of years old genomes could they not?

>>15970756
>Then you agree that other adaptations have taken place.
not even remotely the case
>Those who suffered the most detrimental effects did not pass their genes.
see, the problem is that you don't understand the timescales, like I already pointed out earlier
there simply hasn't been even remotely enough time for any such physiological adaptations to take place in those extremely short timespans, the idea that you can suddenly change a complex mammal like a human over such a laughable short time compared to the tens of millions of years it took for us to evolve into the frugivorous primates we are in the rainforest is totally delusional
this isn't hypothetical either, but well-established through genetic studies demonstrating clearly that there's less genetic variation across all humans on the planet than there is in even single populations of our closest relative species
any apparent changes are purely epigenetic in nature, but don't alter the fundamental toxicity of animal products to human physiology at all, for example no amount of wishful thinking will reactivate the CMAH gene, because it's mutated beyond repair in humans, so now any human on the planet for the past 2 million years who has consumed Neu5Gc has experienced a severe systemwide chronic autoimmune inflammatory reaction to what has been termed a xenoautoantigen due to how the human body no longer makes it, and just makes Neu5Ac
>such huge selection pressures could radically alter millions of years old genomes could they not?
no, they could not, because the missing factor is this: time
there simply hasn't been enough time for humans to adapt physiologically to anything other than we've been adapted to over tens of millions of years, and the only reason we've survived at all in extreme habitats has been due to technology, using the big brain we evolved eating fruit (degree of frugivory is strongly associated with brain size in primates, and fruit is crucial to run and maintain large brains)

This thread

>>15970824
>when they say something so meat-headed that you hit them with the gatherer stare
corrected

>>15970765
>totally delusional
No u. Sudden change is possible in one generation. Evolution does not require more time than that. If tomorrow all females conspire to only mate with a particular male or a particular physiological trait then the male genome changes overnight.
>and fruit is crucial to run and maintain large brains
How? Calories and nutrients. If abundance of toxic food provides adequate calories and nutrients it still works better for survival and reproduction than scarce healthy food.
>less genetic variation
That has no clear definition or consequence. Variation is not only quantity but also quality and synergy. Since the abiogenesis hypothesis suggests that all life on Earth has the same common ancestor (the first replicator) one can argue that DNA varies little yet little varieties result in completely different organisms.

>>15970831
>Sudden change is possible in one generation.
blatantly false, mutations that are beneficial in a new environment come along extremely rarely, and it takes an accumulation of a ton of them for any significant changes to occur
if humans keep living in isolated populations on places like Greenland for some tens of millions of years you might see them start turning into a dumber and more basic mammalian animal with more fur and perhaps something akin to carnassial teeth and such
>Evolution does not require more time than that.
yes, for complex mammals it absolutely does
>If tomorrow all females conspire to only mate with a particular male or a particular physiological trait then the male genome changes overnight.
doesn't happen, some moronic eugenics thought experiment is totally irrelevant to the facts of reality
>How?
first of all, sugar is superior fuel biochemically, which is why almost every single human cell has an extremely strong preference for it
but the brain in particular needs it even more, because sugar metabolism involves less oxidative stress and can be ramped up and down as needed more rapidly, both of which are crucial in delicate neural tissue
then there's the fact that large and complex brains need huge quantities of neuroprotective compounds to maintain their integrity, and such compounds aren't found in any significant quantity in anything other than fruit (the brain e.g. hogs enormous quantities of vitamin C, to mention the most famous example)
and not only that, but the brain literally makes all its own cholesterol de novo in situ from its sugar metabolism too, which is why high-fat diets have been proven to cause myelin disruption, which would be extremely harmful to the brain (confirming the fact that people who go on "carnivore" or ketogenic diets for extended periods of time end up with literal brain damage)
>little varieties result in completely different organisms
true for the simplest organisms, not for complex mammals

>>15970065
>anon forages for leafs and fresh fruit in our ancestral environment
>
>pic related
>>where it was fairly limited in supply and balanced by repeated periods of fasting
>you have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about
>for tens of millions of years we derived 90-95%+ of our caloric intake from simple sugars in fresh and ripe tropical fruits
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247
he thinks he has year round access to tropical fruit in ice age Europe, KEK
read the article, idiot
*hypercarnivore for 2.5 million years*

You're just a soientist vegan who came here to butter the board with his diarrhea, no sources, no links, ignores everything you say, cherry picks facts, gross misunderstanding of biology and history and lies through his teeth.
You will never be mentally sufficient.
You have no B12, you have no taurine, you have no creatine.
You are a grain fed man, twisted by drugs and nutrient deficiency into a crude mockery of natures perfection.
You are going to become a an infertile obese retard, who will die of cancer
>>15970070
You are too mentally retarded to be even worth my time.
Just tell me this one thing.
Why do you think every health trend is worsening in an ever faster manner, even though more and more people follow public plant-based, low-fat, high-carb guidelines?

>>15970853
>>anon forages for leafs and fresh fruit in our ancestral environment
yes, the tropical equatorial rainforest, our ancestral environment
>>pic related
that image is of a barren wasteland, as far from what's a natural environment for humans as you can possibly get
>>where it was fairly limited in supply and balanced by repeated periods of fasting
yes, obviously fruit is scarce in extremely unnatural habitats at latitudes we didn't evolve in at all, that's the entire reason why we've resorted to toxic garbage like animal products and still consume them out of cultural habit
>>you have absolutely zero clue what you're talking about
correct, all these idiots, apparently you included, have zero idea what you're talking about
>>for tens of millions of years we derived 90-95%+ of our caloric intake from simple sugars in fresh and ripe tropical fruits
correct
>he thinks he has year round access to tropical fruit in ice age Europe
H. sapiens didn't evolve in Europe, we didn't even exit Africa until ~70,000 years ago
there were waves of cousin species that exited the rainforest and Africa before us, and of course they had to resort to the same toxic garbage we eventually had to as well due to the lack of our natural foods there
>gross misunderstanding of biology and history
I'm the one schooling clueless idiots like you on this
>You will never be mentally sufficient.
clearly sufficient enough to obliterate your nonsense
>grain fed man
I don't eat grains
nice try, retard
>twisted by drugs
I don't do drugs
nice try, retard
>nutrient deficiency
not deficient in a single nutrient
nice try, retard
>obese
literally the diametric opposite of the truth
the idea that fruit makes you obese is probably the most laughably stupid notion that circulates in the minds of idiots like you
>who will die of cancer
consumption of fruit and leafy greens is extremely strongly associated with lower risk of all cancers
meanwhile meat consumption raises your cancer risk dramatically

>>15970102
>propaganda videos like those made by psychopaths like sv3rige, not on any objective assessment
You mean these?
https://rumble.com/v1mvjwe-vegans-the-epitome-of-malnourishment.html
https://rumble.com/v1pggp9-vegans-the-epitome-of-malnourishment-2.html
https://rumble.com/v1n86mo-vegans-the-epitome-of-malnourishment-3.html
https://rumble.com/v1n8tcq-vegans-the-epitome-of-malnourishment-4.html
https://rumble.com/v1salfu-vegans-the-epitome-of-malnourishment-5.html
https://rumble.com/v1meeus-vegans-the-epitome-of-malnourishment-6.html
https://rumble.com/v1lz976-vegans-the-epitome-of-malnourishment-7.html
https://rumble.com/v1lec03-vegans-the-epitome-of-malnourishment-8.html
Where is your objective assesment?
Let's see it bro. I want to see a single long-term vegan with really good skin.
Show me one.
Or post your sources (if you have any.)
>>15970409
>actual health problems are far more prevalent on meat-containing diets, especially "carnivore" diets, but vegans don't tend to care so much as to make propaganda about it
I lost 40 kg on a carnivore diet, I went from skeleton skinny fat to pumped in a year and a half of gym on that diet.
My poor vessel health went away, eye bags went away, hair came back, libido went up massively, digestion problems, bloating and immune condition all went away.
Thousands of fat people are switching to this diet all over the world and it just fixes them, at the same time you can find thousands of vegans who will tell you that it ruined their health, fertility, skin and strength, etc., many of them are now also switching to a carnivore diet.

>>15970684
He literally eats grass LMAO

>>15970848
>first of all, sugar is superior fuel biochemically
>sugar metabolism involves less oxidative stress
That has become a highly controversial claim and I'm not knowledgable enough to discern the correct interpretation of the physiology and literature involved.
>hogs enormous quantities of vitamin C
Hard to believe because vitamin C is not fat-soluble.

SAFE

AND

E F F E C T I V E

>>15970900
>You mean these?
yes, exactly those
>Where is your objective assesment?
already gave it: cherry-picking people with eating disorders who don't really understand human nutrition is simply pure propaganda
you could easily do the same with people on "carnivore" diets if you really cared enough, or just take random people with anorexia and try to say that that's the typical fate of someone eating a totally average diet, which really highlights the stupidity of it
meanwhile it's of course not looking at the orders of magnitude more completely successful people on raw or high-raw vegan diets, which is of course the entire point of idiotic propaganda that only the most gullible of the gullible fools fall for
>I want to see a single long-term vegan with really good skin.
there are countless, but the way you're trying to frame this is obviously not in good faith, no matter who I'd provide you'd autistically deny it regardless
in reality it's people on "carnivore" diets who clearly suffer extreme skin issues, and typically have to cover it up with a massive cake of makeup
>I lost 40 kg on a carnivore diet
yeah, you can do that starving yourself too
the idea that losing weight implies healthy diet is laughable
tons of people have lost similar amounts of weight on high-carb low-fat diets, whether raw or not
>Thousands of fat people are switching to this diet all over the world and it just fixes them
it doesn't do anything of the sort, everyone screeches claims about such benefits, but when you look under the hood you start to see all the issues people are having, and why the vast majority of people stop doing it quite quickly
in fact, far more vegans stick to their diets for life than carnivores (the idea that vegans don't tend to stick to it was originally promulgated by a hit piece from a website dedicated to animal products consumption, and was since parroted by innumerably clueless idiots)
>literally eats grass
not at all, grasses are inedible for humans
nice try

>>15970912
>highly controversial claim
not even remotely the case, it's just basic biochemistry
>I'm not knowledgable enough
that much is clear
I am, though
>Hard to believe because vitamin C is not fat-soluble.
I didn't say it stores it for long, vitamin C has to be constantly replenished
what I said is that it hogs it, i.e. when you eat vitamin C the brain grabs a large portion of it, a very high concentration compared to other tissues
all of that aside, most people don't really understand the implications of what it means for a vitamin to be fat-soluble
for example, every single animal cell constantly makes cholesterol from carbohydrate substrates, and vitamin D is produced in the skin when UVB photons strike 7-dehydrocholesterol (7-DHC), a process which didn't involve eating a single gram of fat

>>15970912
>>15970934
>tfw you get born with Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome because both your DHCR7 genes are faulty and your cells can't make 7-DHC from cholesterol

>>15970889
>yes, the tropical equatorial rainforest, our ancestral environment
The savanna is our ancestral enviroment you dumb shit.
Literally pull up google right now.
Google "dense rainforest" and "savanna plain".
Look at the two picture for 15 seconds each and see which one feels more relaxing to you.
Studies have been done on this, anon. Humans love flat plains because it makes us able to see approaching predators. It's part of why we walk instead of climbing trees.
>that image is of a barren wasteland, as far from what's a natural environment for humans as you can possibly get
It is of the Ukok plateau, some of the last remaining mammoth-steppe in the world.
Pic rel
You will notice how there isn't a lot of your retarded rainforest on that map - that's because it was tiny during most cold periods.
>>>for tens of millions of years we derived 90-95%+ of our caloric intake from simple sugars in fresh and ripe tropical fruits
CLICK THE LINKS >>15969861
>H. sapiens didn't evolve in Europe, we didn't even exit Africa until ~70,000 years ago
>there were waves of cousin species that exited the rainforest and Africa before us, and of course they had to resort to the same toxic garbage we eventually had to as well due to the lack of our natural foods there
There were megafauna extinctions on every continent. The only reason elephants still exist is because humans can hardly exist around the equator.
Native Americans lived primarily off the hunt and they were BUILT, even though the climate was well adapted to gathering lots of food, even though they had access to agriculture.
>I don't eat grains
>nice try, retard
grains, seeds and nuts are basically the same thing and a lot of nuts come from the inside of fruits, which you do eat, so basically you are
>I don't do drugs
>nice try, retard
I was talking about the glyphosate in your strawberries

>>15970889
>>15970945
>not deficient in a single nutrient
>nice try, retard
So how do you get your B12? Do you eat dirt too?
inb4 no carnosine, carnitine, creatine, glycine, taurine, choline, cobalamin, retinol, menachinone, EPA, DHA, cholesterol, q10, etc.
also deficient in iron, zinc, magnesium, leucine and so on
also eats tons of antinutrients that bind to various nutrients and prevent their absorption
>literally the diametric opposite of the truth
>the idea that fruit makes you obese is probably the most laughably stupid notion that circulates in the minds of idiots like you
It's quite simple, really. Either you get enough protein, which makes your body able to build cells, which will fatten you like a pig since it requires you consume 4000 calories every day due to poor DIAAS, or you don't get enough protein, which will prevent you from building muscle, like every single vegan in the awesome video series I posted.
Since motor neurons are super important for muscle propagation and you hate fats, you will additionally be more prone to building fat over muscle.
>consumption of fruit and leafy greens is extremely strongly associated with lower risk of all cancers
>meanwhile meat consumption raises your cancer risk dramatically
post your retarded observational studies, at least, so I can rip them apart and gape the researchers assholes for being meme tier level retarded
I bet you can't find a single trial that has no conflict of interest

>>15970945
>savanna is our ancestral enviroment
blatantly false, we evolved in the tropical equatorial rainforest for tens of millions of years
>Look at the two picture for 15 seconds each and see which one feels more relaxing to you.
the rainforest, not a doubt in my mind
first of all, the rainforest isn't naturally particularly dense at all, that's a characteristic of what's generally called "jungle", something you get when you clear primordial rainforests and trees regrow far more densely temporarily
you see the same problem everywhere in the world following deforestation, it's a major cause of increase in forest fires in places like e.g. California
secondly, the rainforest provides abundant shelter and nutrition, unlike a savanna, where you're far more prone to be both killed by wild animals and starve to death
>Humans love flat plains
humans generally love forests far more than flat plains
there's virtually no environment that feels more relaxing to humans than forests
>makes us able to see approaching predators
idiotic nonsense, sounds like you've never been on a savanna at all
>part of why we walk instead of climbing trees
during the vast majority of our evolution we constantly climbed trees, bipedalism itself originally evolved while we were still arboreal (contrary to the outdated and long-refuted knuckle-walker hypothesis)
>some of the last remaining mammoth-steppe in the world
for all intents and purposes a barren wasteland for humans
>notice how there isn't a lot of your retarded rainforest on that map
rainforest is the diametric opposite of retarded, it's the most amazing ecosystem in the world by an extremely wide margin
also, that map is a model, there's not really any actual evidence for the rainforest shrinking that much (such models greatly underestimate the self-reinforcing stability of rainforests), but humans exiting our natural habitat was certainly likely to have been motivated by natural ecological problems of that sort

>>15970944
>tfw your born, your names Smith, and your cells can't make cholesterol

>>15970945
>Native Americans lived primarily off the hunt
again, you're talking about things humans have had to do extremely recently
humans didn't even reach the Americas until ~20,000 years ago at most
>even though the climate was well adapted to gathering lots of food
that's exactly the problem, those are cultures that had to migrate through Siberia, and also across all of Asia before that, cultures that acquired the cultural habit of meat consumption because they had to at some point to survive
even then there were in fact even Native American cultures that showed a great bias towards heavily plant-based diets due to their recognition that it brought superior health outcomes (but keep in mind that even so they didn't have access to fresh and ripe tropical fruits, which is crucial to optimal human health)
>grains, seeds and nuts are basically the same thing
grains are caryopses, dry one-seeded fruits
seeds are any seed of any plant
nuts can refer to both true nuts and any culinary nut
>a lot of nuts come from the inside of fruits, which you do eat, so basically you are
first of all, virtually no edible nuts that are commonly consumed comes from fruits that are commonly consumed
secondly, nuts are not grains at all, as explained above
thirdly, if I do eat seeds as part of fruits, I virtually never actually chew them, which is the entire point for most tropical fruits where that is the case, since they rely on getting passed through your digestive tract whole and end up in a cake of natural fertilizer when you defecate

>>15970921
>already gave it: cherry-picking people with eating disorders who don't really understand human nutrition is simply pure propaganda
>you could easily do the same with people on "carnivore" diets if you really cared enough, or just take random people with anorexia and try to say that that's the typical fate of someone eating a totally average diet, which really highlights the stupidity of it
>meanwhile it's of course not looking at the orders of magnitude more completely successful people on raw or high-raw vegan diets, which is of course the entire point of idiotic propaganda that only the most gullible of the gullible fools fall for
So post your 8 hour successful raw vegan compilation then.
>there are countless, but the way you're trying to frame this is obviously not in good faith, no matter who I'd provide you'd autistically deny it regardless
in reality it's people on "carnivore" diets who clearly suffer extreme skin issues, and typically have to cover it up with a massive cake of makeup
You have google at your fingertips and you fail and project.
I want to see a skin improvement from a vegan diet. You claimed to know tons, share them.
>yeah, you can do that starving yourself too
>the idea that losing weight implies healthy diet is laughable
>tons of people have lost similar amounts of weight on high-carb low-fat diets, whether raw or not
So explain why obesity and diabetes skyrocketed after public health guidelines established a low-fat high-carb plant-based diet as the holy grail of nutrition.
Also, how will I lose weight and not be extremely nutrient deficient on a high-carb diet that makes me crave food every 2 hours? Ozempic?

>it doesn't do anything of the sort, everyone screeches claims about such benefits, but when you look under the hood you start to see all the issues people are having, and why the vast majority of people stop doing it quite quickly
>in fact, far more vegans stick to their diets for life than carnivores (the idea that vegans don't tend to stick to it was originally promulgated by a hit piece from a website dedicated to animal products consumption, and was since parroted by innumerably clueless idiots
Because veganism is a retarded animal saving cult. The carnivore diet is an elimination protocol meant to improve your metabolic health. But then, the point remains, the carnivore diet doesn't make you lose your period.
>not at all, grasses are inedible for humans
he actually does eat grass, topkek
>>15970912
Sugar creates AGEs, which damages mitochondria and causes tissue aging, it is energetically inefficient in the ETC due to depending on complex 1, which saturated fats do not, it doesn't produce enough byproducts, such as succinate, which initiate mitochondrial biogenesis and prevent oxidation.
When people fast, they tend to increase their mitochondrial health and this is primarily due to mitophagy and mitochondrial biogenesis, which in large part are initiated by the type of fuel your mitochondria burn. While fasting your cells are forced to burn saturated fat like palmitic and stearic acid, which is what you are made of.
This process might be slower, but this is easily remedied, as mitochondria increase in number from fasting, exercise AND ketogenic diets.
Sugar might generate cheaper energy, but over time this comes with the cost of degrading and reducing your mitochondria in number, which cases countless issues.

>>15970949
>So how do you get your B12?
personally I eat nori, but B12 has been found to be produced by a healthy small intestinal microbiome (right where it's absorbed, not further down as the common misconception goes), the only requisite for which is sufficient cobalt in the diet, and there's no better source of cobalt than fresh and ripe fruit (~20 µg per liter of fruit juice on average), so it's highly unlikely that humans would need to do anything special to meet their B12 needs when living a natural life
>inb4 no carnosine, carnitine, creatine, taurine, choline
none of those are essential, the human body makes all it requires as with any other non-essential compound
in fact, there's a lot of evidence that consuming too much of these can have quite harmful effects, such as e.g. choline and carnitine resulting in excessive TMAO
>glycine
present in plant-based foods
nice try, retard
>cobalamin
that's B12, which was addressed above
nice try, retard
>retinol
extremely toxic to consume directly, just like heme-iron
the body is optimized for converting provitamin A carotenoids into exactly the necessary amount of retinol that's required, since excess is so harmful
>menachinone
misspelled, but the body makes plenty of K2 from K1 unless you have a totally dysfunctional microbiome and don't ever eat K1-containing foods
>EPA, DHA
toxic and totally unessential PUFAs, but present in the required amounts in e.g. foods like nori, which I do eat (although certainly not for that reason)
>cholesterol
every single animal cell (except for RBCs, which are special in more ways than just that) constantly makes cholesterol from carbohydrate substrates, retard
>q10
synthesized by the body
>also deficient in iron, zinc, magnesium, leucine and so on
not deficient in a single one of those nutrients
magnesium in particular is pretty hilarious, because last time I checked it was "carnivore" dieters constantly getting cramps and having to chug magnesium supplements
lol
lmao even

>>15970949
>>15970991
>It's quite simple, really.
yeah, very simple
except, it just doesn't happen at all
nice try, too bad your hypothesis was refuted by objective reality
better luck next time!
>which will fatten you like a pig since it requires you consume 4000 calories every day due to poor DIAAS
probably the stupidest notion so far
first of all, even the smaller amount of protein in fruit actually contributes nicely to intake when you eat sufficient amounts of it, and is the most easily assimilable protein there is
secondly, leaf protein, which is what you should rely on for the remainder of your protein needs naturally, is literally among the highest-quality protein on the planet, which should be pretty obvious, since it's what we've relied on for the vast majority of our protein needs for tens of millions of years
the idea that protein is somehow a scarce macronutrient is downright insane when you consider how it's probably the most abundant one in the environment we evolved for tens of millions of years
it's always energy in the form of carbohydrate that has been the limiting macronutrient during our evolution, which is part of the reason why a larger degree of frugivory is so strongly associated with larger brains (that and the fact that fruits contain countless different bioactive secondary metabolites that no other foods contain, which exert a number of beneficial effects, e.g. neuroprotective, cardioprotective, antidiabetic, and so on)
even Katharine Milton, who is arguably the world's foremost expert on primate nutrition, noted after assaying the leaves she observed monkeys to be eating that they contained the exact same amino acid profile as meat, just in lower concentrations
>Since motor neurons are super important for muscle propagation and you hate fats, you will additionally be more prone to building fat over muscle.
like I said, high-fat diets lead to myelin disruption, because the body typically makes myelin from sugar via cholesterol

>>15970977
>So post your 8 hour successful raw vegan compilation then.
with all the greatly successful long-term raw vegans out there who are public you could make a far longer video than that
>I want to see a skin improvement from a vegan diet. You claimed to know tons, share them.
like I said, the way you're framing it is obviously not in good faith, because no matter how many great examples I'd provide you'd start autistically screeching and denying it
not playing your silly games, but nice try
you can easily find countless such people for yourself though, once you get past your extreme confirmation bias
>explain why obesity and diabetes skyrocketed after public health guidelines established a low-fat high-carb plant-based diet as the holy grail of nutrition
obesity has been steadily increasing for a long time, ever since people started eating a ton of fat
high-carbohydrate diets have started to mitigate that issue for people who follow such a diet
>how will I lose weight and not be extremely nutrient deficient on a high-carb diet that makes me crave food every 2 hours?
there's nothing even remotely nutrient deficient about such diets, the diametric opposite is true, they're far higher in nutrition
and such diets don't make you crave food at all, carbohydrate has been shown to be far more satiating than fat in countless studies, something people experience for themselves too when they start eating a high-carb low-fat diet
the low-fat is extremely important though, because it's the fat and toxic fat metabolites that block the action of insulin and causes diabetes, so even if you eat a lot of carbohydrate you wouldn't be shuttling it into your cells efficiently, leading you to crave more
in contrast, on a low-fat diet you become extremely satiated by a large meal containing plenty of carbohydrate, particularly fruit, there's nothing as satiating as a large fruit meal (fully ripe fruit, of course, which shouldn't be necessary to mention, but apparently is)

>>15970963
>blatantly false, we evolved in the tropical equatorial rainforest for tens of millions of years
Stop ignoring the past almost 3 million years were our brains increased in size, where we started walking upright, lost some length of our digestive tracts, learned to cook, learned to scavenge and finally learned to hunt?
You keep ignoring the study pertaining to this.
Something happened between an orangutan lifestyle and ours that magically gave us tons and tons of fats and energy for brain development.
>secondly, the rainforest provides abundant shelter and nutrition, unlike a savanna, where you're far more prone to be both killed by wild animals and starve to death
So why did humans evolve in the East African highlands while avoiding the forests like a plague? pic rel
Could it be that you can't see shit there and that it's not actually a sprawling paradise, but a maximum trophic level survival hellscape, while plains offer you relative safety and easy access to both prey and carrion due to being open?
>humans generally love forests far more than flat plains
Not true and this has been proven time and time again in various experiments.
Here is one relevant one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1618866721003903
>idiotic nonsense, sounds like you've never been on a savanna at all
obviously far better than in a fucking jungle
>during the vast majority of our evolution we constantly climbed trees, bipedalism itself originally evolved while we were still arboreal (contrary to the outdated and long-refuted knuckle-walker hypothesis)
And why do you think did we evolve bipedalism? Because we climbed trees for our only and primary food source, fruit?
Also, how did we evolve hunting if there is no fruit (and hence no ability to survive) in Europe?
Was it just spontaneous? Did we develop larger brains, bipedalism and so on for several hundred thousand years only to start hunting and go to Europe overnight?

>for all intents and purposes a barren wasteland for humans
A barren wasteland that produces more food for herbivores than any other ecosystem in the world and saves more carbon in it's ground than jungles. An epic land of infinite free livestock
>there's not really any actual evidence for the rainforest shrinking that much
Literally post your source you god damn sperg.
>>15970976
>again, you're talking about things humans have had to do extremely recently
>humans didn't even reach the Americas until ~20,000 years ago at most
So what you are saying is that we lived like chimps until we suddenly got up one day and started hunting with no regards for plant foods?
Why weren't they eating primarily leafs and fruits, if that is what were adapted to?
They had an entire pristine continent to themselves, recently settled, with relatively low populations.
>cultures that acquired the cultural habit of meat consumption because they had to at some point to survive
But they didn't bother switching back to plants even though they are supposedly easier to gather and way healthier?
>showed a great bias towards heavily plant-based diets
again no source
>they didn't have access to fresh and ripe tropical fruits
They only grow in the jungle the whole year round, which is the exact place humans didn't go, see the map. >>15971015
Everywhere else you do NOT have access to fresh ripe fruits all the time.

>grains are caryopses, dry one-seeded fruits
>>>grains are fruit
>>>I am not grain-fed, I eat only
Are you even listening to yourself?

>>15970979
>he actually does eat grass
like I said:
>>not at all, grasses are inedible for humans
not once in my life have I ever eaten grass (except for grains, which I have eaten in the past, and which are technically the seeds of grasses, but I'd venture to guess that you've eaten grains at some point in your life too)
>Sugar creates AGEs
which is why high-fat diets that cause chronically elevated blood sugar levels, even if you don't eat any sugar at all (due to buildup of endogenous sugar from gluconeogenesis) are so bad and cause higher levels of HbA1c than high-carbohydrate low-fat diets
and that's not even mentioning the AGEs that form when you cook meat (unless you want to larp as a raw meat eater like sv3rige, in which case you'll be making a nice parasite nest out of your intestines)
>which damages mitochondria and causes tissue aging
nothing damages mitochondria as much as prolonged fatty acid oxidation
>it is energetically inefficient in the ETC
what you're describing is fatty acid oxidation to a tee
sugar metabolism is extremely efficient, which is indeed why you do in fact get more ATP per oxygen with sugar
>Sugar might generate cheaper energy
it's not "cheaper", it's biochemically superior in every single way imaginable
it does the opposite of degrading your mitochondria, it's prolonged fatty acid oxidation which damages your mitochondria

>>15971015
>Stop ignoring the past almost 3 million years were our brains increased in size
I'm not ignoring that at all
that happened inside the tropical equatorial rainforest, while we were eating the large quantities of fruit necessary to build, sustain, and maintain large brains
>where we started walking upright
humans never "started walking upright", we were walking upright from the very beginning, we evolved from arboreally bipedal crown hominoids
>learned to scavenge and finally learned to hunt
this happened extremely recently for H. sapiens, as we didn't start scavenging in any significant capacity until the time we exited the rainforest ~200,000 years ago, at which point our brains started to shrink (and hunting in any significant capacity didn't start until even later, ~50,000 years ago with the advent of effective projectile weaponry)
>magically gave us tons and tons of fats and energy for brain development
eating fats does exactly nothing for the brain other than harm it
the brain makes all its own cholesterol de novo in situ from its sugar metabolism, one of the numerous reasons why our brains increased so much when we ate a hyperfrugivorous diet
>why did humans evolve in the East African highlands
they didn't, humans evolved in the tropical equatorial rainforest, we haven't changed physiologically since we exited the rainforest ~200,000 years ago
most of the confusion around that stems from the fact that people are unable to differentiate various human species that exited the rainforest before us, thinking that these were our ancestors, but they were not, as they were distant cousin species
>Not true
absolutely true
>one relevant one
I can think of numerous reasons why such a study could be totally flawed
meanwhile actually placing people in forests and measuring various biomarkers directly shows that there's no other environment that is as beneficial to human health

>>15971015
>>15971042
>fucking jungle
as I already explained, the term "jungle" generally refers to very dense rainforests as they appear when the primordial forests are cleared, and such forests are associated with a host of ecological problems worldwide
primordial rainforests are not dense at all, and actually have a quite spacious forest floor, owing to the density of the large canopy above
>why do you think did we evolve bipedalism?
the arboreally bipedal hominoids we evolved from evolved it because it had various benefits for locomotion in the trees, as well as for reaching fruits, which could also have influenced each other quite a lot, leading to a feedback loop (more fruit means better brains means more capable of better locomotion means more fruit, and so on)
>Because we climbed trees for our only and primary food source, fruit?
again, our arboreal ancestors, crown hominoids, evolved bipedalism while still arboreal
humans simply retained bipedalism, while chimpanzees and gorillas evolved two quite different forms of knuckle-walking separately
I'm guessing you've probably looked at the pop-sci motif of a knuckle-walker slowly rising up to stand a bit too many times to shake that outdated and completely false paradigm out of your head, but that paradigm was declared dead a long time ago based on biomechanical and paleoanthropological evidence
>how did we evolve hunting
we never "evolved" hunting
we started hunting in a significant capacity ~50,000 years ago when we invented effective projectile weaponry, mostly out of technologicaly necessity (necessity is the mother of invention) due to finding ourselves in increasingly hostile habitats
that's entirely technological, done by using the large brains we had already evolved long before in the rainforest (which had started shrinking at that point)

>>15971019
>A barren wasteland that produces more food for herbivores than any other ecosystem in the world and saves more carbon in it's ground than jungles.
total nonsense on both counts (and I know exactly the type of flawed lines of reasoning the latter is based on)
and you keep using this word "jungle" as if it's synonymous with tropical rainforests, even though it refers to a very particular kind of environment that isn't really natural at all
>So what you are saying is that we lived like chimps until we suddenly got up one day and started hunting with no regards for plant foods?
no idea what you are saying here
no, humans diverged from chimpanzees ~5 million years ago, at which point we lived quite different lives
humans retained our bipedalism, something we used to our advantage in traversing longer distances along the forests floor each day in search for fruit among other things, due to the increased energy efficiency of walking
what exactly happened when H. sapiens exited the rainforest ~200,000 years ago is uncertain, there could have been ecological factors at play that made some populations start taking their chances in environments where trees were more sparse
keep in mind that for the first ~150,000 years out on the savanna humans still hardly hunted at all, and mostly gathered tuberous roots and leaves that they had learned how to cook, possibly scavenging a bit wherever they could (but given our puny physiology compared to animals optimized for scavenging this would likely have represented a minuscule and downright negligible part of our food intake)
>Why weren't they eating primarily leafs and fruits, if that is what were adapted to?
the populations of humans that had exited the rainforest for whatever reason no longer had that option, since fruits are so much scarcer there
>they didn't bother switching back to plants even though they are supposedly easier to gather and way healthier?
some cultures did exactly that, some such cultures exist today

>>15971019
>>15971059
>which is the exact place humans didn't go
humans absolutely did go there, no idea how you're reading that map to think otherwise
human presence in the Southeast Asian rainforests has been abundant ever since we first reached them
also, as a side note, here's an image summarizing the evolution of bipedalism based on the most contemporary evolutionary evidence

oh well, time to sleep, here are a final couple of posts about human bipedalism:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/247B88CB8DF61FBA387737F73C780E9B/S0003598X00050778a.pdf/div-class-title-the-arboreal-origins-of-human-bipedalism-div.pdf

>«By the early 2000s the fossil record of the Eurasian and East African Miocene (23–5 million years ago (Ma)) was burgeoning and revealing the body form of early ‘crown’ hominoids ('crown’ hominoids being the direct ancestors of all living apes, including humans). These included fossils of species such as Morotopithecus bishopi (from approximately 18–22 Ma), Pierolapithecus catalaunicus (c. 12 Ma), Hispanopithecus (Dryopithecus) laietanus (c. 10 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma). These fossils suggested that, contrary to expectations and fossil evidence from Proconsul hesoloni and associated species, the early crown hominoids stood and moved with an orthograde (upright) posture.
>[...]
>The fact that orthograde (upright) body postures had been evolving and diversifying in our hominoid ancestry for in excess of 15 million years pushed study of the origins of bipedalism back from the Pliocene into the early Miocene. It also challenged the commonly held concept that the acquisition of habitual bipedalism is an appropriate marker of the separation of the hominins from the panins (bonobos and chimpanzees), a separation that is estimated to have occurred only 5–8 million years ago. It pushed the context of bipedal origins back into the forest canopy from the ground (Senut 2011) where it had spent some considerable time as a result of the knuckle-walking hypothesis.

>>15970991
>personally I eat nori
Oh my god, you damn retard, you are actually going to give yourself brain damage...
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b04688
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(16)31192-3/fulltext
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/78.1.131
^Receipts
>B12 has been found to be produced by a healthy small intestinal microbiome (right where it's absorbed, not further down as the common misconception goes), the only requisite for which is sufficient cobalt in the diet
S O U R C E ?
>none of those are essential
Yes, you just eat sugar and 3 amino acids and your body will make everything on its own.
It's not like it would be metabolically inefficient or enzymatically limited in any way.
Do you go to the gym?
>glycine
>present in plant-based foods
>nice try, retard
So how many seeds do you eat every day? Because I thought you ate fruit and it just seems to me like a single pork stock is going to give me 10 times the glycine you consume in a week.
This might be the main reason behind so many vegans develop terrible skin and age prematurely.
>extremely toxic to consume directly, just like heme-iron
>the body is optimized for converting provitamin A carotenoids into exactly the necessary amount of retinol that's required, since excess is so harmful
Completely wrong and deluded - you have no source, again.
>misspelled
German name is menachinon, english menaquinone, I swapped them
>the body makes plenty of K2 from K1 unless you have a totally dysfunctional microbiome and don't ever eat K1-containing foods
S O U R C E
Also, less than 10% of plant K1 is actually absorbed by the body, receipt:
https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19960027
>EPA, DHA
Literally every single health professional on this planet will tell you that they are *essential* to good health, where is your source for them being toxic?

>every single animal cell (except for RBCs, which are special in more ways than just that) constantly makes cholesterol from carbohydrate substrates, retard
So why do vegan diets dramatically lower cholesterol? It is an essential component of normal hormonal function. It's almost like, I don't know, you can't actually make enough natively on a vegan diet?
No wonder vegan women sometimes lose their periods.
>q10
>synthesized by the body
Not enough, hence why there are tons of studies on it as a mitochondrial health supplement.
>not deficient in a single one of those nutrients
Primarily phytic acid and oxalates bind to calcium, zinc and magnesium and stop it from being absorbed.
This argument is often used by vegans to purport a higher micronutrient content in plants.
Ironically magnesium in particular is excreted very rapidly when consuming a lot of sugar, which is why 50%-80% on a standard Western diet are magnesium deficient. https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2017-000668
>objective reality
A bunch of unproven claims with not a single study cited, not even a bad observational one, in fact.
>contributes nicely to intake when you eat sufficient amounts of it
Literally wrong. Plant DIAAS scores are terrible, look them up before you spread lies.
>is the most easily assimilable protein there is
Blatant lie
>leaf protein, which is what you should rely on for the remainder of your protein needs naturally, is literally among the highest-quality protein on the planet
LOOOOL
Leafy greens are literally the lowest quality protein on the entire planet, pic rel.
>the idea that protein is somehow a scarce macronutrient is downright insane when you consider how it's probably the most abundant one in the environment we evolved for tens of millions of years
Nearly every vegan and the majority of non-vegans are deficient. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2021.100548
In non-quantity bottlenecked cohorts protein quality determines adult height.

>>15971069

>[...]
>Not only did they find clear evidence that modes of knuckle-walking in Pan and Gorilla were fundamentally different, they also found what had been claimed to be knucklewalking adaptations in the carpal morphology of a range of non-knuckle-walking monkeys. Of course it is theoretically possible that knuckle-walking did evolve only once in the common ancestor of the African ape and human clade and that these differences evolved after the Gorilla and Pan lineages split (Kivell & Schmitt 2009). The broad consensus that there is a clear lack of any convincing fossil evidence for knuckle-walking in crown hominoids or early hominins, however, would render it unlikely.
>[...]
>Despite the longevity of the paradigm that derived human bipedalism from chimpanzeelike knuckle-walking, we conclude that the arboreal origin of bipedalism is now overwhelmingly supported by the fossil, biomechanical and ecological evidence. The 50-year reign of the knuckle-walking paradigm must be declared over.»

and earlier:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0901280106

oh, and briefly:
>>15971071
going to bed now as I mentioned above, but I briefly skimmed through everything you just posted, which was not really anything new, and I had already addressed all of it already, pretty much just the same nonsensical "carnivore" talking points that have zero basis in reality (like sv3rige's "feefteeen nootrienz"
particularly telling is your knee-jerk reaction to how high-quality leaf protein really is
I guess I'll leave a quote by Milton herself to finish up:
>"Young leaves from tropical trees are far more nutritious than I realized. In fact, the young tips have the same profile of essential amino acids as meat, although in lower concentrations," said Milton. She said that leaf protein is perfectly good and clearly satisfies all the protein needs of the monkeys.
>"I was very surprised," she said. "I always thought leafy material was deficient in some amino acids, but it is not."

>which is why high-fat diets that cause chronically elevated blood sugar levels, even if you don't eat any sugar
You are retarded beyond all good and evil. It's not even funny anymore.
Ketogenic diets literally reverse diabetes and lower HbA1c, you damn idiot.
https://nutrition.bmj.com/content/6/1/46
https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs41387-020-00142-z
>nothing damages mitochondria as much as prolonged fatty acid oxidation
You are an idiot who doesn't even understand the Krebs cycle.
>sugar metabolism is extremely efficient, which is indeed why you do in fact get more ATP per oxygen with sugar
What you meant to say is this: "sugar metabolism is less efficient than fatty acid metabolism and I don't understand how mitochondria work"
This is not a zero-sum game. This is chemistry and your cells depend on more than just ATP, sugar is not efficient, it is *cheap*.
This means that I probably have 4 times your mitochondria. Also it is called beta oxidation. Keep coping.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11064-018-2588-6 Tfw., I actually have 4 times your mitochondria, you pleb.
>it's not "cheaper", it's biochemically superior in every single way imaginable
>it does the opposite of degrading your mitochondria, it's prolonged fatty acid oxidation which damages your mitochondria
When your mitochondria burn carbohydrates, you have as much as 4% of the oxygen produced in respiratory complex 1 revert to superoxide.
Now realize that your mitochondria produce your own bodyweight in ATP every day.
There is a lot more here to go into, especially pertaining to acetate, but honestly I think I am wasting my time with you.
>>15971062
>But we only got to Southeast Asia recently, when we already started eating meat.
>Humans developed in Africa.
So why is it that our fossil record is massively concentrated in non-forested regions?
The one human group that is known to live in jungles is tiny and has an IQ estimation at 53 (Pygmys.)

>>15971079
Do you see that chart I posted? Spinach had the lowest DIAAS score of all protein sources by a HUGE margin, due to its low digestibility.
Leafs as a superior protein source is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard from any vegan.

>>15971106
>why is it that our fossil record is massively concentrated in non-forested regions?
Not the anon you were replying to, but something I've learned from reading about anthropology is that remains tend to fossilize poorly in the moist conditions of rainforests. We didn't even have a single chimpanzee fossil until 2005, when the first one was found. So this kind of thinking would be a form of survivorship bias:
>Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not.
In this case that selection process would be fossilization, which is more likely to occur in drier environments. The type of fossilization most commonly associated with early humans is desiccation if I'm not mistaken.

>>15969715
Well, it certainly must be something that interferes with neurological development, no idea what though. It would be easy to find out what causes it though if in a few years.

>>15971110
>Leafs as a superior protein source is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard from any vegan.
I envy you

Thread about autoimmunity.

Some meme vegan debate about fruits and vitamemes.
Denies human impact on crop and fruit breeding and domestication.
>oooh but over millions and billions of years
>and meme genes
>just trust me
>please consoom meme food
>oh its the meme that humans are not meant to eat like they eat for 10000 years
>and only recently all the "genes" break out
>trust me
>it always was that way
>exept that the "outbreak" happened only recently
>we did everything wrong for thousands of years, because evolution

>>15971106
>Ketogenic diets literally reverse diabetes and lower HbA1c, you damn idiot.
wrong, only a very common misconception
ketogenic diets actually cause diabetes, you are just masking that fact by avoiding carbohydrate, but the underlying diabetic condition actually becomes worse
and like I said, people on high-fat diets have higher levels of HbA1c than people on high-carbohydrate diets
>This means that I probably have 4 times your mitochondria.
more mitochondria is a sign of abysmal health, and such cells are more prone to die
all consistent with the fact that fatty acid oxidation is extremely deleterious to human health
>When your mitochondria burn carbohydrates, you have as much as 4% of the oxygen produced in respiratory complex 1 revert to superoxide.
fatty acid oxidation inherently causes the formation of superoxide and other ROS in far larger quantities, which is why it causes so much more oxidative stress
>>15971110
that chart doesn't say anything other than what we already know: the concentration of protein is lower in tender young leaves than in the reference proteins (DIAAS measures absolute amount of each amino acid)
the profile itself is perfect, and the protein is highly digestible and assimilable
>>15971452
>Thread about autoimmunity.
yep, and in such a thread it's extremely important to note that the by far largest triggers of autoimmunity are animal products, especially meat (e.g. Neu5Gc triggering chronic systemwide autoimmune-induced inflammation in all humans due to the lack of the CMAH gene for the past 2 million years in the human lineage)
>over millions and billions of years
not paying attention, are we?
tens of millions specifically
not just millions, and certainly not billions
>consoom meme food
I'm telling people to do the opposite, eat real food that we've eaten for tens of millions of years
>not meant to eat like they eat for 10000 years
correct, we're meant to eat like we've done for tens of millions of years

>>15971616

>>15971616
>ketogenic diets actually cause diabetes
>people on high-fat diets have higher levels of HbA1c than people on high-carbohydrate diets
How can you say that?
I just linked a study and a systematic review that show that ketogenic diets *REVERSE* diabetes and *LOWER* HbA1c.
>more mitochondria is a sign of abysmal health, and such cells are more prone to die
Then why does exercise increase mitochondrial biogenesis and function?
Why is poor mitochondrial health implicated in crohns, dementia, autism, cancer, obesity, etc.?
https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fnu12102984
https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0145836
https://doi.org/10.1042%2FBJ20141018
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109488
https://doi.org/10.3892%2Fijmm.2022.5191
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-021-01927-w
>fatty acid oxidation inherently causes the formation of superoxide and other ROS in far larger quantities, which is why it causes so much more oxidative stress
Not true, as I said, you don't understand the Krebs cycle, nor the metabollic adaptations of low-carb diets.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adcanc.2023.100093
All your claims are baseless and unfounded.
You have no research, no sources, no facts.
>that chart doesn't say anything other than what we already know: the concentration of protein is lower in tender young leaves than in the reference proteins (DIAAS measures absolute amount of each amino acid)
>the profile itself is perfect, and the protein is highly digestible and assimilable
The spinach has a DIAAS score under 10%
That's more than a KILOGRAM for every 100 grams of beef equivalent.
I eat ~400 grams of meat every day, plus some other food, all above a score of 100, to get to the approximate 1.2+g/kg value I need for efficiently building muscle, which is what was recommended in the article I posted earlier.
How many kilograms of leafy greens do you plan to go through every single day, you absolute fucking retard?
You either eat 5000 calories or you get too little protein, simple as.

>>15971616
>by far largest triggers of autoimmunity are animal products
Source.
And please elaborate on how and which this issue started to gain tracktion since the late 80s.

Humans ate mostly animal products since always.
Convert gras to milk and meat is the best mechanism.
Convert insetcs and grains to eggs aswell.

Yet everytime when humans start wierd interventions, like using aluminium caking agents, which lead to "arthritis" and rickets in the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Or pesticides such as DDT, Lead arsenate and Paris green.
Or mercury, arsenic or antimony based medicine and ointments as "universal treatments" for all sorts of ailments.
Only when this stopped "wierd" or now called "old diseases" disappeared.
And then there was a short period after WWII where only environmental associated clusters of disease patterns occured but chronic lifechanging and chronic inflamatory diseases did not exist except in rare circumstances.
Only since 1980s it had a exponential growth.
And it affacted mostly children.
You cannot tell me that this has to do with a genetic issue that exits for millions of years, that only recently broke out.

>>15971803
I distance myself from attacking arguments with memes but why does ''this is food'' makes me laugh so much? Maybe because it sums up modern society in a way easily referenced by future anthropologists.

>>15971807
I love you.
This guy is a complete shill or religiously entagled with the big oil and big chem planted psyop of veganism, to market highly refined large supply chain requiring barely nurishing food to people like open air prison food.

I mean, veggies and fruits are great, but the memes and micro green micro ween propaganda marketing material he wall of texts here, is absolute baseless and retarded.

>>15971812
Not him but the standard vegan response is that meat has been unaffordable for most people most of the time in the last few thousands years. Peasants in the middle ages were supposedly healthier than nobles because they ate whole grain bread and fresh caught fish while nobles ate white bread and meat.

>>15971816
because
>picrel consoomers
Are the wierdest types of people with the physiology of a wet bag of screws, while they all sound like neurotic yet autistic white noise machines.

They have no understang of why the food supply is so corrupt and animal product are produced now in factory style, when even the meat eaters despise this.

The lack of knowledge about the financial and governmental long chain of faustian deals to ensure dirt cheap food, while phasing out locally owned small farms and businesses is the biggest problem.
I recently talked to a person who has a strong aversion for meat because of "mass animal factory farming", and I tried to explain to how how small farms slowly got converted in the factory farming system.
They never heared of the "agricultural adjustment act" or how "EU-Subventions lead to the Butter-Mountain Scandal".
These really important buerocratic frameworks which are at fault for the "mass meat" shit, is totally memory holed. Also they literally believe there is only two options:
>eating no meat at all
>or mass caging animals in hellish conditions
Organic farming, or family owned organic farms with care and respect for nature is not a concept for them.
It's always:
>government daddy please regulate the shit out of me
>please ban everything except your good approved soi refined liquid food replacement
>optimize our existance daddy
>please ban me harder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4izuk_3fex8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QesRRcfJGKA
>just eat raw vegan bro
>we are literally meant to eat fruits and leafs bro
>it's so healthy bro, trust me bro
>yeah bro leafs are really high in protein, I eat 4 kilogram every day bro
>have fun with your heart disease and obesity meatard
>im literally gonna live for 120 years minimum bro
>what do you mean sugar is bad for your teeth, those are carnist lies bro
>sugar is so efficient for your metabolism bro, its literally what we evolved to eat bro
>no you dont need b12, there's enough in the soil, just eat dirt bro
>retinol, DHA and EPA are literally toxic bro, you need flavenoids, bro
>antinutrients? no bro, they stop oxidation and cure your cancer, bro
>testosterone is overrated bro, low testosterone levels mean that your body isn't stressed bro
>of course eating more sugar will cure your diabetes bro
>just try it bro
t. pic rel

Enjoy your teeth, gut and brain rot, retard.
You are going to experience terrible health consequences and early death.
Eventually you will realise this and understand that you were wrong, until then you will spread your delusions and cause others insurmountable harm.
But when you do realize that you have absolutely destroyed your health with your meme diet, it will be too late, you will not be able to go back and you will not be able to restore your body.

>>15971838
>meat has been unaffordable for most people
Not the truth nor the real background.

Sacraficing an animal was a special event, because animals are "undigestible veggies to food converters".
A cow is like a machine that has the ability to convert grass and hay to milk, which can be fermented and stored a long time in the form of cheese.
While they also produced manure the fed their fields.
They ate way less meat, but not less animal products, in fact they ate more.
And drank more milk.

Also they did not eate grains that much, they often had trees, with fruits, saurkraut and a lot of very healthy fermented vegetable and fruit products.
Sadly world wide after WWI there was the beginning of the governmental intervention of "what food farmers should produce" and various extrotion schemes, everywhere. In the US it was called the Agricultural adjutment act. from that time onward "grain food it is my plebs"

>how to collapse society?
>kill stock animals
>establish legislatur to destroy food
>is it a "conspiracy theory"?
>no, because it does not happen in secret
>it is not illegal
>therefore not a secret
>interpreting "intentions" is a conspiracy theory
>did it happen before?
>yes
>1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act

>1840-1960 europe
>sheep dipping in arsenic
>sheep die
>no milk no wool
>also cows got really sick
>etc etc.

>>15971816
It's funny.
Theoretically you could make some kind of onions food paste with decent health impacts and in fact, there are some anti-starvation foods like Plumpy'nut that aim to do this and are more succesful at it, even if only marginally so.
As it stands these new age vegan foods, like Onions, completely fail in their mission to prevent poor health.
And this is not necessarily because it is impossible to create a synthetic replacement product (although it comes with its issues and challenges, see Vitamin C or B12 supplements vs natural sources), but rather because of the skewered and completely false vegan view of nutrition.
If they tried to make a synthetic food that was actually healthy, it would naturally *have* to mirror meat and with that the metabolic processes related to animal based nutrition.
But that would completely invalidate the premise of plant-based nutrition in the first place and expose veganism as problematic for peoples health.
Hence why they wouldn't add significant amounts of something like EPA, DHA, glycine or taurine, even when these are hugely beneficial for brain function, metabolic health and oxidative stress.
They would rather just go 100% after the RDAs and only add "essential" nutrients, ignoring absorption ratios, micronutrient interactions, enzymatic bottlenecks, enzymatic digestion, macroecological dynamics of the gut microbiota, metabolic stress induced by non-essential nutrient deficiencies, metabolic adaptations, etc..
It would also require them to put in way less sugar, which would mean not triggering the sugar addiction, which would equate itself to less profit.
This is additionally the reason why so many vegans think that vitamin B12 is the only nutrient that they *might* have to supplement and why so many are still deficient, even when knowing about this.

>>15969715
Modern sanitation and antiparasitic medication has eliminated beneficial worms from our bodies along with the harmful ones.
We've evolved for hundreds of millions of years in tandem with helminths - it's naive and arrogant to assume that they were universally detrimental to us, and that eradicating them wouldn't cause problems in at least a minority of people.
This is why autoimmune conditions skyrocketed in developed nations with good hygiene and medicine, but not in filthy shitskin nations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helminthic_therapy
>While it is recognized that there is probably a genetic disposition in certain individuals for the development of autoimmune diseases, the rate of increase in incidence of autoimmune diseases is not a result of genetic changes in humans; the increased rate of autoimmune-related diseases in the industrialized world is occurring in too short a time to be explained in this way. There is evidence that one of the primary reasons for the increase in autoimmune diseases in industrialized nations is the significant change in environmental factors over the last century. It is posited that the absence of exposure to certain parasites, bacteria, and viruses is playing a significant role in the development of autoimmune diseases in the more sanitized and industrialized Western nations.
>Experimental data support the hypothesis that clinically induced helminthic infections have the ability to alleviate or mitigate immune responses. Most autoimmune disorders are believed to involve hyperactive TH1 or TH17 immune responses that are down-regulated by the promotion of a TH2 response by helminths.[24] Helminths secrete immunoregulatory molecules that promote the induction of regulatory T cells while inhibiting the function of antigen presenting cells and other T cells. As such, helminthic therapy attempts to restore homeostasis by shifting a hyperactive TH1 pro-inflammatory response to a TH2 response with reduced inflammation.

>>15971845
>because animals are "undigestible veggies to food converters".
That makes sense but highlights the argument that poor people were less likely to eat meat because rich people can slaughter and buy another animal more frequently. Poor people had high caloric needs so they had to eat more grains than
>very healthy fermented vegetable and fruit products
didn't they?

>how to collapse society?
Your picrel seems to suggest a poor attempt at controlling the economy but I do think it's naive to keep calling the government incompetent because the incompetence appears not as a random bug but as a predictable feature.

>>15971845
https://columbiasurgery.org/news/2016/02/18/heart-disease-was-common-ancient-egypt-too-0
mainly vegetarians btw.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/what-did-ancient-egyptians-really-eat
>>15971869
>beneficial worms
ok
The neolithic revolution and its effects caused a massive increase in parasitic load, poor immune function and human-animal proximity, something we had never seen before in the history of mankind.
pic rel

>>15971865
>DHA
Since you mentioned it.
There was recently a debate, about the non-existing science on the real world observable effect of DHA supplementation or requirements.
It's only one type of omage-3-fatty acid, that for some odd reason is literally begged by all "agencies" to be exactly quatified added to "supplementary" food products, especciall infant formular.

Not that it is not bad, but the specific requiremtn, to not use DHA rich products, but to specifically synthecise DHA and then add it to food, has zero scientific reason.
But economic reason, to ensure supply chain benefits of specified industries.
The downside of specific synthetisation of this compound is:
>heavy metal contamination
Because isolating a compound that has significant charge and chemical affinities, should not be seperated from its "coplex fat structure".
As soon as you specifically extract it, it is like a magnet for crap.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46107177_There_is_still_too_much_aluminum_in_infant_formulas
See the contamination of "infant formulas" which sadly mostly happens because, you require long chain of chemical reactions to "destructure food" and "re synthesize" is to exactly quantify it so you get a "specific and uniform end product" .

>>15971054
>>15969861
One has studies linked as supporting evidence, one claims that humans didn't evolve hunting until 50000 years ago.
Hmmmm...
Which one do I trust?

>>15971882
Yeah, it's a vicious cylce of shit, since some of the most important food ancient humans had access to, fish, which made up a large percentage of the animal food we ate is also contaminated with heavy metals, microplastics, POPs and so on.
The only way will be relentless regulation and testing of pharma, supplements and food stuffs.
The EU has already done quite a lot of good in respect to that.

>>15971881
>The neolithic revolution and its effects caused a massive increase in parasitic load, poor immune function and human-animal proximity, something we had never seen before in the history of mankind.
Only a small minority are beneficial, and only during the formative years of the immune system ages 0-9.

>>15971807
>I just linked a study and a systematic review that show that ketogenic diets *REVERSE* diabetes and *LOWER* HbA1c.
of course you lower HbA1c if you go from being diabetic and consuming carbohydrate to being more diabetic but consuming less carbohydrate, because all the HbA1c at that point is from the endogenous glucose produced through gluconeogenesis
that doesn't mean you are not diabetic, just that you're masking it by avoiding carbohydrate (which happens to the body's strongly preferred fuel source for all the biochemical reasons I've already explained), further putting the body in a state of physiological stress
>Then why does exercise increase mitochondrial biogenesis and function?
there's a difference between a certain increase in response to eustress like effortless physical activity, and to increase it far more than that through actively stressing out your body
this is why most "exercise" people do is extremely unhealthy
>Why is poor mitochondrial health implicated in crohns, dementia, autism, cancer, obesity, etc.?
that's obvious, and I don't have any idea why you think I'm favoring poor mitochondrial health
my point is that ketogenic diets promote extremely poor mitochondrial health due to the onslaught of oxidative stress inherent to fatty acid oxidation
>Not true
yes, absolutely true
>you don't understand the Krebs cycle
I understand it orders of magnitude better than you ever will
>nor the metabollic adaptations of low-carb diets
those "adaptations" are just the body's coping mechanisms to totally unnatural and unhealthy physiological states
we evolved for tens of millions of years to have access to abundant sugar every day
>The spinach has a DIAAS score under 10%
spinach has a lower concentration of protein per unit of weight, just like I said
>That's more than a KILOGRAM for every 100 grams of beef equivalent.
correct
>I eat ~400 grams of meat every day
my condolences, hopefully when you get really ill you'll look back at this conversation

>>15971807
>You either eat 5000 calories or you get too little protein, simple as.
leafy greens have very little caloric content, they are just extremely nutrient-dense
of note is of course that they contain a lot of water, so it's more interesting to look at the dry weight, where you'll see protein percentages as high as 50%
>>15971812
>Humans ate mostly animal products since always.
already explained that this is a laughably false claim
humans ate fresh and ripe fruit and tender young leaves for tens of millions of years
then as various human species exited the rainforest they started eating other foods because they were forced to
for H. sapiens this was ~200,000 years ago, and at that point they were still primarily only eating tubers and leaves
only ~50,000 years ago did humans start hunting in any significant capacity with the advent of effective projectile weaponry, a negligible blip of time in an evolutionary context compare to the previous tens of millions of years that determined our current physiology
you simply lack perspective, that's all
>You cannot tell me that this has to do with a genetic issue that exits for millions of years, that only recently broke out.
I'm not saying that's exclusively it, but it's certainly the biggest cause
you can observe this in earlier records of Inuits eating a largely unpolluted diet based almost entirely on animal products, particularly a lot of meat, and they still had the shortest and most disease-ridden lives on the planet by a wide margin
and like I said, compounds like Neu5Gc have caused systemwide chronic inflammation in humans due to an autoimmune response to it for 2 million years, and still does
well, being a xenoautoantigen it straddles the border between being an autoimmune issue and just being poisoning, but it ultimately occurs in the same way as an autoimmune response, since it's a sialic acid that gets incorporated into the cell glycans along with Neu5Ac, but recognized as foreign since we lack CMAH

>>15971842
cool picture of Austin from Raw Bliss
he certainly had a rough few years doing a lot of fasting and not eating enough in general
glad he recovered from his eating disorder and started to eat a high-energy diet with a lot more greens and more food in general, after which he gained back weight and put on a lot of muscle
he's doing great now, was still raw vegan for the entire duration he put weight back on, but not long ago he decided he'd try some cooked food while traveling for the experience, all power to him
great guy
>Enjoy your teeth, gut and brain rot, retard.
a diet based on fresh and ripe fruit and tender young leaves does the exact opposite of that
I eat that personally and have for many years, my teeth have never felt better or stronger, can't remember the last time I even noticed I had a gut at all due to how great my digestion is, and as explained above the brain most of all needs such a diet to function optimally due to its requirement for large amounts of sugar and neuroprotective secondary active metabolites
>You are going to experience terrible health consequences and early death.
right, except empirically it's people who eat animal-based diets who live short and disease-ridden lives
nice try, though
>Eventually you will realise this and understand that you were wrong, until then you will spread your delusions and cause others insurmountable harm.
>But when you do realize that you have absolutely destroyed your health with your meme diet, it will be too late, you will not be able to go back and you will not be able to restore your body.
it's ironic, because this exact statement applies to people trying something as retarded as a "carnivore" diet, or other ketogenic diets in general
luckily most of them quit quite early when they start experiencing the massive health problems though

>>15971892
>humans didn't evolve hunting until
humans never "evolved" hunting
I don't think you understand what evolution is or how it works
humans don't have any physiological adaptations to hunting at all
humans simply used our large brains to solve a new problems we were facing, i.e. how to acquire sustenance in increasingly hostile habitats as we migrated out of our natural habitat
you see the same in bonobos, which rarely use tools in their natural habitat, but have shown to be fully capable of doing so when presented with puzzles or problems that require them to do so

>>15972064
>>15972059
>>15972049
>>15971616
Abslute state of plebbit meme lord
>claims
>memes
>speculations
>assumptions
>possible hypothetical plausible sounding explainations to deny, recent human intervention
>it's our collective fault
>not regulatory or pharmaceutical or chemical pesticide and herbicide interventions
>no it's YOU
>because genes
>because evolution
>because unfalsifyable pseudoscientific explainations

>>15973490
>zero argument
thank you for conceding

>>15972066
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-41033-3 - UPMHs ate mostly mammoth and reindeer as determined by stable isotope analysis of bone collagen.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/71.3.682 - 73% of hunter-gatherer societies derived at least 56%-65% of their macronutrients from meat; Data from the Ethnographic Atlas.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.24247 - Humans were hypercarnivores that hunted megafauna for around two million years.
https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.12881 - Humans are far more successful hunters than any other animal.
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4249 - Humans function as superpredators with predation rates up to 14 times higher than other animals.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-023-04940-w - Humans exploit up to 300 times more species than comparable non-human predators
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.08.089 - Prey animals in the South African savannah are more afraid of humans than of lions.
https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1015827908309 - Human gastrointestinal pH is more in line with obligate scavengers and carnivores than with herbivores or omnivores.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600750313
https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0134116 - Human stomach acid is very suited for digesting meat at a strong pH of 1.5 - even stronger than carnivores like dogs or cats
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/evolutions-sweet-tooth.html - "Simply put, humans evolved to crave sugar, store it and then use it. For millions of years, our cravings and digestive systems were exquisitely balanced because sugar was rare. Apart from honey, most of the foods our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate were no sweeter than a carrot. The invention of farming made starchy foods more abundant, but it wasn’t until very recently that technology made pure sugar bountiful." - Daniel E. Lieberman, paleoanthropologist at Harvard University, and Edwin M Lerner II Professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor in the Department of Human Evolutionary Biology

>>15972066
>>15974277
The whole reason we don't stop destroying the natural word, (unlike neanderthals btw.), is because we are hypercarnivore predators who always seek out new prey and hunting grounds.
>humans never "evolved" hunting
>it's just our brains
>which obviously come from 4kg of leafs per day, not from meat
lol, lmao even

>>15974277
>ate mostly mammoth and reindeer
>macronutrients from meat
have already addressed this many times, this is extremely recent, has nothing to do with what we evolved doing
>hypercarnivores that hunted megafauna for around two million years
hilariously wrong conclusion, misinterpretation of human physiology as a hyperfrugivore as somehow being a hypercarnivore instead
what a blunder
easy to miss many of the crucial differences when all you're looking for is the difference between a classic herbivore and a carnivore, neglecting mutualistic symbionts specializing on high-quality plant-based foods, like humans
>Humans are far more successful hunters than any other animal.
>superpredators with predation rates up to 14 times higher
>exploit up to 300 times more species than comparable non-human predators
>Prey animals in the South African savannah are more afraid of humans than of lions.
duh, we literally have machine guns, we could obviously murder all other animals if we wanted to
has exactly nothing to do with what we evolved doing or what we're physiologically optimized for
>gastrointestinal pH is more in line with obligate scavengers and carnivores than with herbivores or omnivores
>Human stomach acid is very suited for digesting meat at a strong pH of 1.5 - even stronger than carnivores like dogs or cats
blatant bullshit with zero basis in reality, common misconception based on trying to measure human stomach acid without food present
in reality gastric pH must be measured when food is present, and then humans have a gastric pH of 4-5, 1000 times less acidic than the 1-2 of carnivores like felines, which can literally digest bone
>humans evolved to crave sugar
correct!
got one right at least, well done
>For millions of years, our cravings and digestive systems were exquisitely balanced because sugar was rare.
already refuted that idiotic nonsense, sugar has been abundant for tens of millions of years, angiosperms evolved over 100 million years ago

>>15974280
>whole reason we don't stop destroying the natural word
is because we suffer from species-wide brain damage due to the lack of the constant supply of the rich biochemistry of fruit we evolved with for tens of millions of years which was absolutely crucial to build, sustain, and maintain our huge brains
>>humans never "evolved" hunting
correct
>>it's just our brains
yes, indeed
if you don't understand what that means, it means that we evolved our huge brains long before we ever started hunting anything at all, that happened while we were still living inside of the rainforest and eating fruit (degree of frugivory is strongly associated with brain size in primates, and I've explained above the countless reasons why fruit is so crucial for large brains, it's also why we see the most frugivorous birds and bats also being the most intelligent by a wide margin)
like I just explained too, even bonobos will resort to using tools when presented with a puzzle or challenge, even though they don't typically do so in their natural habitat, because it's not that they're not intelligent enough, it's just that they don't have any reason to
humans only started hunting in any significant capacity ~50,000 years ago with the advent of effective projectile weaponry, which was long after we had already evolved our big brains, and we only did so because we were forced to in order to acquire sustenance in increasingly hostile habitats
>>which obviously come from 4kg of leafs per day, not from meat
not quite, primarily leaf-eating primates tend to have smaller brains
it's the primarily fruit-eating primates that have the largest brains, and humans evolved large brains because we ended up becoming hyperfrugivores
the aforementioned expert in primate nutrition, Katharine Milton, has remarked time again in her observations of howler and spider monkeys on Barro Colorado that the former are dull and slow leaf-eaters while the latter are intelligent and playful fruit-eaters

>>15972049
>of course you lower HbA1c if you go from being diabetic and consuming carbohydrate to being more diabetic but consuming less carbohydrate blah blah
You are an idiot who didn't even bother to read the study.
And I quote:
"After an average of 33 months median (IQR) weight fell from 97 (84–109) to 86 (76–99) kg, giving a mean (SD) weight loss of −10 (8.9)kg. Median HbA1c fell from 63 (54–80) to 46 (42–53) mmol/mol. Remission of diabetes was achieved in 77% with T2D duration less than 1year"
"Mean LDL cholesterol decreased by 0.5mmol/L, mean triglyceride by 0.9mmol/L and mean systolic blood pressure by 12mm Hg"
>But ackshually they still have diabetes, just invisible healthy diabetes.
Quoting wikipedia: "Type 2 diabetes (T2D), formerly known as adult-onset diabetes, is a form of diabetes mellitus that is characterized by high blood sugar, insulin resistance, and relative lack of insulin."
PIC REL
Do you feel silly yet?
>there's a difference between a certain increase in response to eustress like effortless physical activity, and to increase it far more than that through actively stressing out your body
>this is why most "exercise" people do is extremely unhealthy
Say you don't lift. I would've thought you're packed with your 4 kilograms of leafs diet.
Obviously doing tons of cardio is unhealthy, but the trend is clear: https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058162
>my point is that ketogenic diets promote extremely poor mitochondrial health due to the onslaught of oxidative stress inherent to fatty acid oxidation
I posted 6 relevant articles that all go 180 degrees against ^this statement, including a systematic review on the ketogenic diet for mitochondrial disease.
I bet you didn't even bother to read the titles. More: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0271678X15610584
Where is your proof? Where are your sources?

>>15974760
>yes, absolutely true
Writing "no" in response to dozens of articles proving my point, has no effect. Everybody in this thread except you realizes as much.
>I understand it orders of magnitude better than you ever will
You think we have to eat ~4 kilograms of leafs daily, that we evolved our large brains from this and that bipedalism evolved from climbing trees, not from leaving them. Opinion discarded.
>those "adaptations" are just the body's coping mechanisms to totally unnatural and unhealthy physiological states
>we evolved for tens of millions of years to have access to abundant sugar every day
Not potentiated by archeological findings of the past ~3 million years, nor by our health trends, see previous comments with links.
>those "adaptations" are just the body's coping mechanisms to totally unnatural and unhealthy physiological states
If it is cope that it heals metabolic syndrome, makes diabetes, affects massive weight loss, etc., then it is still a healthy diet and an effective medical treatment of poor metabolic health. It's also a pretty crazy coincidence that it would work, but it's proven and you have all the relevant data right here in this thread.
>correct
I'd honestly hate being around you. You must be constantly bloated and farting all day, every day. How many times per day do you shit?
For me it's about once every 3 days and I don't fart at all.
Does your food even digest properly before it is excreted? Do you think there are a lot of nutrients left in it? Maybe you should try reingestion? I know rabbits and some lemurs do it.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082638 According to this vegans fart about 7 times as much as normal dieters.
>my condolences, hopefully when you get really ill you'll look back at this conversation
Every health issue I had has gone away, I lost nearly 40kg of fat and have been putting on tons of muscle. Even the allergic rhinitis and myopia disappeared. Doc told me my lab values are completely fine.

>>15974760
>didn't even bother to read the study
I did
>Median HbA1c fell
and I pointed out exactly why
>Remission of diabetes was achieved
wrong, and I explained exactly why that's an incorrect conclusion, because what they interpret to be "remission of diabetes" is just masking the underlying problem by avoiding carbohydrate
>>they still have diabetes
correct
>>just invisible
not at all, it's still clearly visible if you actually look for it, which was not done at all in this case
>characterized by high blood sugar
exactly, which you mask by simply avoiding carbohydrate altogether (which further chronically stresses out the body biochemically, since humans need large quantities of carbohydrate for optimal health)
>>healthy diabetes
not at all, they're still extremely unhealthy, and prone to a wide variety of problems, including hepatic steatosis and myelination disorders just to name a couple, although there are countless problems that just become worse and worse with time when trying to do something that stupid
>Do you feel silly yet?
for obliterating all your nonsense with the actual facts?
not particularly
>Say you don't lift.
lifting weights as is done in a gym is extremely unhealthy due to both the repetitive nature of the movements and the excessive weights involved
only natural physical activity is ever healthy for humans, which when it comes to maintaining a muscular body as is natural for humans occurs almost exclusively due to climbing trees, which not only greatly exercises all the muscles in the body with a lot of necessary variation, but does so in a manner that is effortless and fun (some people hilariously still believe you need to experience discomfort while using the body, such as when using effort and "pushing yourself" during a lift, and/or that you need muscle damage for muscles to grow, which are all archaic notions with zero basis in reality that have been disproven over and over in the scientific literature)

>>15974760
>>15974779
>I would've thought you're packed with your 4 kilograms of leafs diet.
I never said I ate 4 kilograms of leaves each day at all, that's a projection on your part
but yes, I am quite muscular indeed, owing to the fact that I climb trees every single day
>doing tons of cardio is unhealthy
not as unhealthy as lifting weights in a gym, but yes, a lot of what people consider cardio these days is indeed extremely unhealthy
only natural movements like walking and running whenever you feel like it because it's enjoyable eustress, like how you see children running with joy, is actually healthy
and of course, climbing trees also partially contributes to maintaining excellent cardiovascular health
>>15974762
>You think we have to eat ~4 kilograms of leafs daily
not true at all, closer to 1-2 kilograms is ideal
>we evolved our large brains from this
not even remotely what I've said at all
apparently you're not even reading a single thing I'm saying
well that's quite embarrassing for someone who is accusing me for not reading
I've been quite explicit about the fact that it's fruit which is primarily responsible for large brains in primates, including ourselves, and that our large brains came about due to us being naturally selected for hyperfrugivory
more folivorous apes and monkeys have smaller brains, as observed in e.g. gorillas and the aforementioned howler monkeys
the more frugivorous ones, like chimpanzees, orangutans, spider monkeys, and of course humans, are the ones with the large brains
>bipedalism evolved from climbing trees, not from leaving them
that's not something I personally think, but a well-established fact at this point, as shown in these two posts:
>>15971069
>>15971079
but I guess you didn't read that either
reading isn't your strong suit, is it?
>nor by our health trends
increased consumption of animal foods are proven to lead to more disease and higher risk of death from all causes
increased consumption of fruit improves health

>>15974762
>>15974791
>heals metabolic syndrome
it doesn't, just masks it
>makes diabetes
well, that it does indeed do
I guess you managed to be accidentally correct for once
>massive weight loss
already explained that this isn't inherently healthy
there are healthy and unhealthy ways to lose weight
a ketogenic diet is probably one of the most extremely unhealthy ways to do it
>I'd honestly hate being around you.
I doubt it, because you'd very quickly start to realize how much healthier I am than you and inevitably start to eat more fruit and tender greens, at which point you'd start to feel what it really means to be healthy
you'd love it
>You must be constantly bloated and farting all day, every day.
this is probably one of the most hilariously stupid memes that are still parroted by the dumbest of the dumb
nothing could be farther from the truth, and in my experience it's a problem you see far more with people who eat diets heavy in animal products, whose flatulence coincidentally (well, not really) also smells far worse, literally quite putrid and foul
personally I have never had better gut health or digestion, I hardly ever pass any flatus at all, surely a lot less than the average carnivore (except when they clench their buttholes to avoid rocketing diarrhea)
>How many times per day do you shit?
once per day, like clockwork, and always the perfect feces too, it typically takes me a month to go through a single roll of toilet paper due to the fact that I only ever use a single sheet after defecating, mostly symbolically since there's never anything there to clean up
>For me it's about once every 3 days
yikes, my condolences
I do pity your gut, hopefully you'll remember this conversation when you start to develop serious disease states
>Does your food even digest properly before it is excreted?
perfectly, exquisitely even
>Do you think there are a lot of nutrients left in it?
well, technically there is in virtually all feces, but not in the sense you're thinking

>>15974762
>>15974791
>>15974800
>Maybe you should try reingestion?
disgusting
>I know rabbits and some lemurs do it.
humans are not rabbits nor lemurs
in fact, lemurs are some of the primates most distantly related to us, diverging from us roughly around the same time the tarsiers (the only carnivorous primates, being almost entirely insectivorous) diverged from us
>According to this vegans fart about 7 times as much as normal dieters.
this is the type of hilariously stupid conclusion you reach when you don't even think about the study being done
of course putting regular people and their abysmal microbiomes on a plant-based diet suddenly will cause a lot of flatulence, that's not a surprise to anyone with a brain
a healthy microbiome is a vital part of proper digestion, especially when it comes to tender young leaves
there's also no mention of the exact foods used, further discrediting it to the point where the results are not useful to anyone
meanwhile people who have eaten plant-based diets for a long time and have healthy microbiomes have zero problems digesting what they eat, and experience no more flatulence than the average person at all, and from my own experience that flatus doesn't smell nearly as bad either (judging from others, not my own), but that's not exactly a high bar given that the flatus of people who eat meat and other animal products literally smells like death itself, probably one of the most horrid stenches I know of (so much so that it's even common to joke about it among people on such diets, which is hilarious to me)
>Every health issue I had has gone away
this is a common story you'll hear from people trying such nonsense, but is generally not just sprinkled with a lot of denial, but also neglects the health problems they invariably start to develop if they keep trying to force themselves to do it even as they start to go downhill

>>15974762
>>15974791
oh, and I forgot to reference this post with regards to arboreal bipedalism:
>>15971062
just for the image, the text in the other posts demonstrate the evidence, but it's nice to have a clear visualization of the actual evolutionary development based on all the evidence we have of early crown hominoids and their transition to great apes
oh, and an interesting other point about the second article about it that I linked to, by Alan Walker, is that he's the same guy who wrote this classic article (just referring to the article itself from the paper as rendered, not to anything else on that website, just linking to that version since the original isn't freely available anymore):
https://health101.org/art_diet2.htm
apparently he worked with Leakey himself, knowledgeable guy for sure

>>15972059
>leafy greens have very little caloric content, they are just extremely nutrient-dense
>of note is of course that they contain a lot of water, so it's more interesting to look at the dry weight, where you'll see protein percentages as high as 50%
Gut dysbiosis and antinutrients aside, if you eat no fat, you will spike your insulin to the moon, which can give you diabetes. Fats are also extremely important for neuron propagation, which is crucial for building muscle and they are beneficial for mitochondrial health, as explained before.
As far as actual food sources go, I will just go out on a whim and say that you don't actually know which plants ancient humans would have consumed and what their nutrient contents would have been, as the entirety of modern vegetables, leafy greens included, did not exist before agriculture, as well as suffering under recent soil degradation. This obviously becomes a problem when accurately trying to calculate macro- and micronutrient yields. If you have sources on this, I will gladly take them.
>already explained that this is a laughably false claim
You did not and have yet to deliver any sources or evidence for any of your claims.
>>15972064
>a diet based on fresh and ripe fruit and tender young leaves does the exact opposite of that
Source?
>the brain most of all needs such a diet to function optimally due to its requirement for large amounts of sugar
The brain is probably harmed the most from a high-carb diet because of the blood-brain barrier, but there is really no point in explaining it since you don't even understand the Krebs cycle.

>>15974835
>right, except empirically it's people who eat animal-based diets who live short and disease-ridden lives
Please post your studies. Because more often than not such wonderful health foods as salami pizza, burger and sandwiches are included into meat food categories of observational studies. That's not even touching healthy user bias. I'd have an easy time ripping something like that apart.
Here are my receipts: https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S333004
>it's ironic, because this exact statement applies to people trying something as retarded as a "carnivore" diet, or other ketogenic diets in general
>luckily most of them quit quite early when they start experiencing the massive health problems though
No source? Ignoring every single article I posted? Why yes, the superior leaf fueled vegan intellect has no need for such tools.
>>15974520
>have already addressed this many times, this is extremely recent, has nothing to do with what we evolved doing
You have addressed nothing. You have pulled a bunch of unproven statements and wild theories out of your ass with no source or supporting evidence to back them up, while completely disregarding my supporting evidence.
>hilariously wrong conclusion, misinterpretation of human physiology as a hyperfrugivore as somehow being a hypercarnivore instead
>easy to miss many of the crucial differences when all you're looking for is the difference between a classic herbivore and a carnivore, neglecting mutualistic symbionts specializing on high-quality plant-based foods, like humans
More statements with no substance to back them up. You are literally wrong.
BUT NO ACKSHUALLY HUMANS WERE FRUGI-ACK
>duh, we literally have machine guns, we could obviously murder all other animals if we wanted to
>has exactly nothing to do with what we evolved doing or what we're physiologically optimized for
See >>15974280

>>15974837
>blatant bullshit with zero basis in reality, common misconception based on trying to measure human stomach acid without food present
>in reality gastric pH must be measured when food is present, and then humans have a gastric pH of 4-5, 1000 times less acidic than the 1-2 of carnivores like felines, which can literally digest bone
Oh what, you're a gastroenterologist now?
You could feed the equivalent of 4 kilos of leafs to a lion and it's pH would turn out at 4-5.
Low GI pH is a defense mechanism against pathogens, as well as being useful for digesting meat, you should understand as much.
When you eat meat you don't need to eat multiple kilograms of food, but rather a relatively small amount of maybe 2-3 pounds, depending on your size and weight.
This means that your stomach acid is much less diluted and hence has a lower pH.
Also, the pH of cats is listed as 3.6 in numerous sources. Scavengers have a lower pH as defense against pathogens and scavenging is how humans began eating more meat, using tools to extract bone marrow or simply stealing leftovers in groups.
Additionally you would think that the cats pH wasn't measured immediately after feeding, just as it is the case in humans, such an oversight would have falsified the data and I doubt the researchers and biologists responsible would make such an obvious mistake.
>correct!
>got one right at least, well done
Ignoring the part where he said that sugar was very scarce until very recently, huh? Cheeky.
But you still think that carbs will cure diabetes, don't you?
>already refuted that idiotic nonsense, sugar has been abundant for tens of millions of years, angiosperms evolved over 100 million years ago
See above, the Harvard prof and all the evidence in this thread dispute what you say.

>>15974835
>Gut dysbiosis
that's something you get from diets full of animal products, not from eating the natural human diet
>antinutrients
tender young leaves are particularly low in antinutrients and also much easier to digest than more mature leaves
as I've demonstrated above, it's animal products which contain a variety of antinutrients inherent to them, some of which are extremely toxic to humans, like Neu5Gc
>if you eat no fat, you will spike your insulin to the moon, which can give you diabetes
I can't help but laugh at a statement like this, given that it's literally the diametric opposite of the truth
diabetes is primarily caused by fat consumption, because fat and toxic fat metabolites block the action of insulin and prevent sugar from being metabolized properly
if you eat no fat, you only experience very brief and transient blood sugar spikes when you eat
this is why, as I've made clear many times, people on high-carbohydrate low-fat diets have lower levels of HbA1c than people on high-fat low-carbohydrate diets, which is a surprising finding to anyone who doesn't actually understand that fat is the primary cause of diabetes
>Fats are also extremely important for neuron propagation
I already explained how this is also the diametric opposite of the truth, because high-fat diets actually lead to myelin disruption
there's a reason why so many people trying to stay on carnivore diets even as their health declines start to experience severe neuropathy
as mentioned previously, they are causing themselves literal brain damage
>you don't actually know which plants ancient humans would have consumed
sure I do, because most of those plants have existed for tens of millions of years, and we still see our closest relative species consuming tons of them today
one particular example would be figs, which have likely constituted a large portion of our caloric intake for many millions of years, and happen to be particularly rich in calcium too

>>15974835
>>15974847
>what their nutrient contents would have been, as the entirety of modern vegetables, leafy greens included, did not exist before agriculture
I already refuted that nonsense over many posts earlier in the thread, feel free to peruse them if you wish to educate yourself
>as well as suffering under recent soil degradation
this has sadly been occurring for thousands of years, if not tens of thousands, due to grazing, which is the worst thing you can possibly do to soil
>The brain is probably harmed the most from a high-carb diet
except the diametric opposite is demonstrably true, and we see myelin disruption from high-fat diets hit the brain the hardest, due to it's large quantity of myelinated nerve tissue, not to mention how the brain also needs large quantities of carbohydrate just to run properly too
>since you don't even understand the Krebs cycle
as I've made quite clear, I understand it orders of magnitude better than you ever will
>>15974837
>not such wonderful health foods as salami pizza, burger and sandwiches are included
has nothing to do with it
like I mentioned earlier in the thread, there are tons of studies on Inuits eating their traditional diets, demonstrating how they have the shortest and most disease-ridden lives on the planet by a wide margin in the process, with sky-high rates of heart disease, atherosclerosis, strokes, cancers, diabetes, kidney disease, and on and on and on
>Ignoring every single article I posted?
not ignoring anything, I'm addressing all of it
>the superior leaf fueled vegan intellect
what's funny is that I've repeated numerous times that it's fruit that is what's important for the brain and intellect, not leaves
leaves are primarily a source of protein, calcium, vitamin K, and iron (although many fruits are actually quite rich in iron too)
you don't appear to have very good reading comprehension
>have addressed nothing
I've addressed pretty much everything so far, and in quite extensive detail too

>>15974837
>>15974860
>You are literally wrong.
I'm correct about everything I've said so far
>See
see: >>15974550
>>15974838
>you're a gastroenterologist now?
well, technically I'm not, but I still know quite a lot about it, a lot more than people like you ever will, that's for sure
>You could feed the equivalent of 4 kilos of leafs to a lion and it's pH would turn out at 4-5.
not true at all, and not how the stomach works
in fact, that you think this is the case is pretty hilarious to me, it does show that you don't really know what you're talking about
>Low GI pH is a defense mechanism against pathogens
it's one function, yes, but since humans are optimized for eating foods that have such low levels of naturally occurring pathogens, that was virtually never an issue for us during our evolution
but it does show in how animal products very frequently cause food poisoning in humans
>When you eat meat you don't need to eat multiple kilograms of food
irrelevant to the gastric pH, which remains elevated in humans when food is present, unlike in carnivores
the exception being if you're starting to get really sick, in which case you'll start to feel a lot of acid reflux, which coincidentally (not really, again, heh) is also extremely common in people doing something as retarded as a "carnivore" diet
>the pH of cats is listed as 3.6 in numerous sources
not true at all, you'll see that it is 1-2 in the vast majority of sources
>how humans began eating more meat
again, this happened longer after we had already evolved our current physiology, our gut has never evolved while doing this, and the idea that it has is quite ridiculous when you consider the timespans involved
>Ignoring the part where he said that sugar was very scarce until very recently, huh?
except I literally addressed that, and have addressed it at length earlier
>think that carbs will cure diabetes, don't you?
that fact has been known for well over a century, almost two centuries if I recall correctly

>>15974550
>is because we suffer from species-wide brain damage due to the lack of the constant supply of the rich biochemistry of fruit we evolved with for tens of millions of years which was absolutely crucial to build, sustain, and maintain our huge brains
>evolved our huge brains long before we ever started hunting anything at all
Which is why there are tons and tons of monkeys and apes picking fruit just fine with small brains?
Which is why our brain sizes massively increased, overlapping with human migration, increased tool usage and increased prey fossil frequency?
What you are saying makes no sense.
>humans only started hunting in any significant capacity ~50,000 years ago with the advent of effective projectile weaponry, which was long after we had already evolved our big brains, and we only did so because we were forced to in order to acquire sustenance in increasingly hostile habitats
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0007199
inb4 BUT ACKSHUALLY they didn't use tools to butcher animals, they used them to butcher... ahm... ehm... uh... LEAVES.. AND FRUIT! YES!
>>15974779
>I did
Then you would realize that you're wrong.
>wrong, and I explained exactly why that's an incorrect conclusion, because what they interpret to be "remission of diabetes" is just masking the underlying problem by avoiding carbohydrate
>not at all, it's still clearly visible if you actually look for it, which was not done at all in this case
Weight loss? Lowered blood pressure? Better lab values? All from lowered sugar? Nope, actually bro, you need to eat more sugar because you still have diabetes.
>exactly, which you mask by simply avoiding carbohydrate altogether (which further chronically stresses out the body biochemically, since humans need large quantities of carbohydrate for optimal health)
No we don't, as demonstrated by people becoming diabetic from eating more sugar.
https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0057873 pic rel

>>15974921
>myelination disorders
Myelin being extremely dependent on cholesterol availability and primarily made up of fat and protein. And now you will tell me our body actually needs tons of carbs for healthy myelin. (Without source.)
I shall preempt that.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1028415x.2021.1875300
https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00401-019-01985-2
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922344117
"reversal of NAFLD by KD"
ACK
>obliterating all your nonsense with the actual facts
Who would win, hundreds of scientists and decades of research, all in all hundreds of years spent gathering this information, or one lone retarded vegan who lives off of fucking leafs LMAO
>lifting weights as is done in a gym is extremely unhealthy
He doesn't lift.
>>15974791
>I never said I ate 4 kilograms of leaves each day at all, that's a projection on your part
>but yes, I am quite muscular indeed, owing to the fact that I climb trees every single day
Are you a damn chimp?
Lifting weights is objectively less unhealthy than cardio. And yes natural movements are better for muscle balance, but you're not going to get the same growth with calisthenics or through climbing.
People don't train to be healthy, they train to be big.
In a way a lot of high intenstiy stuff people do nowadays does mirror the way children play, though, explosively, energetically, in short time increments, after which they pause.
>1-2 kilograms is ideal
Aaaand you are protein deficient. You need to eat more leafs than that.
>I've been quite explicit about the fact that it's fruit which is primarily responsible for large brains in primates
You can't have it both ways. Fruit has a terrible DIAAS score and it is too high in sugar and carbs to eat if you want enough protein.
At least the leafs were relatively low in energy.
This is the whole reason why I said that you were either going to be protein deficient or consuming 5000 calories earlier.

>>15974930
>that's not something I personally think, but a well-established fact at this point, as shown in these two posts:
There is no way I am letting myself get drawn into that discussion.
There are like 15 different seriously accredited theories of how bipedalism evolved, heck it might have evolved several times, the whole of academia has been ragebaiting and arguing over it for the past 60 years.
It's a simple matter of fact that upright walking means that you're more adept at traversing the ground. Knuckle walking is irrelevant for this observation.
If you are climbing trees to survive, you should be adept at climbing trees, not at traversing large distances on the ground.
>increased consumption of animal foods are proven to lead to more disease and higher risk of death from all causes
False.
https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S333004
>increased consumption of fruit improves health
As opposed to junk food? Sure. But last time I checked mainstream research was calling a vegans vs ketovores clinical trial unethical when people tried to push for it.
>>15974800
>it doesn't, just masks it
If it looks like a duck, talks like a duck and walks like duck...
Again, at this point I'd expect you to come up with something that shows negative health outcomes, even though lab values and metabolic indicators show remission.
But there's nothing, just a baseless statement.
>makes diabetes
obviously a typo
>massive weightloss
>a ketogenic diet is probably one of the most extremely unhealthy ways to do it
Literally no source. It fixes a shit ton of issues, improves the labs and heals diseases but in your head it's actually bad and you don't provide any source?
>you'd love it
I don't like to be bloated.

>>15974933
>this is probably one of the most hilariously stupid memes
>in my experience it's a problem you see far more with people who eat diets heavy in animal products
I linked you a fucking study proving how horribly bloating fiber-rich diets are right there and you ignored it, pic rel.
>I only ever use a single sheet after defecating
Vile.
>>15974823
>this is the type of hilariously stupid conclusion you reach when you don't even think about the study being done
>of course putting regular people and their abysmal microbiomes on a plant-based diet suddenly will cause a lot of flatulence, that's not a surprise to anyone with a brain
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13082638
This here study finds the exact opposite of what you say; Flatulence in plant-based diets is supposed to be an indicator of healthy microbiomes.
And it makes sense too, you'd expect bacteria to break down fiber, if they don't, then that might be an indicator for a dysfunctional gut biome.
https://doi.org/10.3748%2Fwjg.v18.i33.4593
Seems like excess fiber can actually be the culprit for disease.
>there's also no mention of the exact foods used, further discrediting it to the point where the results are not useful to anyone
There actually is. The trial had full meal plans for all of their participants.
You just didn't bother to read the supplementary materials.
https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/nu13082638/s1
>this is a common story you'll hear from people trying such nonsense, but is generally not just sprinkled with a lot of denial, but also neglects the health problems they invariably start to develop if they keep trying to force themselves to do it even as they start to go downhill
I am no longer fat. I see properly, my nose isn't clogged up anymore, my skin is healthier and my eye rings went away. I am building muscle, I am in a better mental place and I have way more energy. I don't know what your problem with that is, it actually seems like you're in denial.

>>15974921
>tons and tons of monkeys and apes picking fruit just fine with small brains
they pick fruit just fine, but the ones that eat the most fruit are the ones with the biggest brains
>our brain sizes massively increased, overlapping with human migration, increased tool usage and increased prey fossil frequency
technically correct, but without understanding exactly what happened it's very easy to get why this is the case wrong
as I mentioned earlier, humans migrated out of the rainforest in waves during the period our brains exploded in size
this is because with the larger brains we developed in the rainforest, humans were more capable of creating tools to face the challenges outside of the rainforest
so you get a radiation of distant cousin species of humans migrating in waves, with each wave having an increase in brain size on average (although not always, due to how there wasn't a single human species in the rainforest itself at that point), and out on the savanna these distant cousin human species obviously had to start using tools for various reasons, first and foremost to cook tubers, but also at that stage to scavenge bones
still there was virtually zero hunting going on at that point
and as you can understand, while this is technically indeed an increase in brain size as we find more migration and increased tool usage, the brain size increase itself still only occurred inside the rainforest itself
this is also reflected in the fact that H. sapiens brain size immediately stopped growing once we exited the rainforest ~200,000 years ago, and has been shrinking ever since, especially in the past ~50,000 years when we've had to rely more and more on toxic garbage like animal foods
>What you are saying makes no sense.
it makes perfect sense, and is in fact exactly the case
>tools
see above, distant cousin species that exited the rainforest before us started using tools for many purposes, including cooking tubers and to scavenge bones for marrow

>>15974921
>>15974963
>you're wrong
incorrect, everything I'm saying is right
>Weight loss?
have already pointed out that this isn't inherently healthy, although it certainly can be (but can be done in extremely unhealthy ways, such as when doing something as stupid as a ketogenic diet)
>Better lab values?
an improvement from really bad is still not necessarily good, that was one of the first points I made
also, this is all while masking the underlying problems by avoiding carbohydrate, the strongly preferred fuel source of almost every single one of your ~50 trillion cells, and which is vital for optimal human health
>you need to eat more sugar because you still have diabetes
well, while that is true in a sense, what you first have to do is to cut fat consumption to near zero, otherwise you'll never fix the underlying diabetic issues, since it's fat and toxic fat metabolites blocking the action of insulin that's the problem
this is also why you see people who do ketogenic diets long-term develop severe insulin resistance
>we don't
we most definitely do, humans are optimized for large quantities of carbohydrate in the form of simple sugars every single day, without it you won't ever come close to optimal human health and vitality
>people becoming diabetic from eating more sugar
this is just demonstrating the underlying diabetic conditions from all the fat, which of course become more evident if you eat more sugar
still the trend is quite weak, and if they'd simultaneously lower the fat intake they'd probably see it come down, although it depends on a wide variety of factors, including how much fat is in the diets to begin with
>>15974930
>Myelin being extremely dependent on cholesterol availability
as mentioned previously, the brain makes all its cholesterol de novo in situ from intermediates of its sugar metabolism, and every single animal cell (except for RBCs) constantly makes cholesterol
these are all things I've already explained, you should read my posts

>>15974930
>>15974982
>now you will tell me our body actually needs tons of carbs for healthy myelin
I've already told you exactly that, which is precisely the case, especially the brain, since it makes literally all its own cholesterol from sugar
that's why ketogenic diets and other high-fat diets lead to myelin disruption, and why developing neuropathy is so prevalent in people doing those types of diets (coincidentally it's the same reason why neuropathy is so common in diabetes, which is also caused by impaired sugar metabolism due to fat and toxic fat metabolites, because you're depriving the cells of the sugar they need to properly myelinate the nerves)
>Who would win, hundreds of scientists and decades of research, all in all hundreds of years spent gathering this information
they would win, and they all say exactly what I'm saying if you look at the actual data and results, instead of some of the erroneous conclusions drawn (although there's no shortage of articles and studies demonstrating what I'm saying either, of course)
>who lives off of fucking leafs
still quite poor reading comprehension, I see
>He doesn't lift.
I don't do anything that's extremely unhealthy
I develop and maintain my muscular physique exclusively through tree climbing, and do so without any effort at all, since contrary to popular belief, simply utilizing the muscles, as you do under effortless eustress, grows muscles better than anything else, and studies have even shown that people recover much faster while having the same amount of muscle growth as long as they avoid muscle damage and associated phenomena, like DOMS (in fact, if you feel sore at all, you're doing something extremely wrong, but this is of course very common with the highly repetitive and unnatural movements one does when lifting weights in a gym, I pity any fool who engages in such folly)

>>15974930
>>15974989
>Are you a damn chimp?
humans are very similar physiologically to chimpanzees, but due to incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) we also have some quite interesting physiological features that are actually closer to those of orangutans and gibbons, especially when it comes to our shoulder physiology and our ability to brachiate very efficiently (although the actual potential of this in humans is rarely seen in anything other than in gymnasts)
>Lifting weights is objectively less unhealthy than cardio.
that is incorrect, lifting weights is one of the unhealthiest things humans can possibly do
>natural movements are better for muscle balance, but you're not going to get the same growth with calisthenics or through climbing
first of all, that's of course blatantly false, since everyone knows that there's no physique more respected by anyone than that of a professional gymnast, widely revered for having the most impressive physiques of all
secondly, the goal for any intelligent person is never to acquire the fastest or the most growth either, muscles naturally grow and adapt to increased physical activity in smaller increments, ideally without any damage done to the muscles in the process whatsoever (it's primarily a hormonal process triggered by activity, and not by damage at all, a well-established physiological fact at this point)
>People don't train to be healthy, they train to be big.
yes, I'm aware that people are self-destructive idiots for the most part, that has certainly not passed me by
>Aaaand you are protein deficient.
definitely not the case, given my degree of muscularity and how I continue to improve my tree climbing skills constantly and have no problems maintaining and even still putting on muscle
gaining muscle is about small steps, constantly increasing mass little by little, and sparing the mass you have
as every bodybuilder knows, nothing spares protein better than carbohydrate, whose protein-sparing effect is widely known

>>15974930
>>15974989
>>15975000
>You can't have it both ways.
yes, you can eat both fresh and ripe fruits and tender young leaves
that's in fact exactly what our closest relative species do
>Fruit has a terrible DIAAS score
this is the same mistake as previously
DIAAS is actually a terrible indicator of protein quality for that reason
fresh and ripe fruits also contain free amino acids that are rarely counted in such assays, which are the most easily digested amino acids of all, but fruit is still typically not the main source of protein (although it should definitely be noted that wild fruits have been measured by the aforementioned Milton to contain significantly more protein than some of the cultivars most people are familiar with)
>too high in sugar
this is still such a hilarious idea
you can virtually never get enough sugar, our entire body is optimized to eat large quantities of sugar every single day
it's only when you're diabetic due to constantly consuming fat that this can be a problem, but even despite this fruit has been shown to still lower rates of diabetes, and doesn't just have powerful antidiabetic properties in general, but is even used by type 1 diabetics (e.g. the guys over at Mastering Diabetes)
>if you want enough protein
see above, carbohydrate has an extremely powerful protein-sparing effect
this is widely known, as is the fact that this protein-sparing effect is unique to carbohydrate, fat does not have such a protein-sparing effect at all
this is because a lack of carbohydrate leads to the body desperately utilizing protein to create sugar through gluconeogenesis, which leads to a wide range of other detrimental health effects too
>At least the leafs were relatively low in energy.
this is correct
>This is the whole reason why I said that you were either going to be protein deficient or consuming 5000 calories earlier.
this is still as contradictory now as it was then, as I explained at that point

>>15974933
>no way I am letting myself get drawn into that discussion
it's not a "discussion", it's a well-established fact at this point
crown hominoids were arboreally bipedal, this is something we already know
chimpanzees and gorillas developed two completely different forms of knuckle-walking upon descending from the trees, while humans retained our bipedalism, and continued to use a bipedal posture while climbing too, of course
orangutans interestingly ended up as what you could arguably call nullipedal (although there's no such term in the literature), because they took what humans retained to its extreme, and started using their feet as hands to, allowing them to navigate the canopy even better
in fact, to this day orangutans that live in areas where tigers are still present (on Sumatra) rarely descend to the ground at all
Bornean orangutans on the other hand descend more often, since there are no tigers on Borneo
>15 different seriously accredited theories of how bipedalism evolved
nonsense, the fossil and biomechanical evidence is conclusive at this point
>it might have evolved several times
false, we see it in the crown hominoids that were the ancestors of all the great apes
>upright walking means that you're more adept at traversing the ground
upright posture first and foremost made crown hominoids more adept at traversing the trees, not the ground
but yes, retaining bipedalism when we descended from the trees rather than becoming knuckle-walkers like gorillas and chimps did allow us to expend less energy walking across the forest floor each day in search for the best fruit trees, that is true
>climbing trees to survive, you should be adept at climbing trees
yes, exactly what arboreal bipedalism allowed our crown hominoid ancestors to be, it was a big improvement on the earlier quadrupedal postures of the smaller primates they evolved from

>>15974933
>False.
not false at all
correlation studies showing increase life expectancy with increased meat intake like that one have so many flaws that it's a bit sad that you're not able to see that yourself
the fact that meat has always been something more affluent people have been eating more of should tip you off as to what the cause of such a correlation might be
yet despite this, we also know that such diets are strongly associated with the so-called "diseases of affluence", like the archetypical such disease, gout, which is yet another coincidental (again, obviously not, I assume you get the joke at this point) disease that people who eat animal-based diets keep running into and trying to blame on literally everything other than their nitrogen-rich uric-acid-producing diets (I've seen such people try to blame it on the most ridiculous things, like fructose, and I can't even imagine how stupid and/or desperate you have to be to try to blame the accumulation of something as nitrogen-rich as uric acid crystals on something entirely devoid of nitrogen, truly hilarious)
>As opposed to junk food?
as opposed to all other food
there's no food on the planet as health-promoting as fresh and ripe fruit, especially of the tropical varieties
>fixes a shit ton of issues
it doesn't fix a single issue you couldn't have fixed equally well by just fasting, although that's also quite unhealthy (but still not as unhealthy as actively eating a ketogenic diet instead)
>heals diseases
not the case at all, no more than heroin cures a broken leg just because you temporarily can't feel the pain
>I don't like to be bloated.
neither do I, and neither am I ever
>>15974948
>proving how horribly bloating fiber-rich diets are
not even remotely true, and I explained why
>Vile.
nothing vile about that at all
there's literally never anything to clean up, I could strictly speaking have used zero too and ended up with the same result, but I still use a single sheet for the sake of propriety

>>15974948
>>15975047
>Flatulence in plant-based diets is supposed to be an indicator of healthy microbiomes.
that's not even remotely the case
it might be an indicator of a sick microbiome turning into a healthy microbiome, but it's certainly not an indicator of an actually healthy microbiome at all, because you should have virtually zero gas if your microbiome is truly healthy, like mine is (and indeed I hardly experience any gas at all, certainly far less than the average "carnivore" dieter, who constantly talk about their flatulence and fear of releasing it due to not wanting to risk shitting themselves, which is still quite hilarious to me)
>it makes sense too
it does not
>you'd expect bacteria to break down fiber
correct, but beneficial gut bacteria do this without releasing any excessive gas compared to other microbiomes at all
>excess fiber can actually be the culprit for disease
diametric opposite of the truth, fiber intake is associated with a wide range of health benefits and improved health outcomes across virtually every sector of human health that exists
>There actually is.
I see, the supposedly plant-based diet (according to you) included "beef steak"
fantastic study, I'm sure it proved a lot of great things
oh man, my sides
>no longer fat
this is true for people who lost just as much weight as you did on a high-carbohydrate diet with virtually zero fat in it
>I see properly, my nose isn't clogged up anymore, my skin is healthier and my eye rings went away.
there are generally some health improvements you get from losing weight almost no matter how you do it
doesn't mean you won't start running into worse and worse health problems if you try to stay on such a diet long-term
it's typically around a year or so, maybe 2-3 for those that can stretch it a bit, that the health problems start to become so severe that they are no longer possible to deny without becoming depressed due to being incapable of admitting to oneself that one is suffering greatly

oh well, I'm headed off to bed for now again, but I'll probably keep addressing further replies tomorrow

>>15974847
>that's something you get from diets full of animal products
Which is why you don't fart from eating fiber anymore?
If I eat a salad I will be gassing the entire house.
Anon, aren't bacteria SUPPOSED to ferment fiber?
What happens if they stop? Is that healthy?
>tender young leaves are particularly low in antinutrients
I don't believe it and you have no source.
How can leaves contain fewer micronutrients than fruit?
One creates energy for the plant, the other literally just falls off and is eaten by critters most of the time.
Animals even spread the seeds by eating them.
>it's animal products which contain a variety of antinutrients inherent to them
Like? Seems to me as if Neu5Gc is the only example you have. And for that the *hypothesis* of it causing immune-mediated chronic inflammation remains yet to be proven.
Also this https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fcancers10090324
>diabetes is primarily caused by fat consumption, because fat and toxic fat metabolites block the action of insulin and prevent sugar from being metabolized properly
You are a complete idiot. I am honestly tired of repeating myself.
You can read the facts, you realize what they say, but then it just doesn't click, you immediately purge your short-term memory and pretend there weren't just 20 bombs dropped on your arguments.
Anyhow, if what you say was actually true, then there wouldn't be a diabetes epidemic corresponding to increased sneed oil and sugar consumption.
>if you eat no fat, you only experience very brief and transient blood sugar spikes when you eat
Completely false.
Fat moderates blood glucose and insulin, the less of it you eat, the higher the insulin response to protein or sugar intake. Butter is literally the lowest food on the food insulin index.
>high-fat diets actually lead to myelin disruption
see >>15974930

>>15975120
>there's a reason why so many people trying to stay on carnivore diets even as their health declines start to experience severe neuropathy
>as mentioned previously, they are causing themselves literal brain damage
https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.eplepsyres.2011.04.017
"it has been shown by many research groups that effective implementation of KD exerts strong neuroprotective effects with respect to social behavior and cognition"
https://doi.org/10.1186%2Fs12974-020-01948-5
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.07.020
Brain damage, huh?
https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2010.142
https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2020.1741505
>sure I do, because most of those plants have existed for tens of millions of years
>one particular example would be figs, which have likely constituted a large portion of our caloric intake for many millions of years, and happen to be particularly rich in calcium too
Nearly every modern fruit and vegetable is completely skewered from what it used to be by agricultural selection. Trees are slightly less affected by this, but "figs" is a really bad answer to my question.
Just look at Brassica, it's perhaps the best example.
>I already refuted that nonsense over many posts earlier in the thread, feel free to peruse them if you wish to educate yourself
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhac182
Every farmer knows about this, why don't you?
Why do you think I asked about which plants we would have eaten and what their nutrients were like?
>due to grazing
BS
Grazing is extremely important for lateral nutrient transport and carbon sequestration.
Modern agriculture, the endless cycle of monocrop and aggressive herbicide, pesticide, fungicide, insecticide and fertilizer usage, burning, drying and exposing of the fields and resulting top soil erosion are the cause.
Hybrid species bred for longevity also play a role.
Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDgDWbQtlKI

>>15975123
>except the diametric opposite is demonstrably true, and we see myelin disruption from high-fat diets hit the brain the hardest, due to it's large quantity of myelinated nerve tissue, not to mention how the brain also needs large quantities of carbohydrate just to run properly too
Wrong again and also these carbs can be produced endogenously. Outside of the brain your body actually burns mostly fatty acids, even when eating a lot of sugar. But then again, you don't understand the Krebs cycle.
>as I've made quite clear, I understand it orders of magnitude better than you ever will
You eat over a kilogram of leafs every day, you climb trees and you don't properly wipe your ass.
You will never be a real chimpanzee.
>like I mentioned earlier in the thread, there are tons of studies on Inuits eating their traditional diets demonstrating how they have the shortest and most disease-ridden lives on the planet by a wide margin in the process
Post ONE, you babbling idiot.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jand.2018.02.004
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8871682/4
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2319
>what's funny is that I've repeated numerous times that it's fruit that is what's important for the brain and intellect, not leaves
I am mocking the fact that you are functionally protein deficient, unless you eat ~4kg of leafs every day, which you told me was correct.
I understand that you believe that endless quantities of sugar are beneficial for brain health.
But in terms of protein content fruits are simply lacking. You will consume way too many calories in trying to gain enough protein from fruits.
>I've addressed pretty much everything so far, and in quite extensive detail too
Bottom tier vegan meme logic = in quite extensive detail too

>>15974865
>I'm correct about everything I've said so far
You have no studies and no gains.
>not true at all, and not how the stomach works
EXACTLY how the stomach works
https://doi.org/10.1079/bjn19860058
https://doi.org/10.3109/00365528609034612
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6095709/
>since humans are optimized for eating foods that have such low levels of naturally occurring pathogens, that was virtually never an issue for us during our evolution
Source: Your gaping asshole
>irrelevant to the gastric pH, which remains elevated in humans when food is present, unlike in carnivores
Source?
Also, you must realize that a lack of fiber and a relatively small portion size of meat have dramatically different effects on your stomach pH than eating a vegan diet with large portion sizes.
>the exception being if you're starting to get really sick, in which case you'll start to feel a lot of acid reflux, which coincidentally (not really, again, heh) is also extremely common in people doing something as retarded as a "carnivore" diet
It's funny because I used to get that all the time when I was eating sugar, but now that I am doing the carnivore diet I don't get it anymore, no matter how much I eat.
>not true at all, you'll see that it is 1-2 in the vast majority of sources
Nuh-uh. I posted the relevant studies earlier. It's 3.6. They only hunt fresh and don't touch rotting meat - they don't need as low of a pH.
Carrion feeders do, however, which is why birds have a pH similar to that of humans.
Dogs actually have an even higher pH at about 4.5, because their ancestors had more omniverous diets and no carrion feeding behavior.
>that fact has been known for well over a century, almost two centuries if I recall correctly
So where is the clinical trial treating diabetics with carbs?

Ok, well, I am done arguing now.
You never post any studies and ignore my posts.
You don't understand how to make an argument, it's always just making wild, baseless claims and >no >I already proved this when I said no earlier
I really hope it's all an elaborate ragebait, but judging by your in-depth views about all of this you do actually seem to be a delusional vegan who is trying to live like a damn chimp.
5/10, meme worthy but sad

If anyone comes along this thread and actually reads all of this, bless your day, most people would be dead with a gaping hole where their foreheads used to be by now.
May your day be blessed.

>>15975132
lol, the liberal is one of the shills from /k/ope.

>>15969715
>Why is the incidence rate of juvenile autoimmune diabetis increasing

Type 1 diabetes is a genetic condition that runs in families. It's triggered by your immune system getting confused while fighting a virus and genociding insulin producing cells but you need to be genetically predisposed to that. Insulin has been available for a century now, so generations of people reaching adulthood and reproducing instead of dying in childhood.

>inb4 it gets diagnosed more
This is another potential reason. T1 diabetics used to die because they were misdiagnosed with having the flue sometimes. The real reason was probably never discovered in some cases.

>>15975120
good morning
>don't fart from eating fiber anymore?
once your microbiome becomes healthy, it doesn't produce any excessive gas at all
>If I eat a salad I will be gassing the entire house.
of course, since you likely have one of the unhealthiest microbiomes on the planet
>aren't bacteria SUPPOSED to ferment fiber?
correct, but I still don't understand exactly what misconceptions you have that make you think this inherently produces a lot of flatulence
when your microbiome is extremely unhealthy, like yours is, then of course, but a healthy microbiome does not
personally I experience virtually zero flatulence at all, and my food is perfectly digested
>don't believe it
well, it's a fact, but feel free to remain in whatever delusional fantasy bubble you prefer
>How can leaves contain fewer micronutrients than fruit?
this was about antinutrients, not micronutrients
tender young leaves are abundant in micronutrients, more so than mature leaves
>One creates energy for the plant
the point of distinction here is whether the leaf is tender and young or whether it's mature and old
mature leaves have a ton of completely indigestible (unless you cook them, which is a good strategy if you lack tender young ones) fiber forming a structure that's already in place, and lots of antinutrients to prevent animals from eating the already mature leaves that are operational and producing lots of energy already
in contrast the tender young leaves have not yet had so much invested in them that the plant protects it with antinutrients, which is why young shoots and tender young leaves are not just less antinutritious, but also far more nutritious too (because the plant fills them with nutrients in order for them to grow); and the carbohydrates are less structural (less cellulose, more hemicellulose and shorter-chain carbohydrates that are more easily digestible)
>Like?
Neu5Gc is just one of the best examples, and is not "yet to be proven" at all
another would e.g. be heme-iron

>>15975120
>You are a complete idiot.
strange statement considering how I'm the one having to school you on all these basic facts
>You can read the facts
I have done that for more than a couple of decades by now, I'm the one explaining what those facts are to you
>immediately purge your short-term memory and pretend there weren't just 20 bombs dropped on your arguments
I've refuted every single "argument" you've presented (which is typically just completely fallacious reasoning or totally unfactual statements that originated as talking points despite having no basis in reality)
>Anyhow, if what you say was actually true, then there wouldn't be a diabetes epidemic corresponding to increased sneed oil and sugar consumption.
yes, that's exactly what there would be, oil consumption greatly increases diabetes incidence
but there's not just an increase in those, there's been a large increase in animal products consumption in general too, contributing to the diabetes increase as well
ironically, the increase in sugar intake is probably the only factor that isn't itself increasing the diabetes rate, it just highlights the underlying diabetes that people have gotten from all the fat consumption
>Completely false.
completely true, people on low-fat diets, especially ones with almost zero fat, have extremely brief and transient blood sugar and insulin spikes, because they have nothing to prevent the action of insulin in their blood at all, the blood sugar is rapidly shuttled into the cells, and the insulin drops back down
>Fat moderates blood glucose and insulin
this is the most hilariously idiotic statement I've read so far
fat and toxic fat metabolites literally block the action of insulin, causing blood sugar to build up and insulin to not go down (and even more insulin to be released in many cases)
extremely unhealthy
>Butter is literally the lowest food on the food insulin index.
of course fat itself doesn't trigger insulin, stating that obvious fact is missing the point

>>15975631
Are you the retard that is simultaneously arguing for the natural human diet from the last million years, while declaring refined sugars healthy?

>>15975123
>KD exerts strong neuroprotective effects
that's a hilarious misinterpretation of how ketogenic diets have been used to treat problems like epilepsy due to suppressing brain activity through lack of sugar
it's like saying a lobotomy fixes someone's social behavior and cognitive issues
priceless
>Brain damage, huh?
yes, quite literally severe myelin disruption, leading to literal brain damage
you can really see it in people who have forced themselves to stay on such diets for too long, the cognitive impairment becomes quite obvious (unless you yourself are cognitively impaired too of course, in which case you'll be like a couple of drooling morons not knowing any better)
>Nearly every modern fruit and vegetable is completely skewered from what it used to be by agricultural selection.
completely false, one of the first talking points I refuted thoroughly in this thread
this really only applies to a few very select fruits
>Trees are slightly less affected by this
the vast majority of human sustenance should come from fresh and ripe fruits that grow on trees
>"figs" is a really bad answer to my question
figs are among the most ancient angiosperms, and have grown wild for tens of millions of years
many wild figs are almost identical to figs you buy in stores
you really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?
>look at Brassica
that's one of the select few plants which has indeed been heavily selected for
not that this is actually anything inherently bad either, which is a separate point
brassicas aren't really the healthiest greens anyway, and typically intended for long-term storage and cooking, there are countless other tender and young greens that are much more similar to their wild counterparts and which are intended to be eaten fresh
>Every farmer knows about this, why don't you?
I know all about all of this
>Why do you think I asked about which plants we would have eaten and what their nutrients were like?
and I gave an example: figs

>>15975123
>>15975635
>>due to grazing
>BS
not at all
there's virtually nothing on the planet that decimates soil as hard as grazing does
it really destroys the soil completely over time
>Grazing is extremely important for lateral nutrient transport and carbon sequestration.
I can't stop laughing
this is some of the most ignorant and stupid nonsense ever, it's mind-boggling how people get sucked into these baseless ideas
what's really important is to grow back forest cover, which is what will hold water in place and produce its own rain, allowing life to flourish
in contrast, the more you graze, the more you end up with a lifeless and barren wasteland with no water, which ends up drying out and becoming a desert
>Modern agriculture, the endless cycle of monocrop and aggressive herbicide, pesticide, fungicide, insecticide and fertilizer usage, burning, drying and exposing of the fields and resulting top soil erosion are the cause.
that's certainly extremely horrible for soil too, probably roughly on par with grazing in terms of how destructive it is to soil
>>15975124
>Wrong again
nothing wrong about anything I've said, high-fat diets do cause myelin disruption and subsequent brain damage
>these carbs can be produced endogenously
not even remotely true, trying to rely exclusively on gluconeogenesis for carbohydrate is going to leave your body in a chronically biochemically stressed-out state, and will also tend to rely on protein to do so and produce excessive nitrogenous waste as well (hence all the gout in affluent people of all times, "the disease of kings"), and on top of that you still wouldn't be supplying anywhere close to the amount of sugar you need for optimal functioning
>Outside of the brain your body actually burns mostly fatty acids, even when eating a lot of sugar
blatantly false, not even remotely true, only a select few tissues rely on fatty acid oxidation when sugar is freely available

>>15975124
>>15975638
>you don't understand the Krebs cycle
as mentioned a couple of times already, I understand it orders of magnitude better than you ever will, which is why I understand exactly how the brain makes all its own cholesterol de novo in situ from intermediates of its sugar metabolism
>You eat over a kilogram of leafs every day
yes, as humans have done for tens of millions of years
>you climb trees
yes, every single day, the ideal form of physical activity in every way, and as humans have also done for tens of millions of years
>you don't properly wipe your ass
this is a cute projection, likely based on your own explosive diarrhea (which everyone knows is strongly associated with diets heavy in animal products, especially "carnivore" diets)
as I mentioned, my feces all have the perfect consistency and don't leave any trace behind
even on the single sheet I use whenever I defecate there's literally not a trace of feces, but I still do use it for the sake of propriety
>You will never be a real chimpanzee.
correct, humans are not chimpanzees
>Post ONE
studies showing abysmal health outcomes in Inuits are not in any lack, you must be suffering from extreme confirmation bias if you can't be bothered to find any of them yourself
>mocking the fact
what's funny is that you just end up mocking yourself, since you are so clueless about these things that it becomes so easy for me to run laps around you and joke about it in the process
>you are functionally protein deficient
clearly not true judging by my muscular physique and how I don't have any problems putting on muscle mass
>unless you eat ~4kg of leafs every day
already addressed this, 1-2 kilograms is what's ideal, 4 kilograms is too much for a hyperfrugivorous great ape
>which you told me was correct
actually, I explicitly told you it was incorrect, and that 1-2 kilograms is ideal
poor reading comprehension strikes again, it seems

>>15975124
>>15975638
>>15975641
>you believe that endless quantities of sugar are beneficial for brain health
large quantities of sugar is extremely important for brain health, yes, that's a well-established physiological fact
but keep in mind that the brain needs a ton of neuroprotective secondary bioactive metabolites too, like vitamin C, so the sugar should ideally come in the form of fresh and ripe fruit
>in terms of protein content fruits are simply lacking
well, as mentioned before Milton has shown that wild fruits tends to contain more protein than the cultivars that people like you tend to get hung up about, but fruits are indeed not the main source of protein, that would be tender young leaves
>You will consume way too many calories
evidently not the case, as I consume exactly the right amount of calories
>in trying to gain enough protein from fruits
I get that you have poor reading comprehension, but surely you've registered at this point that what's ideal is to both eat fresh and ripe fruit and tender young leaves, right?
not one or the other
I guess eating two different types of food is a hard concept for you to grasp
>>15975125
>no gains
my muscular physique and effortless tree climbing begs to differ
meanwhile your "gains" are from stressing out the body an unnatural amount with unnatural repetitive motions that will only cause you more health problems in the long run
I don't think you're exactly one to speak
>EXACTLY how the stomach works
not at all
those studies just show that humans eating their natural diet have a proper gastric pH response (as opposed to the diseased state they end up in if they eat too many animal products, which is when they get peptic ulcers, acid refluc, and a host of other gut issues, e.g. colitis, IBS, gastric paresis, and so on and so on)
if you were to feed tender young leaves to a cat its gastric pH would remain 1-2 due to how that's regulated quite tightly, and how hydrochloric acid is extremely effective in lowering pH

>>15975125
>>15975646
>Source: Your gaping asshole
it's another well-established fact
there are mostly two primary sources of food poisoning:
1) animal products
2) leaves grown in monocrops that are highly susceptible to disease
of course the first is the primary reason by far, and everyone knows this intimately well, but the second is also notable, because it shows that without the complex ecosystem of a forest you tend to get unhealthy greens that are not particularly resistant to disease-causing bacteria
that's why I recommend harvesting as many of your greens from local forests as possible, it's where I get the vast majority of my own greens
>It's 3.6.
incorrect, and you didn't post anything about that
feline gastric pH with food present is closer to 1-2, acidic enough to digest bone
>birds have a pH similar to that of humans
only birds that eat a lot of fruit have gastric pH levels similar to that of humans, e.g. parrots, the most intelligent birds on the planet
as mentioned, human gastric pH is 4-5 when food is present in the stomach
>Dogs actually have an even higher pH at about 4.5
false again, dogs also have a gastric pH of 1-2, and in fact have been found to actually have a lower gastric pH once fed as opposed to a higher one, as in humans
extremely different animals, us and dogs
remember that primates and carnivorans diverged ~80 million years ago, and it really does take tens of millions of years for an animal's physiology to adapt in such highly specialized ways as we respectively have
>where is the clinical trial treating diabetics with carbs?
there are countless such trials and studies detailing diabetes being cured with high-carbohydrate diets
what's funny to me is that you not only don't know of such trials and studies because you're so clueless, but that you have so much confirmation bias that you won't even bother to try finding them, since there's clearly part of your psyche that just couldn't get yourself to accept the results
quite embarrassing

>>15975132
>I am done arguing now
well, strictly speaking this isn't "arguing" so much as it is me schooling you on the facts
>never post any studies
only a fool thinks they can slam down studies and say "I told you so!"
I present general facts about physiology, biochemistry, evolutionary biology, and paleoanthropology, it's your responsibility to stop engaging in confirmation bias and go educate yourself about those facts
>ignore my posts
I clearly do nothing of the sort, as I address every single post in great detail
>don't understand how to make an argument
except that's exactly what I do in explaining to you clearly where you go wrong and exactly why that is, while presenting the correct explanation
>wild, baseless claims
everything I'm stating is based in reality, and has been proven countless times
>>no
>>I already proved this when I said no earlier
except I don't just say "no", I explain exactly why what you're saying is incorrect, and naturally I'll refer back to that instead of repeating myself verbatim
>elaborate ragebait
nothing of the sort, and when you start developing serious health problems you'll probably look back upon this thread with enormous gratitude as you start eating more fresh and ripe fruit and tender young leaves and notice how your health starts to improve
you're welcome
>your in-depth views
yes, it has taken me a couple of decades of intensive study to put all the pieces together, but I will acknowledge that my views are indeed extremely in-depth at this point, I hardly ever meet anyone with an understanding that matches mine
>delusional
what I'm saying is the diametric opposite of delusional, it's all factual and based on everything we know from the aforementioned fields of study
>trying to live like a damn chimp
not at all, I'm living as close as possible to what a natural human would with my given constraints
humans are closely related to chimpanzees, but we are not chimpanzees
still, our optimal diets will obviously be quite similar

>>15975633
the natural human diet is based on what we've eaten for the past tens of millions of years, not just a single million years
as for refined sugars, the main problem is that they lack all the nutrients found in the fresh and ripe fruit that we're meant to derive our large quantities of sugar from, but if you have to choose between refined sugar and fat, you should definitely eat the refined sugar, although I would at least consume it with a lot of water and fiber from other sources to emulate fruit as best as possible (e.g. add it to smoothies, stews, and so on)

>>15969715
The Food is poison. Unless you live on a small farm you are fucked.

I want to thank both sides of the debate for their remarkable effort. It's an extraordinary discussion that can be considered fundamental for future reference by those truly interested and willing to learn. It will take some time and effort to review how arguments compare to eachother. For example: articles are vague about the ways tools were used and that introduces biases.

>>15975668
>The Food is poison

>>15975026
>well-established
>fact

Literally not.
>meme statistic of laboratory parameters with no proper controls
>with allged genetic predisposition, which allegedly 90% have but it only breaks out in 0.4% of people.
Meaning it barely correlates

The it only breakes out 0.1% of the time meme, is a plausible deniability pitfall to excuse the imposibility to demonstrate causal releationship.
You spin stories of people who would be jobless if they wouldn p-hack and massage data to demonstrate their meme Gene has vague influences on xyz, because it is nothing but charlatanery worse then reading tea leafs.
It's a scam, to of load the impact of big chem, big pharma and big pesticide to the "miserable genes" of humans.
>no its not the poison that poisons you
>its the meme gene that mayority has but only gets activated in you, because you are a dysgenic piece of crap
>its your fault and the fault of your dysgenic perents who pass the meme gene to you.

>>15974930
>Myelin being extremely dependent on cholesterol availability and primarily made up of fat and protein. And now you will tell me our body actually needs tons of carbs for healthy myelin. (Without source.)
>I shall preempt that.
>https://doi.org/10.1080/1028415x.2021.1875300
>https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00401-019-01985-2
>https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1922344117

Based knowledge bro.
Myelin requieres 3 components:
>accesible fats
>accesible proteins
>sulfur to create the bonds

While plants can deliver sulfur, animal fats and proteins (not even meat but milk and eggs) are required to have a good development of the myeline sheath and joints.
The wierd rise in joint issues in younger and younger people is shocking, yet ignored.

I know 4 people who required joint surgury before the age of 30.
And 3 of them were vegans and one of them was a "energy drink consoomer gamer" who literally would have eaten cardboard if it would enhances with artificial flavors

>>15969861
You apparently do not know recent history.
Also I should have mentioned, that they still ate:
>eggs and milk
Because killing an animal that has the capability to convert grass, hay, insects and shitty grains into protein and fat rich food is a wonder of nature.

To kill your "food converter" was stupid, and if an animal was killed, literally every single part from skin to bones was used.
>organ soups
>bone broths
>leather
>etc.

And with that they ate bread, and bread knit.
Because it was literally forbidden by the catholic churches and monarchies to plant other shit.
Especcially closer to the cities it was hard to eat something different than bread and thin veggie soup (also the places where people got sick the most).

The further in the mountains or in rural areas you go historically you see taller and healther people, because the used animals as "biomatter to food converters" and consumed good broths from animal parts.
And still way less than today, but also way more than vegans do.
They ate a fraction of the amount of meat we eat today, but also way better and less contaminated with antibiotics, vaccines, pesticides and herbicides, and growthhormones.

>>15975759
>Literally not.
yes, quite literally
>>no its not the poison that poisons you
yes, that's exactly what poisons you, poisons like Neu5Gc and heme-iron
>>its the meme gene that mayority has but only gets activated in you, because you are a dysgenic piece of crap
>>its your fault and the fault of your dysgenic perents who pass the meme gene to you.
CMAH was deactivated in the human lineage ~2 million years ago
no human on the planet has a functional CMAH gene
that's why all humans suffer a system-wide chronic inflammatory autoimmune response to consuming Neu5Gc
>>15975772
>Based knowledge bro.
what they said was completely false though, as I pointed out
the brain in particular, which consists of huge quantities of myelinated tissue, makes all its own cholesterol de novo in situ from intermediates of its sugar metabolism, which is why a high-fat diet causes myelin disruption
>animal fats and proteins (not even meat but milk and eggs) are required to have a good development of the myeline sheath and joints
diametric opposite of the truth
the myelin part I've already dismantled to the point of obliteration, but the joints part is even funnier, given how the archetypical disease of affluence is gout, "the disease of kings", which is linked directly to increased consumption of animal products due to how it results from uric acid crystals building up in the joint, uric acid being a highly nitrogenous substance that forms when your metabolism produces excessive nitrogenous waste (even worse when you rely on proteins for gluconeogenesis)

>>15975826
>yes, quite literally
>>>no its not the poison that poisons you
>yes, that's exactly what poisons you, poisons like Neu5Gc and heme-iron
Provide scientific study in which they take non meme proccessed dehydrated, buffered natrual food which allegedly contains Neu5Gc and demonstrated clinical endpoint data that demonstrates that it is indeed poisonous.

Demonstrate a scientific study in which they isolate the protein with direct means such as protein assays while having controls that Neu5Gc is not a mere artifact of combining proteins with acids and reagents.

>>15969715
Ship of Theseus in real life. Your body is rejecting the hypothesis.

>>15975956
>non meme proccessed dehydrated, buffered natrual food which allegedly contains Neu5Gc
all the studies demonstrating it are already using such foods, namely meat, which does not "allegedly" contain Neu5Gc, but is known to contain it, because the CMAH works just fine in practically every other mammal on the planet, humans are one of the very few species with a deactivate CMAH gene
>in which they isolate the protein
Neu5Gc is a sialic acid, not a protein
I don't think you really have any idea what you're talking about at this point
>Neu5Gc is not a mere artifact
sialic acids are molecules that are attached to cell glycans (attached to the outside of the cells) to perform a wide variety of signaling processes
most mammals have a functional CMAH gene, so they produce both Neu5Ac, as well as convert this to Neu5Gc, and incorporate both sialic acids into their cell glycans
but in humans the CMAH gene was irreversibly mutated ~2 million years ago, so humans no longer produce Neu5Gc
this leads to the body identifying Neu5Gc as a so-called "xenoautoantigen", because the cells incorporate the Neu5Gc you ingest into its cell glycans, and then your immune system recognizes it as foreign and starts to attack your own cells, hence the chronic system-wide inflammation from autoimmune processes that accompanies Neu5Gc ingestion

>>15976004
Zeros studies linked.

>>15976014
these are all basic biochemical facts, there's nothing contentious about any of it
it's like me saying, "the body is made of cells", and you going, "SOURCE???"
apparently you don't even know what Neu5Gc is in the first place given that you thought it was a protein, so you should obviously take a minute or two to educate yourself about the basics

>>15976033
>biochemical facts
No.
Biochemistry is a hughe meme driven science, which is valid in the scientific experiments which are repeated follow the scientific method, and translated into real life.

The meme specificity of certain types of proteins and lipids come from requirement of usage of funding and the lengthy requirments for master thesis and dissertation in which they do nothing but story telling while interpreting in vitro artifacts.

It's memes. Like most sciences.

Thats why I specificly requested a study which follows the scientific method which validates your specific claim in the real world context.

>>15976044
>No.
yes, basic facts
>Biochemistry is a hughe meme driven science
literally the diametric opposite of the truth, it's one of the hardest sciences there is
>specificly requested a study which follows the scientific method which validates your specific claim
and like I said: first take 2 minutes to actually learn what Neu5Gc is, and then after that you can start reading the thousands of studies discussing the incorporation of it into human cells when they ingest it and the effects this has due to the ensuing autoimmune response

>>15976045
Still nothing provided
>google it
>trust me
>biochem is not riddled with unrepeatable and anspecific artifact studies
>its hard science because they use petridishes and vague interpretations which subsequently are used to extrapolate wierd inbred petridsish cellculture artifacts on complex living beings
>google it
>trust me
>trust the science

>>15976060
>nothing provided
I provided you with a factual statement: you thought Neu5Gc was a protein, so you don't even know the first thing about it
hence you should go learn the basics, otherwise it's pointless to discuss it, it would be like me trying to teach calculus to someone who has not yet learned basic arithmetic
>>biochem is not riddled with unrepeatable
you can find individual studies that are hard to replicate in virtually all sciences, there are even assertions made in physics to this day that have never been empirically verified
but this isn't such a case at all, something you'd know if you took a single minute to learn about the topic of the discussion: Neu5Gc
until you do this, no progress can be made here, because no one can force-feed someone else's brain information if they're hellbent on not wanting to know about it

>>15976076
Still not provides any scientific method of isolation and characerisation.
Still does not provide any scientific study which clinical endpoints that demonstrates that it is poison.

Neu5Gc.
Meme acid.
Found nowhere.
Except you take protein source.
Add acetone, dehydrate it washed with 1-propanol/NH4 OH/water and then heated to 115°C .
None of these events happen in the human body.

Not only that, they require the modified thiobarbituric acid method to even determine its existance.
This whole shit is a meme.

>>15976116
>Still not provides any scientific method of isolation and characerisation.
this was done for sialic acids 70 years ago
again: trying to discuss calculus with someone who doesn't know arithmetic is literally impossible
>Meme acid.
sialic acid
>Found nowhere.
>Except you take protein source.
found in the cell glycans of virtually every mammal cell, except for the ones with a dysfunctional CMAH gene
>Add acetone, dehydrate it washed with 1-propanol/NH4 OH/water and then heated to 115°C .
>Not only that, they require the modified thiobarbituric acid method to even determine its existance.
cute, suddenly trying to pretend like knowing anything about it at all after previously not even knowing that it wasn't a protein
pretty hilarious

>>15976121
source?

>>15976131
>me: "cells exist"
>you: "SOURCE???"
it's getting pretty stupid at this point
still not taking a single minute to learn what sialic acids even are, let alone Neu5Gc
I'd be embarrassed if I were you at this point

>>15969715
i will tell you one thing which CANNOT be the cause: safe and effective coupled with the speed of science.

>>15976133
retarded strawman.
Vastly different claim.

>specific meme compound that allegedly is only produced by an alleged genetic mutation, is causal for autoimmunity in humans, and its mostly present in non human red meat


Extremly different.
As I requested again:
>provide source of the specificity and nature of this compound
>how it is isolated
>how it is validated, that it is not a mere artifact of the procedure used to make sialic acids form
The do the subsequent required steps
>show a study that demonstrates that this compound produces inflamation and auotimmunity in humans
>in which a causality of this compound is established

You can't because the biochem meme method to demonstrate the existance of this compound is a extreme unnatrual intervention that alters the biochemical state of tissues and cells involved.
No direct method or essay is possible.

>>15976193
>different claim
exactly the same type of claim
>compound that allegedly is only produced by an alleged genetic mutation
see, you're not even reading what I'm writing
it's the diametric opposite: the genetic mutation causes it not to be produced in humans, the opposite of being produced
this is because the CMAH gene codes for an enzyme which is necessary for the conversion of Neu5Ac to Neu5Gc
but again, who am I kidding, it's not like you know what any of this means in the first place
>biochem meme
>>>/x/ is that way
this board is for science, like biochemistry

>>15976235
Still no link to any study which demonstrates anything.
Just
>bro we eat wrong since thousand of years

>>15976251
sialic acids have been isolated for over 70 years
your ignorance of the very basics of the topic at hand is not my responsibility
what you're doing is still exactly equivalent to asking about a source for the existence of cells, it's just ridiculous, demonstrates nothing other than your own willful ignorance, and detracts from actual discussion
shame on you

>>15976251
>>bro we eat wrong since thousand of years
it's mostly the past ~50,000 years or so with the advent of effective projectile weaponry that humans have consumed foods containing Neu5Gc in any significant amount, which is a negligible blip of time in an evolutionary context, hence why it still causes such a strong systemwide chronic inflammatory autoimmune reaction
for the first ~1,950,000 years after the mutation we didn't really eat such foods at all, nor before it (which is likely part of why humans with such a mutation were so successful)

>>15976262
NTA but
If the theory is that neu5gc causes autoimmune disease in humans because
>we eat neu5gc
>it's incorporated into surface of cells
>immune system recognises neu5gc as non-self antigen
>attacks cells with neu5gc
Then as long as red meat is part of the diet from infancy, when the immune system is still learning which antigens are self vs non-self, neu5gc shouldn't be a problem.

>>15976329
>>we eat neu5gc
>>it's incorporated into surface of cells
>>immune system recognises neu5gc as non-self antigen
>>attacks cells with neu5gc
correct
>Then as long as red meat is part of the diet from infancy, when the immune system is still learning which antigens are self vs non-self, neu5gc shouldn't be a problem.
good hypothesis, but incorrect, because the antibodies start to be produced the very moment Neu5Gc is introduced in the diet
in e.g. this paper we read:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6481270/
>Our group later showed that human anti-Neu5Gc glycan antibodies appear during the first year of life and correlate with the introduction of Neu5Gc in the diet. Sera from infants aged 0–12 months were analyzed, and anti-Neu5Gc IgM and IgG antibodies against Neu5Gcα2-6Lac started to appear at the time these infants were weaned on to cow's milk-based formula. Interestingly, anti-Neu5Gc IgM antibodies were absent at birth and at 3 months, appeared at 6 months and the levels stabilized at 12 months. There was no difference in anti-Neu5Gc IgM and IgG titers between male and female subjects. The absence of anti-Neu5Gc IgM antibodies in cord blood sera suggests that anti-Neu5Gc antibodies are not germ-line encoded “natural” antibodies that occur naturally in human and other mammals, but instead require a postnatal antigenic stimulus. Anti-Neu5Gc antibodies are likely to be affinity matured antibodies as has been shown earlier.
the problem is inherent to the fact that humans simply cannot make it themselves due to the lack of the CMAH gene, so it is always detected by the immune system as an antigen, and antibodies are produced accordingly
here the same is concluded:
https://medcraveonline.com/JSRT/JSRT-06-00144.pdf
>The human body is unable to produce Neu5Gc, and regard these as foreign. When exposed to Neu5Gc molecules, humoral immunity is activated, and this initiates the production of anti-Neu5Gc antibodies.

>>15976329
>theory
Hypothesis

>>15976393
>Hypothesis
well-established biochemical fact

>>15976262
It's well established in the scientific community that an agrarian lifestyle and diet has been disastrous for human health

>>15976383
>this paper we read
You retarded liar.

In this paper they reviewd multiple studies and occurances of so called Serum sickness.
This is neither a study nor contains one scientific experiment.
But it attempts to connect ancient medical malpractice with modern chronic inflamatory syndromes.
Starting with the one happening during the late 1800s and early 1920s.
Which exclusively happened via injection of so called "antiserum".

E.g. Antiserum for diphteria, which was composed of:
>beef broth, petridish washing of diphteria toxins altered with phenol red.

This antiserum was often directly injected in veins or intrapenetoreal (in the stommach).
Also during that time, they only strained the liquid through a ceramic filter, which allowed particles larger than 30 microns to be in the liquid.
It was effectively NON sterile.

Phenol is toxic aswell.
They did then the brain acrobatics to extrapolate from the horrible medical procedure to
> beef causes autoimmunity, because of unvalidated antibody tests

You provided reviews and brain acrobatics that try to connect a century old retarded and dangerous medical practice with the ingestion of red meat causing autoimmunity.

The globohomo agenda of gaslighting people into believing that "natural product you eat is causal for modern civilisatory phenomenon", is the most nosey attempt of generating a plausible deniability claim, since the attempt of gaslighting thalidomide victims as "alcohol syndrome" and "bad genetic".

Same retarded plausible deniability retardation.

>>15976406
well, not all paleoanthropologists agree, but it's a common view
it's certainly not widespread among scientists in general
however, fact is that it was abandoning our natural habitat of the rainforest and our natural diet there as foragers which was disastrous for our health, especially when we started having to resort to significant quantities of meat ~50,000 years ago as we moved into increasingly hostile habitats and started using effective projectile weaponry
as such an agrarian lifestyle itself was never the main problem, but abandoning our natural diet of fresh and ripe fruits and tender young leaves
some forms of early agriculture would probably even have been a great improvement in health, like permacultural agroforestry, and early forms of syntropic agriculture (e.g. "three sisters" planting by early American natives)
but I can certainly agree that the advent of monocultured crops was probably just as disastrous for human health as starting to eat a lot of meat was

>>15976428
>You retarded liar.
no lie there at all
>antiserum
that was just a tangential point about the beginnings of the discovery, and it's about Neu5Gc in particular
>with the ingestion of red meat causing autoimmunity
which indeed is exactly what occurs (as well as from other sources, like dairy)
>natural product you eat
there's nothing natural about eating meat for humans, it's extremely unnatural, and only something we started doing in significant amounts a measly ~50,000 years ago, long after we had evolved our current herbivorous physiology, and ~1,950,000 years after our CMAH gene was deactivated

>>15976440
Could provide please a single scientific experiment with a control that would demonstrate the causality

>>15976477
your notion that science pertains exclusively to RCTs to establish causation is quite delusional
in complex systems like the body that's not even always possible at all, because an effect can have countless different contributing factors (e.g. like a neuron triggering and raising the potential of another without immediately triggering it, but making it more prone to trigger)
fact is that we know Neu5Gc cannot be produced by humans due to the deactivated CMAH gene, and we also know that Neu5Gc gets incorporated into our cell glycans, and furthermore we know that the body creates specific anti-Neu5Gc antibodies in response to those Neu5Gc glycans
you even have observational studies like this one, showing a clear and strong association to the point where they can even make an index of just how antigenic various foods are in terms of their Neu5Gc content:
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-020-01721-8
>We found a clear link between the levels and repertoire of serum anti-Neu5Gc IgG and Neu5Gc intake from red meat and dairy. These precise rational methodologies allowed to develop a Gcemic index to simplify the assessment of Neu5Gc in foods that could potentially be adapted for dietary recommendations to reduce cancer risk.
note that the link to cancer is a completely separate point to the Neu5Gc part (apparently I need to clarify such things for you, since you otherwise rabidly start trying to attack parts that aren't particularly relevant to the exact topic of discussion)
in any case, as I mentioned earlier, trying to slam down different studies is really pointless when it comes to getting an overall gestalt of the situation, and it's quite clear from your earlier posts that you're awfully myopic and desperately try to wedge in a denial or refusal at every turn when you don't even know the basics, which is clearly not in good faith
so from this point on I will simply keep explaining the facts rather than refer to specific studies

>>15976523
>your notion that science pertains exclusively to RCTs to establish causation

No rct is required.
A simple controlled study which demonstrates the causal effect of a substance.

No rct is required.
Just the appliance of the banale scientific method.
>have phenomenon
>think about hypothetical causal variable
>make experiment with variable
>one control
>one with viriable
>demonstrate phenomenon

What you do is make up shit.
Hypothetical memes.
Association = causation.
long winded stories and reviews which do nothing but associate memes.

All I want is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that A causes B.
You literally question human dietary habits that exists before industrial intervention, in such a manner that it is ridiculous.
Because a novel phenomenon such as autoimmunity, which itself is nothing but a "gap filling meme" to avoid the "unknown".
We have a increase in the YOUNG of clinical chronic inflamation syndromes, from nervoussystem to enteric system to skin.
Which is a novel phenomenon, yet you make a huge claim that it the fault of mainly animal products, because of a really specific compound.

Then please without "but it is clear, because le science, please google it, within 2 minutes", show me a study that shows, that there is a generalizable effect of the compound in question.
And please don't come at me with proxy markers like antibodies.
Direct evidence, not proxies which are not verified either.
You cannot even demonstrate the validity of the test, that shows the antibody, because such a thing is never calibrated.

It's vaccines, SSRIs, Mood Stabilisers, Ritalin/Adderal and the reccomendation of giving Infants "VitaminnD" in the form of "Flouride enhanced Vitamin D supplements".
All this shit started to explode in the late 80s and early 90s

>>15976383
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20624889/
>However, dietary Neu5Gc alone cannot elicit anti-Neu5Gc antibodies in mice with a humanlike Neu5Gc deficiency
>Here, we show that trace exogenous Neu5Gc can be incorporated into cell surface lipooligosaccharides (LOS) of nontypeable Haemophilus influenzae (NTHi), a human-specific commensal/pathogen
>Furthermore, NTHi that express Neu5Gc-containing LOS induce anti-Neu5Gc antibodies in Neu5Gc-deficient mice, without added adjuvant.

Do you see?
It isn't that neu5gc is an inherently inflammatory antigen just because human DNA no longer codes for it - our immune system doesn't check our DNA to see if it produces proteins capable of producing a given antigen. Otherwise all of the millions of non-endogenous substances we ingest that our DNA we ingest would also be inflammatory.
Neu5gc in the human body is incorporated into the structure of viruses and bacteria which the immune system recognises as non-self, and the immune system learns to target neu5gc incidentally in the process. That's thought to be why humans lost endogenous neu5gc in the first place - lacking it protected us from pathogens which required it in order to proliferate.

>>15977141
>NTHi that express Neu5Gc-containing LOS induce anti-Neu5Gc antibodies in Neu5Gc-deficient mice, without added adjuvant.
I'm replying to myself with this part for emphasis - anti-neu5gc antibodies are produced simply by inoculation with influenza virus that have incorporated neu5gc into their structure, in a complete dietary absence of neu5gc.

>>15977141
>LOS
So you are telling me that, no meme antigene response happens when you ingest it.
But if you inject LOS, lipooligosaccharides (like we do with vaccines), we elicit a response to it.

Which either means:
> immune response and antibodies are non specific
or
> vaccines cause immune response to the compound

Also no control is present to demonstrate the specificity of the antibody, by injecting lets say other polysacharides or lipooligosaccharides

>>15976591
you're just repeating the same fallacious and unscientific nonsens as above, already addressed
>What you do is make up shit.
stating scientific facts of biochemistry is not making up anything
>Hypothetical memes.
biochemistry is a science, not a meme
again, >>>/x/ is that way
>All I want is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that A causes B.
which we have, we know intimately well that ingestion of Neu5Gc causes anti-Neu5Gc antibodies to be produced and cells with Neu5Gc glycans to be attacked
you don't understand what "reasonable doubt" means
>human dietary habits that exists before industrial intervention
see, you keep hammering home that you don't have any perspective
you think pre-industrial times were somehow uniform, but fact is that the line should not be drawn at industrial intervention, but the time we left the rainforest, and especially the time when we migrated to more extreme habitats where we were forced to rely on extremely unnatural foods to survive
>novel phenomenon such as autoimmunity
not novel at all, humans have experienced an autoimmune reaction from consuming Neu5Gc for the two millions years our CMAH gene has been gone
>increase in the YOUNG of clinical chronic inflamation syndromes, from nervoussystem to enteric system to skin
increases all around, as animal products consumption has increased
>Then please without "but it is clear, because le science, please google it, within 2 minutes", show me a study that shows, that there is a generalizable effect of the compound in question.
as I said above, it's not my job to spoon-feed you basic biochemical facts (even though I've already done so despite that)
if you desperately don't want to learn about Neu5Gc, then feel free to remain as ignorant as you like, but go somewhere else while the adults discuss it
>proxy markers like antibodies
see, you don't even understand basic biochemistry or the very basis of the human immune system
it's really quite embarrassing

>>15977179
>facts of biochemistry
A biochemical fact is validated with controlled experiments.
A biochemical proxy method is validated by calibrating it against the direct method to demonstrate the accuracy of the proxy method.
Biochemistry is usefull, yet most studies which use biochemistry, is using:
>inbred cells
>invasive washing
>invasive fixations
>dehydration
>heating
>reagents not present in the human body
>heating again
>adding it to inbread cell cultures such as vero cells or donkey blood
>then extrabolating any artifact to human beings

You still did not provide anything such as a demonstration of causality.
You present a long chain of interpretations, with non-natural altered cell cultures, invasive intraperitoneal injections of infant mice, and interpretations of seroconversion without controls.

This is not "science" this is fraud and wierd alchemical trial and error of far from reality interventions and incubation methods.

>>15977141
>Do you see?
I've been reading all of the studies for longer than you've been alive, kid
>It isn't that neu5gc is an inherently inflammatory antigen just because human DNA no longer codes for it
yes, it is precisely that, through the mechanisms elucidated there
>our immune system doesn't check our DNA to see if it produces proteins capable of producing a given antigen
I never said that it did either
>Otherwise all of the millions of non-endogenous substances we ingest that our DNA we ingest would also be inflammatory.
no, blatantly false, totally fallacious reasoning
the difference is this: Neu5Gc, as a sialic acid, literally gets incorporated into the cell glycans themselves, so the body literally starts considering the cells as foreign
thus the inflammatory autoimmune response
simply ingesting a foreign body, if it's biological, will also produce antibodies, but those antibodies won't be attacking your own cells
see the difference?
>Neu5gc in the human body is incorporated into the structure of viruses and bacteria which the immune system recognises as non-self
correct, and rightly so
>the immune system learns to target neu5gc incidentally in the process
it's not "incidentally", but with very good reason
>That's thought to be why humans lost endogenous neu5gc in the first place - lacking it protected us from pathogens which required it in order to proliferate.
yes, that's exactly correct
no idea what your point even is at this point
fact remains: due to cells with glycans containing Neu5Gc being identified as foreign by the immune system, ingestion of Neu5Gc leads to a chronic system-wide autoimmune inflammatory reaction
I don't really have any idea why you think it's a point against what I'm saying that the actual immunity itself is mediated through pathogens present in the body, because that will inevitably happen as soon as you start to ingest it, which is precisely why the antibodies are produced when you ingest it, the more the more you ingest

>>15977187
>A biochemical fact is validated with controlled experiments.
still the exact same flawed reasoning, you don't understand that science goes well beyond just whatever you can prove causally in an RCT
this is also why evolutionary biology is just as scientific, although I can tell from the way and what you write and your totally misunderstanding and misapplication of "reasonable doubt" (which you don't understand what means) that you're the exact same moron who refuses to acknowledge evolutionary biology as science either, even though it absolutely is
that's why you should go back to >>>/x/ where you belong and let the adults who understand that science encompasses much more than just controlled experiments proving causation talk among ourselves

>>15977192
>RCT
You still pretend that a randomized control trial is what I mean.

It is simple to demonstrate what you claim.
>Demonstrate the presence of compound
>validate that the compound is not created/synthezided by reagents and heating procedures
Because otherwise you could also say that "Diesel fuel is in the human body, because if you do xyz chemical reactions with human fat, the end result is diesel fuel"

>This compound in the natural form in meat causes systemwide inflamation
>take meat introduce it to alleged suceptible host
>exclude all other variables
>demonstrate causality of compound

>Antibodyis specific because it exclusivly binds to compound
>isolate antige
>expose antigene to various sacharides and antigenes to demonstrate specificity
>exclude sensibility

Easy as that.
Your constant mentioning of a "RCT" is beyond retarded.
If you say that A causes B then demonstrate it.

If you say "but muh biochem, and we can't actually do it, because we must do various indirect procedures and have to interprete serological data, without controls, because it is self evident", then it is pseudoscience.
>please do not question methods
>please do not validate methods
>just pretend methods are accurate with no proof whatsoever
>trust the science

>>15977200
>>isolate antige
>>expose antigene to various sacharides and antigenes to demonstrate specificity
I mean:

>isolate antibody
>expose antibody to various sacharides and antigenes to demonstrate specificity

>>15977200
Checked

This discussion boils down to:
>picrel

>>15977200
see, now you're back to not just denying everything we know about Neu5Gc, but to desperately refusing to acknowledge the existence of sialic acids in the first place, despite the fact that we've isolated them for over 70 years
all because you know you can't discuss science on the grounds of the actual facts themselves, so instead you bury your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge the very scientific discipline itself
it's really quite embarrassing
I also addressed all of this here:
>>15977179
>Your constant mentioning of a "RCT" is beyond retarded.
it's not, because that is what you're asking for, you just don't understand it since you don't even know the first thing about science
>>15977213
that image was made by someone who doesn't actually understand how science works and how encompassing it really is
neither side of that image is even remotely correct
science is more like puzzling together a large number of pieces into a coherent picture
controlled experiments are certainly part of that picture, and there have been done tons of controlled experiments pertaining to sialic acids and their role in glycans in a wide variety of animals, but thinking that that is exclusively what constitutes science is not just wrong, but totally delusional

>>15977217
>ask for the source that demonstrates claim
>embarrassing

>>15977233
like I've said previously, it's not my job to spoon-feed you basic biochemical knowledge, especially not that has been known for over half a century
but even so I did provide some specific papers demonstrating what I'm talking about too, but of course you just keep deflecting by trying to turn away the very notion of biochemistry as a science, so there's obviously nothing I can do to pull your head out of the ground when you've cemented it there

>>15977243
So you are a liar, that doesn't even know the foundations of your claim.

>>15977200
>>This compound in the natural form in meat causes systemwide inflamation
presence of antibodies alone is not indicative of inflammation - an antibody can bind to an antigen to prevent other immunoglobins from detecting it and inducing a pro-inflammatory immune response

demonstrating the existence of an antibody that binds to neu5gc does not demonstrate that neu5gc is causing inflammation unless you can ALSO demonstrate that this specific antibody induces a pro-inflammatory response

>>15977245
nothing I've said is a lie
there's a big difference between me being a liar and you being willfully ignorant
>doesn't even know the foundations
priceless irony
>>15977247
the problem in the case of Neu5Gc is that it's literally incorporated into glycans attached to your own cells
thus there's no way around the immune system attacking your own cells
so what antibodies normally do isn't applicable, it's a very unique situation
>neu5gc is causing inflammation
Neu5Gc isn't what's causing inflammation directly
the inflammation comes from your own immune system attacking your own cells because they have Neu5Gc-containing glycans attached to them

>>15977247
Nigga don't you get it?
We are all dysgenic defect beings, that did everything wrong since for ever.
Science is and was always right.
The facts changing means that science is always right.
So shut the fuck up.
Stop eating meat.
Consoom science approved products.
Eat only science approved food.
Glycans and meat, and dairy, and non science approved food is at fault for your diseases and ailments.
You are broken and only science can fix it.
Everything is your genetics fault.

>>15977257
BASED science lover.
Our defect bodies need to be enhanced by science and we need more regulations and scientific interventions of human life in this shitty dysgenic world.
Science our saviour.
Our body is our prison.
Only science can free us with more strict scientifically approved rules, laws and dietary interventions.
Fuck these science denying right wing nazi esotherics.

You are the best for providing this information.
>dysgenic mutants are in full denial

We are deffective beings.
Only science can show us the way.
Hail science.
Praise the lab work.

>>15977264
>>15977268
>We are all dysgenic defect beings
nonsense
the absence of CMAH has been quite a boon for humans
>did everything wrong since for ever
not even remotely the case, humans went wrong very recently, just ~200,000 years or so for our particular species
compare that to tens of millions of years of doing everything right (not that we had to consciously think about that, since it was just natural to us)
>Science is and was always right.
you have an extremely poor conception of what science even is in the first place
>Stop eating meat.
no one here is really making such imperative normative statements
it's all conditional, so a more correct formulation would be: don't eat meat unless you want to actively poison yourself
likewise, a similar conditional statement would be: if you want to experience optimal human health, eat the natural human foods we've evolved to eat over tens of millions of years, i.e. fresh and ripe fruits (especially tropical fruits) and tender young leaves

>>15977233
You mongoloid retard.
It's literally the basics.
It's even more basic than 1+1 = 2.
If you don't know that Neu5Gc is killing literally right now billions and turning every human being into chronically inflamed dysgenic pieces of warm wastes of biomass, then you are literally no question asked an embarrassing denier of science.
Get your fucking facts right.

>>15977273
>It's literally the basics.
yes, the facts I've mentioned about sialic acids and glycans are really very basic biochemistry
>Neu5Gc is killing literally right now billions
not quite how it works, but it's certainly contributing to the biggest killers of humanity, like heart disease, atherosclerosis, and cancers
>turning every human being into chronically inflamed
only the people who consume Neu5Gc
but yes, those people do end up with chronic systemwide autoimmune inflammation
>dysgenic
still the opposite of the truth, if anything the loss of CMAH was quite eugenic

>>15977271
>it's all conditional, so a more correct formulation would be: don't eat meat unless you want to actively poison yourself
Baaased as fuck.
Exactly.
Meat is poison.
And yes everyone has the freedom to poison themselves.
But In fact not if it is to MY COST.
So no, we must ban meat, and get rid of everyone who denies the science on CMAH and Neu5Gc .
Because these disgusting consoomers, are at fault of the dysgenic nature of our society.
You are 100% right.
It's a conditional choice:
>if you eat meat you activly poison yourself
Which translates to:
>if you eat meat you will become a burden to society
>you are a useless burden
>a useless eater

chronically inflamed dysgenic humans, are a burden.
This should be punishable by law.
Production and selling of meat should be banned.
Everyone denying science should be persecuted, because they are halting progress and prosperity and furthering dysgenics.

>>15977276
Meat eating is dysgenic.
Meat eating during pregnancy is dysgenic.
Imagine the inflamation and burn and pain and poison the fetus will be put through, how much waste of enery is there when a fetus is constantly literally and factually and scientifcally proven POISONED with meat.

All this energy that is wasted on chronic inflamation on fetuses could be used to generate a 100% optimal perfect brain and body.

Yes it is dysgenic to eat meat, because with every little gram of meat, you will waste resources and downgrade your body.
Which subsequently will lead to weaker and shittier and dumber offspring.

EATING meat is Dysgenic.
You got all the facts right, except this one.

>>15977276
>but yes, those people do end up with chronic systemwide autoimmune inflammation

If only meat eaters would know how severly chronically asymptomatically inflamed they are....

>>15977279
>Exactly.
indeed
>Meat is poison.
to humans, yes, that is correct
>yes everyone has the freedom to poison themselves
also correct, as can be seen from e.g. how people drink alcohol, another highly toxic substance
as well as behaviors like smoking, and so on
it's not exactly news that most people actively poison themselves in a wide variety of ways
>we must ban
>get rid of everyone
>punishable by law
>should be banned
>should be persecuted
no idea why you're trying to turn a scientific discussion into something about policy
>>>/pol/ is that way if you want to talk about that
>dysgenic nature of our society
as mentioned a couple of times, the loss of CMAH was quite eugenic, not dysgenic
>You are 100% right.
I know
>>15977283
>Meat eating is dysgenic.
I don't think you understand what "dysgenic" really means
>Meat eating during pregnancy is dysgenic.
not dysgenic, but it can certainly be harmful to the child, much like smoking and drinking alcohol during pregnancy can negatively affect the fetus
>Imagine the inflamation and burn and pain and poison the fetus will be put through, how much waste of enery is there when a fetus is constantly literally and factually and scientifcally proven POISONED with meat.
it's not really that extreme, more like chronic inflammation which contributes to disease processes
>could be used to generate a 100% optimal perfect brain and body.
well, most parents want the best for their children, especially mothers, which is why they tend to stop smoking and drinking while pregnant
>with every little gram of meat, you will waste resources and downgrade your body
this is true, it's quite harmful to human physiology
but so is a lot of other things people do
>>15977285
>If only meat eaters would know how severly chronically asymptomatically inflamed they are....
it's not asymptomatic at all, it's constantly contributing to disease processes, which is part of why cultures who subsist mainly on meat have short disease-ridden lives

>>15977292
So I am chronicly inflamed, and I just don't know it ?

>>15977257
>thus there's no way around the immune system attacking your own cells
Yes there is - class-switched IgG4 anti-neu5gc antibodies that bind to neu5gc expressed on cell surfaces, preventing immune system from attacking said cells.
How else do you explain the majority of meat-eaters NOT suffering from autoimmune conditions?
>presence of antibodies alone is not indicative of inflammation

>>15977314
>I am chronicly inflamed
if you consume any dietary Neu5Gc that will inevitably result in chronic systemwide autoimmune inflammation
>I just don't know it ?
it affects you in a wide variety of ways
think of it more like a frog in water being slowly boiled type of situation, you might not actively notice the chronic underlying inflammation at first, but it will constantly be causing an underlying sense of physical unease (which is what "disease" is, it literally means not being at ease), and will frequently breach the level of consciously becoming aware that something isn't quite right
but of course mostly people have no idea what's causing them not to be at ease most of the time, and end up projecting it outward, often lashing out at others or resorting to drugs like alcohol and tobacco, or even stronger, to cope
from the way your formulate your question in a really poor attempt at being sarcastic, it becomes quite clear that you don't really understand how disease processes in the body work, and how disease is really a progression along a gradient, not a binary switch between "diseased" and "not diseased", which is sadly one of the big misconceptions that come with thinking in terms of "having a disease", since such a conceptualization makes it into something discrete rather than highlight the underlying continuum
>>15977319
>Yes there is
not at all
>class-switched IgG4 anti-neu5gc antibodies that bind to neu5gc expressed on cell surfaces
you still don't understand how sialic acids and glycans work
first you need to understand those basics, then you will understand why something like that can't work in this case
Neu5Gc is not "expressed on cell surfaces", sialic acids are incorporated into glycans that are attached to the cells
>How else do you explain the majority of meat-eaters NOT suffering from autoimmune conditions?
all people who eat meat are suffering from such an autoimmune response
see my other reply right above to understand how that works

>>15977328
>first you need to understand those basics, then you will understand why something like that can't work in this case
>Neu5Gc is not "expressed on cell surfaces", sialic acids are incorporated into glycans that are attached to the cells
Hair-splitting sophistry.
IgG4 antibody binds to neu5gc incorporated into glycocalyx - no inflammatory immune response
>>15977328
>if you consume any dietary Neu5Gc that will inevitably result in chronic systemwide autoimmune inflammation
Quantify it
Remember
>presence of antibodies alone is not indicative of inflammation

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6660244/
>Rural lifestyle has been shown to be highly protective against the development of allergies. Contact to farm-animals or pets and early-life consumption of milk products turned out to be important. These exposures provide contact to N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), a sialic acid naturally expressed in mammalians but not in humans or microbes although both are able to incorporate exogenously provided Neu5Gc and induce thereby an anti-Neu5Gc antibody response.
>Neu5Gc-providing exposures that were associated with protection against allergies were reflected in an elevated anti-Neu5Gc IgG level in children. Exposure to Neu5Gc was associated with anti-inflammation and protection of asthma development in children and mice without contribution of anti-Neu5Gc antibodies.

>>15977333
>Hair-splitting sophistry.
no, that's exactly what it's not, it's a highly unique situation in terms of what the immune reaction ends up being
this is why it has a unique term as well: xenosialitis, with Neu5Gc described as a xenoautoantigen
>Quantify it
is easily done by measuring the level of Neu5Gc antibodies, even done in one of the studies I provided above
>>presence of antibodies alone is not indicative of inflammation
in the case of this type of Neu5Gc-induced autoimmune response, xenosialitis as it is termed, then yes, the presence of such antibodies is indeed indicative of the presence of Neu5Gc and the immune system actively attacking your own cells
the levels of such antibodies has been found to correspond directly to the amount of Neu5Gc in the foods you eat
>>15977344
that's probably the most ridiculous conclusion you could imaginably draw from that data
what is shows is just what we already know: consuming Neu5Gc, such as through milk, but also low-level exposure of being around animal cells, will indeed cause elevated levels of Neu5Gc antibodies
but the idea that these are somehow anti-inflammatory is laughable nonsense, because the positive effects they list, such as being less prone to allergy and asthma, are well-known effects of simply being around animals when young due to being exposed to various animal antigens that we can then develop a normal antibody reaction to
it's also funny how they try to frame the loss of CMAH as a terrible loss of the "anti-inflammatory molecule" that is Neu5Gc, when fact is that it was precisely humans who lost this who went on to become the most successful species
also, statements like:
>the move away from traditional farming environments limits the exposure to Neu5Gc
are just wildly ignorant, because most people are exposed to dairy and meat from a young age, and as shown in other studies most humans have already developed Neu5Gc antibodies at 12 months old

>>15977344
>>15977358
what's even more curious here is your own psychology, though
clearly you have tried to comb through studies about Neu5Gc to find whatever you can to support your own preconceived biases
why not post all the other studies demonstrating clearly that Neu5Gc causes chronic inflammation?
not really to your liking when it goes against your ideology, eh?
too bad, because science is science, and has no room for ideology

>>15977344
>>15977333
Bro just leave him.
He thinks that the entire phenomenon is simply explained by a simple cause and one molecule.

No proof is required.
Or to be acurate
>brO tHis Is fAcT siNce 70 yeArs
>beCauSe somEone iSolAteD it by maEns yOu aRe nOt aLloweD to qUestiOn

>>15977358
You don't understand immunology half as well as you think you do if you think antibodies are inherently inflammatory, or universally instruct the body to attack the things they bind to.
How strange, that the more neu5gc a child is exposed to, the less autoimmune conditions they exhibit. What a strange inflammatory compound, the more of it you are exposed to from an early age, the less inflammatory it is.
It's almost as if the body can learn not to have an inflammatory response to something.

Your hypothesis is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable - if we fail to detect acute inflammation following consumption of neu5gc, you simply assert that the inflammation is so subtle as to be undetectable.
Children (growing up on farms) with the highest levels of neu5gc and anti-neu5gc antibodies have the lowest rates of autoimmune conditions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091674917309946
>In children anti-Neu5Gc IgG levels correlated positively with living on a farm and increased peripheral blood forkhead box protein 3 expression and correlated inversely with wheezing and asthma in nonatopic subjects. Exposure to Neu5Gc in mice resulted in reduced airway hyperresponsiveness and inflammatory cell recruitment to the lung. Furthermore, Neu5Gc administration to mice reduced the severity of a colitis model. Mechanistically, we found that Neu5Gc exposure reduced IL-17+ T-cell numbers and supported differentiation of regulatory T cells.

>>15977368
>why not post all the other studies demonstrating clearly that Neu5Gc causes chronic inflammation?
Post a single one that didn't induce anti-neu5gc by inoculation with neu5gc-bearing pathogens. Post a study that demonstrated chronic inflammation through mere dietary ingestion of neu5gc.

>>15977368
>why not post all the other studies demonstrating clearly that Neu5Gc causes chronic inflammation?

It's easy.
No such studies exists.
Please refer to reviews and interpretations of adjacent material that we stitch together with extrapolations.

No causality needs to be proven, because it is self evident, because we say so.
the end.

Also if he would source the "intial isolation experiment" or any experiment that is used to even establish the method of demonstrating this compound, then the question will arise:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11426701/
>how does this procedure prove that the molecule is present in the sample
>when you can only find it if
>taking a sea cucumber
>homogenized with 10 volumes of acetone, and the homogenate was filtered
>taking homogenate and embedding it in hexamethyldisilazane and trimethylchlorosilane and
>was washed with acetone, repeatedly, and dried under reduced pressure.
>The plate was developed twice with 1-propanol/NH4OH/water (6/2.5/1, v/v/v),
>sprayed with the diphenylamine reagent,12 and heated at 115 °C for 15 min to reveal sialic acids.
>Sialic acid was determined by the modified thiobarbituric acid method

>>15977380
>Post a single one that didn't induce anti-neu5gc by inoculation with neu5gc-bearing pathogens
reversal of burden of proof falacy.

You literally claimed that it causes inflamation and is causal for autoimmunity, yet you bend and hide and avoid posting a single scientific experiment that would demonstrate causality.

>>15977372
>just leave him
ah, yes, the good old "bury your head in the sand" strategy
>He thinks that the entire phenomenon is simply explained by a simple cause and one molecule.
not true, something you'd know if you'd paid attention to what I've written from the very beginning
but consumption of Neu5Gc is certainly a big contributor to chronic autoimmune inflammation in most people
>No proof is required.
there are literally mountains of evidence for it
>>15977377
>don't understand immunology half as well as you think you do
I understand it exactly as well as I think I do, and orders of magnitude better than you ever will
>if you think antibodies are inherently inflammatory, or universally instruct the body to attack the things they bind to
never said that
in fact, I explicitly explained why it's quite unique in the case of Neu5Gc
>the more neu5gc a child is exposed to, the less autoimmune conditions they exhibit
total nonsense
I literally just explained why that conclusion isn't just flawed, but patently absurd, and not at all what is shown in the data
and again, the very idea that those people are really exposed more to Neu5Gc is itself false, like I also pointed out
clearly, the reason for less asthma and allergies in that case is exactly what I said: exposure to more typical antigens from animal tissues, ones that aren't sialic acids which get incorporated into your own cell glycans
I quite literally just explained all of this, but apparently you couldn't even bother to read that
>almost as if the body can learn not to have an inflammatory response to something
not in the case of Neu5gc
again: most children have already developed antibodies to Neu5Gc by the time they're 12 months old, regardless of whether they are exposed to farm animals or not, that's one of the reasons why those nonsensical conclusions are so absurd
>fail to detect acute inflammation following consumption of neu5gc
the inflammation is chronically present in people consuming Neu5Gc regularly

>>15977389
>You literally claimed that it causes inflamation and is causal for autoimmunity
I think you got me confused, anon.
I am >>15977344
I am arguing against the notion that neu5gc is inherently inflammatory and causal of autoimmune conditions

>>15977380
see, immediately when you get called out on desperately trying to find only studies that confirm your bias, you switch to begging me to spoon-feed you
it's like you have some extreme psychological aversion to actively looking for studies that go against your preconceived notions
that, as everyone knows, is literally the definition of confirmation bias, and the diametric opposite of what science represents
>>15977386
oh, look, it's that retard again
>evolutionary biology isn't a science!
>biochemistry isn't a science!
alright
I guess I'll nudge you towards >>>/x/ again, maybe you'll let the adults discuss science here in this board
>if he would source
it's funny how you're really making as much effort as you possibly can to not find out anything about anything on your own
peak willful ignorance

>>15977392
> Increasing anti-Neu5Gc IgG levels were associated with increased gene expression of Foxp3, and a positive nonstatistically significant trend was shown with IL10 gene expression in 6-year-old children of the longitudinal study (Table II). No other significant associations were found between anti-Neu5Gc IgG and gene expression of immunologic markers
>FOXP3 is a member of the forkhead transcription factor family. Unlike other members, it is mainly expressed in a subset of CD4+ T-cells that play a suppressive role in the immune system.
>Interleukin 10 (IL-10) is a cytokine with potent anti-inflammatory properties that plays a central role in limiting host immune response to pathogens, thereby preventing damage to the host and maintaining normal tissue homeostasis.
Higher levels of anti-neu5gc antibodies = higher levels of anti-inflammatory immunological pathways
>the inflammation is chronically present in people consuming Neu5Gc regularly
Demonstrate it.
Remember
>presence of antibodies alone is not indicative of inflammation

>>15977397
>biochemistry isn't a science!
never said that.
You simply cannot say
>if it is biochemistry, then it is always valid
>even though it does not follow the scientific method

>>15977398
once again, you're quoting from a study which is confusing responses to regular antigens from animals with Neu5Gc, simply because they get exposed to both simultaneously
that's like me shooting you in the leg while I'm giving you a massage, and associating a large bullet hole in your leg with feelings of relaxation in the muscles I'm massaging
it's quite frankly baffling that you don't realize just how stupid that conclusion is
>>Interleukin 10 (IL-10) is a cytokine with potent anti-inflammatory properties that plays a central role in limiting host immune response to pathogens
lmao
please tell me you're joking
if you're not, then you're even more clueless about immunology than I thought
the presence of interleukins is due prevent your body from savagely ripping itself apart when antigens are presence
their role as antiinflammatory compounds is not something beneficial, literally everywhere in the medical literature it's widely known that the presence of interleukins is associated with disease processes
man, I can't even
until this point I was taking you slightly seriously, trying to show you just where you go horribly wrong, but now it's clear that you're totally ignorant when it comes to the topic of discussion
>Higher levels of anti-neu5gc antibodies = higher levels of anti-inflammatory
I still can't stop laughing
>"bro, this guy has so many interleukins in his blood, he's like the living picture of health, bro!!"
my fucking sides
>Remember
remember my response the last time you copy-pasted that:
>in the case of this type of Neu5Gc-induced autoimmune response, xenosialitis as it is termed, then yes, the presence of such antibodies is indeed indicative of the presence of Neu5Gc and the immune system actively attacking your own cells
>the levels of such antibodies has been found to correspond directly to the amount of Neu5Gc in the foods you eat

>>15977408
still not a single source posted.
Simply walls of text, with memes and "dude trust me bro, its simply science, google it, trust me, buzzwords".
lol
LMAO even

>>15977414
>"dude, look at all those antiinflammatory fire trucks around your burning house, bro, awesome!!"
can't stop laughing

>>15977408
>the presence of interleukins is due prevent your body from savagely ripping itself apart when antigens are presence
>their role as antiinflammatory compounds is not something beneficial
These two statements are mutually exclusive

>>15977417
>These two statements are mutually exclusive
no, only for a myopic retard who doesn't understand that IL-10 is a powerful immunosuppressant are those two statements mutually exclusive
see: >>15977415

>>15977415
In your analogy, the house isn't burning, it's just painted orange (neu5gc incorporated into glycocalyx isn't inherently harmful, its only harmful if the immune system attacks it).
So it's a good thing if the immune system learns not to attack it.

>>15977422
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.RES.85.8.e17
>In the present study, we show that IL-10–deficient C57BL/6J mice fed an atherogenic diet and raised under specific pathogen-free conditions exhibit a significant 3-fold increase in lipid accumulation compared with wild-type mice. Interestingly, the susceptibility of IL-10–deficient mice to atherosclerosis was exceedingly high (30-fold increase) when the mice were housed under conventional conditions. Atherosclerotic lesions of IL-10–deficient mice showed increased T-cell infiltration, abundant interferon-γ expression, and decreased collagen content. In vivo, transfer of murine IL-10 achieved 60% reduction in lesion size. These results underscore the critical roles of IL-10 in both atherosclerotic lesion formation and stability. Moreover, IL-10 appears to be crucial as a protective factor against the effect of environmental pathogens on atherosclerosis.

Keep on saying that IL-10 is bad because its immunosuppressive though, when that's BENEFICIAL in autoimmune pathology.

>>15977430
it's absolutely not a good thing for the immune system to learn not to attack Neu5Gc, because the entire reason its deactivation was so beneficial in the first place is that it allows the body to much more readily detect foreign organisms that do have Neu5Gc in their glycans, like a variety of viruses
it's like a thief coming by your house night after night, triggering your alarm system from afar, until you finally get so tired that you shut off the alarm, at which point the thief takes everything you own
having to resort to these childish analogies just to spoon-feed you how this works is really quite something
>>15977434
see above
the idea that it's "super awesome, bro!" to have highly elevated levels of immunosuppressants coursing through your veins constantly just to deal with the chronic inflammatory response is so hilariously delusional
it's like you think it would be fantastic for someone with a broken leg to just do a bunch of heroin constantly instead of setting the bone in place and allowing it to heal, when in reality you'd just make the underlying problem even worse
ridiculous

>>15977444
For all this you still haven't demonstrated that people with higher levels of anti-neu5gc suffer any clinically significant pathology compared to those with lower anti-neu5gc levels.
> to have highly elevated levels of immunosuppressants coursing through your veins constantly just to deal with the chronic inflammatory response
You seem to think that the body is either in a state of inflammation or non-inflammation. It's a constant dynamic balance between the two at different levels in different parts of the body.
It's absolutely beneficial for parts of your immune system to be suppressed to prevent them from attacking your own body, as the mouse atherosclerosis study demonstrates.
Just post the evidence that neu5gc consumption causes clinically significant pathology.

>>15977444
>having to resort to these childish analogies just to spoon-feed you how this works is really quite something

You could avoid this by simply providing a scientific study that demonstrates with a control that it causes inflamation, and that the specific compound is causal for inflamation.

You did not once post a study that demonstrated any clinical effect.
You only posted reviews and stitched together interpretations of adjacent phenomena, instead of the simple request, that should actually be the backbone of your argumentation:
>A causes B
>here thats the experiment

But the current state of the Neu5Gc discussion is:
>some swedish guy chemically synthecized it 70 years ago
>some other scientist saw some interactions in a petri dish
>some other scientists injected pathogenes which have this compound every two weeks for a few months into the stomach cavity of mice
>mice got inflamed
>but when fet this compound they did not
>then some scientists looked at intravenous beef broth injections in the late 1800s

And all these seperate circumstances would then be stitched together, to come to the final conclusion:
>eating animal products is causal for the sudden rise in autoimmunity

This is absolutely retarded.

>>15977457
>still haven't demonstrated that people with higher levels of anti-neu5gc suffer any clinically significant pathology compared to those with lower anti-neu5gc levels
higher levels of Neu5Gc antibodies is strongly associated with heart disease, atherosclerosis, cancers, and a host of other diseases
this was even mentioned in the studies above
>You seem to think that the body is either in a state of inflammation or non-inflammation.
not even remotely what I'm saying, but fact is that Neu5Gc causes an inflammatory response, and the only way to cope permanently with that for someone who continues to ingest it all the time would be to have constantly elevated levels of immunosuppressants like IL-10, which as explained above would be an absolutely horrible state of being for the body, and open up for the development of a wide variety of other problems
>post the evidence that neu5gc consumption causes clinically significant pathology
there are literally hundreds of such studies you can easily find yourself
I've said it a lot of times by now: I'm not here to spoon-feed you
if you want to cling to confirmation bias and desperately avoid trying to find anything that goes against your preconceived notions, that's on you, enjoy your willful ignorance
>>15977463
oh, look, it's this retard again
>"biochemistry isn't a science, bro!!!"
okay, sure
you know the drill, >>>/x/ is that way
now let the adults talk again

>>15977463
>>some swedish guy chemically synthecized
can't stop laughing
it's like you took 3 seconds to search for it, glanced at one of the search results for 150 milliseconds, and then closed your eyes and hit yourself in the head
that's how stupid that statement is for anyone who knows even very basic biochemistry and what sialic acids are
man, my sides

>>15977463
>intravenous beef broth injections in the late 1800s
That's hilarious. Sir the results of your blood test show that you have a severe beef deficiency possibly endangering your life. We request that you stay at the hospital for immediate treatment. The chef of our in-house pharmacy is preparing the medicine as we speak.

>>15977467
if your studies don't distinguish between IgG1/2/3/4 and IgGA antibodies then any correlations are meaningless

>>15977471
>take stuff
>add various amount of reagents and heat to stuff
>some crystals form
>acidic
>call them sialic acid
>because found in saliva
>conclude
>sialic acids in that form exists everywhere in the bodies of animals or bactera
>because when adding reagents these compounds form
>but instead of synthetisation by reaction
>we all just pretend we did an isolation
>because lol we are the biochemists
>just accept it

https://www.jbc.org/article/S0021-9258(18)62610-9/pdf

Simply read it, they take stuff, add sulfuric acid or other reagents like barium hydroxide to it, washed it with acetic acid and when then a subsequent acid forms, they claim "it was there all along" and not that it is procude by an chemical reaction.

I does not suprise me in the least, that if you add reagents and acids to anything, that it reacts and would form new acids and new compounds, because it interacted with highly reactive chemical compounds.

>>15977500
it's like watching a kindergartner explain quantum mechanics
glorious
thanks again for the laugh
>they claim "it was there all along" and not that it is procude by an chemical reaction
because they, like me, and unlike you, understand basic chemistry
but please, do keep embarrassing yourself

>>15977481
>That's hilarious
Bro, literally all "anti toxin" treatments, involved cooking decayed petridish washings with beef broth and injecting it into you.

Thats why most people died, that injected people with beef broth + phenol + some 72h old warm wet, petridish washing of the spinal cord and brain matter of a deceased dog.
That was called medicine and was considered best practice for diphteria, rabies, thyphoid fever etc.

>>15977500
>>15977506
this kid's idea of chemistry:
>"they just smashed some random acids together and lots of random new stuff formed LOL"
actual chemistry:
>"each step of the reaction is fully measured and controlled and based on centuries of experiments proving how molecules change at every step"
but really, it is funny to read someone who is totally clueless trying to explain it in their own terms
so keep doing that

>>15977506
>basic chemistry
mixing egg with sulphuric acid and barium hydroxide is not "science" it is alchemical concoctions and then interpreting memes from it.

Isolating a compound or element is chemically possible and only verifyable if you can find the compound without chemically altering it.

If the only method to "isolate" a compound form an egg is by adding highly reactive compounds to it, then it is the product of a chemical reaction aka synthetically produced and not isoalted.
Isolation means:
>removing a thing from any other thing
And not, adding a lot of stuff to it, and when something interesting forms, we postulate "it was there all along and our reacting made it appear".

Its not like isolating gold form a alloy with aqua regia. Because you can literally find and isolate gold and it has the same properties as when you extract it via chemical processes.

If the only method of extraction is complex reactive invasive chemical intervention, that the result may be simply the synthetic product of the chemical reaction of the procedure and a mere artifact.