This kills the carnist

>Anyone with a background in any subject
literally not true.
no scientist will dismiss a study because its a correlation one.
you are retarded.

The results of the study have been reproduced in multiple populations/races across the span of several decades using every reasonable manner of observational study.
The argument now is whether exogenous lipids actually have any effect or if genetics just fucks you.

At this point it's not even in question if it's all genetics, diet has a clear impact in the lipid profile of the animal including humans
for example polyunsaturated fats do lower ldl in humans if not terribly oxidized before ingesting them
plenty of dietary interventions where calories were controlled for show this to be the case
is it enoug hto avoid atherosclerosis for every person, possibly not but it's the best thing we have besides drugs that have side effects.

Bullshit and im no carnivore, i just eat animal based.
>4 percent of all people have atherosclerosis, so why does in this study more then 30 have it?
>yes correlation and causation
>eating high cholesterol does not equal more cholesterol in blood
>high cholesterol is via so many ways beneficial for health, pls google it not goona list
>low cholesterol is always sign of sickness
>if the body or the artheries are damages the body produce more cholesterol to heal, those who are sick cannot be helped by just lowering the cholesterol

literally all you quoted is carnivore retard braindead textbits spread around by retards
you're either a carnivore or a some pseudo carnivore retard larping

no one here is even implying dietary cholesterol makes the difference in itself, but lipid profile of the diet definitely does and in fact there's a far greater ammount of evidence that saturated fat increase LDL-C than actual dietary cholesterol.
>low cholesterol is always sign of sickness
I guess all the high cholesterol chubby sedentary people you find everywhere and anywhere are pretty healthy
>if the body or the artheries are damages the body produce more cholesterol to heal, those who are sick cannot be helped by just lowering the cholesterol
if you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that dietary cholesterol is subject to oxidation and thus damaging your arteries.
And yes, the higher the cholesterol in your blood the more damage your arteries go through

>4 percent of all people have atherosclerosis, so why does in this study more then 30 have it?
It is a study looking at thousands of people
>yes correlation and causation
There is a direct causation. All other risk factors have been excluded
>eating high cholesterol does not equal more cholesterol in blood
Yes it does, as has been proved dozens of times
>high cholesterol is via so many ways beneficial for health, pls google it not goona list
It's all worthless when you die of stroke at 27
>low cholesterol is always sign of sickness
This graph literally shows the opposite
>if the body or the artheries are damages the body produce more cholesterol to heal, those who are sick cannot be helped by just lowering the cholesterol
The damage can be PREVENTED by lowering cholesterol.

When it comes to food,everything in moderation.
That's it

>t. mom

>low cholesterol is always sign of sickness
drbendig.de/2017/09/29/warum-ein-niedriger-cholesterinspiegel-gefaehrlich-ist/
translate it via google or whatever there are more infos on this
yes im not denying fiber and other plant things lower the cholesterol in the blood but like i said i think this is not benefincial

link a single compelling study (not statistical analysis) performed within the last 10 years to back up your claim

>It is a study looking at thousands of people
How do people-related scientist justify this bullshit?
We laughed a guy out of the room when he suggested his PHD project had value, because he had 25 thousand subjects.

Anything less than 10% of the population without total control over random factors is fucking worthless.

>It is a study looking at thousands of people
ok i ment why do in this study have more than 30 percent it, or did i read it wrong? I mean this study maybe is only for old people
>There is a direct causation. All other risk factors have been excluded
really? dont believe they did tested unsatured fats, complex carbs, plastic etc
>die of stroke at 27
i am 27

Idk what retard wrote that article piece but the mere 2 citations of research that looks at the effects of fucking statins as evidence that lowering cholesterol isn't healthy tells me all I need to know about this dumb wall of text.

Here's some advice, literally fucking no one that has naturally low cholesterol has tehse issues, furthermore you are looking at correlation between worsening of the symptoms of different disorders that are both metabolic and cardiovascular in nature(that are incurable) with the lowering of cholesterol which naturally goes down with age, as do the structures of the blood vessels and arteries as you age.
Literally everything else I didn't mention is also mere correlation that provides ZERO mechanistic data or even a plausible theoretical cause.

>Considering that people with LDLs below 70 mg / dl are 15 times more likely to be cancerous,
Shit like this is irrelevant because people with naturally low cholesterol do not show nay negative health symptoms compared to the average, and in fact have less disease particularly diabetes or cardiovascular disease.

provide any that is actually published by any institution of credible nature that backs up your BELIEF that cholesterol does not matter in the progress of heart disease.

link the actual study or fuck off
where in the fuck does this graph mention carnivores?

onlinejacc.org/content/70/24/2979
carnist != carnivore

yeah they should have looked at the blood lipids of the 10 or so people who eat nothing but liver steak and eggs instead

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26109578

>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26109578
>dietary
I didnt ask for this

Friendly reminder that high hdl levels are far more important than low ldl levels, and that while we can all agree that eating a processed burnt pork sausage is unhealthy there is nothing wrong with a medium rare steak baked in grass butter.
Also doesnt provide a source correlating ldl with meat consumption with controlled factors

if you dgaf about dietary cholesterol then what even is your point lol

Forgot pic

Attached: ldl-hdl-good.png (594x355, 17K)

>Considering that people with LDLs below 70 mg / dl are 15 times more likely to be cancerous,
>Shit like this is irrelevant because people with naturally low cholesterol do not show nay negative health symptoms compared to the average, and in fact have less disease particularly diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
I end the discussion here. You say negative health symptoms are irrelevant, because you know it is always this way for low cholesterol. Im not even extreme here but you just say your opinion is right.

no it's not, hdl is of neutral effect, which is why ldl-c is considered to be the single best causal role in CVD by any institution that actually matters.
The ratios are mere indication of one's overall diet in the average person, but high ldl-c still has negative implications regardless of the HDL ratio

>Hdl is of neutral effect
Into the trash your oppinion goes. Seriously if you are going to force your oppinion on people at least do your research. Also of course ldl is always bad I never said it wasn't, just that you would much rather have ldl at 5,5 and hdl at 2.1 then both at half that value. Hdl values are more relevant than ldl values

read my post again
I asked for any study that is published by any institution of relevance that CHOLESTEROL does not matter for CVD prevention, you posted a shit meta analysis that has this conclusion

>Reviewed studies were heterogeneous and lacked the methodologic rigor to draw any conclusions regarding the effects of dietary cholesterol on CVD risk. Carefully adjusted and well-conducted cohort studies would be useful to identify the relative effects of dietary cholesterol on CVD risk.

Do you see the problem with this? Your own study which is basically just a review fails to prove your belief.
And furthermore I have never even implied that dietary cholesterol is only factor at play. I asked you for evidence that cholesterol is irrelevant in the progression or appearance of heart disease, you failed ot provide any while there is plenty that ldl-c is the most well backed up main causal factor of CVD.
And yes, what is the best diet for lowering LDL-C? A diet that is low in both cholesterol and saturated fats. This is why this shit matters.
Your own study which you thought backed up your belief doesn't even do this because the authors literally admit that the methodology of the studied they reviewed were not properly designed.

for the prevention of CVD hdl is literally netural and has no positive impact in the avoidance of atherosclerosis or CVD in general which is the main topic of this thread.
IF you deny this you are simply too high on the cholesterol denying koolaid, soon you will be talking about fluffy ldl particles and shit.

The source for this is 'Gordon T. et al, American Journal of Medicine, 1977;62;707-714' I can't link it because it's not public, but if you are affiliated with a university you can easily get access to it

now look at the ldl and hdl total ammount of people and yo will see that it is basically impossible to have both high hdl and ldl due to the nature of the diet that would be required for that to be so

Then provide a source for your claim m80

How is that relevant to if the correlation ldl heart dissease is stronger or hdl heart disease, i've provided the proof amd you shift the point and are strawmanning pretty hard now

I don't have to, you're the one making the claim that hdl matters i9n the first place, you gave me your opinion

Answer me this, do you ahve any mechanistic data to back up your belief that hdl is magically gonna lower the incidence or degree of CVD regardless of ldl?
What are the actual mechanisms that hdl has at preventing this? Do you know that hdl also contributes in the progression of the hardening of the arteries? it's just much less likely to happen but it still does happen.

Read the thread cuck
Here
And a graph from the study here

Meat is unhealthy for a human digestive system
Go vegan you can't ignore the reality of how healthy these meat avoiding people are.....

youtube.com/watch?v=1HwBtRlyxPs

yeah I saw the graph, too bad it ONLY looks at ratios and makes a correlation.
Allow me to blow your fucking mind here my dude.
People with high hdl are FAR more likely to have low ldl, this shit is fucking obvious to anyone that isn't drunk on meme science

also just in case you still don't get it:

it's not the presence of hdl that prevents CVD, it's the lack of ldl-c

The mechanisms are that it prevents ldl from oxidicing, causing inflamation and eventually artherosclerosis and hdl also removes buildup of plaque between the intima and media layers of the artery. Hardening of arteries first of isnt bad if you already have a lot of plaque because it keeps the plaque stable and prevents it from breaking loose and causing a heart attack or stroke. Besides that hardening of the arteries can be prevented by getting enough vitamin K2 in your diet, which comes mostly from animal products btw

but there's plenty of mechanistic data that shows that ldl-c has a causal role in the progression of atherosclerosis, even cholesterol itself, hdl has no mechanistic data that shows it to be benefitial at preventing this, it's netural due to the fact that it can also contribute to the destruction of your arteries just in much less of a degree
ldl oxidation is unavoidable and more likely to happen there more of it you have, you cannot avoid this by simply having higher hdl levels, you can do it though by LOWERING ldl and INCREASING hdl

Link me up borther. I'm two years behind on my research and the MDs/NPs in my life are solidly divided on this.

Mate did you read the study I posted?
It clearly shows that AT THE SAME LDL values HIGH HDL values greatly reduced heart risk. And far more than LOW LDL at the same HDL values. Yes LDL should be lowered but if you have the chance for medicine A which halves your LDL or medicine B, wich doubles your HDL, be my guest and pick A, but B is going to give better results. I have provided a source for this yet you have provided nothing to back up your case. How HDL reduces plaque is not completely known, like most processes (like what you claim ldl does) is speculation, but studies show very clearly THAT IT DOES, that is what matters

First of all this is a vegan thread.
So let's discuss what vegans are shall we?

youtube.com/watch?v=1HwBtRlyxPs
youtube.com/watch?v=pji8zXeS9gY

>There is a direct causation. All other risk factors have been excluded
Holy shit you're a retard

please stop pretending that you understand science or logic at all pleb, your gibberish is infuriating

>nothing wrong with cow cooked in grass butter

the absolute state of consumers of animal products

>LDL correlates with atherosclerosis
This has never been in question. The question is the relationship between diet and LDL levels. The idea that dietary cholesterol has any significant impact on LDL is momscience. Cholesterol and VLDL (which turns into LDL) are produced in the liver independent of dietary intake. You synthesize that shit on your own, and your body also has other ways of regulating cholesterol levels as well, such as by shitting it out with bile.

The point being that our bodies have normal homeostatic mechanisms to regulate this stuff, and something like LDL being out of whack is more likely to be due to larger overall problems rather than just "hurr durr ate too many eggs".

Attached: k come on.jpg (433x427, 86K)

Damn...

Attached: large[2].jpg (1241x1237, 124K)

>fucking twinks caring about anything except eating large portions

This thread is DYEL

Attached: 1543012591785.jpg (947x1200, 240K)

>eats a flesh bag of water and soi
>thinks that counts as eating meat

Learn how even a week of grain destroys the nutritional content of meat.
Grass fed / finished are useless buzzwords. Having a relationship with your farmer is the only way to make it.

The source is what the health
The pic is from mercy for animals
Talking about bias

>What the health

Look at your TG/HDL ratio if you wanna know your healthy

>The idea that dietary cholesterol has any significant impact on LDL is momscience.
No, the blelief you hold is nonscience, dietary cholesterol doesn't increase blood cholesterol proportionally to your intake.
Furthermore dietary saturated fats do increase LDL-C in the blood, are you gonna deny this too?

>le nonscience it's not true
>eggs don't increasew LDL-C
look at primal edge health and his LDL-C, look at frank tufano's too, both on the same type of diet, both with the same issue.
AND BOTH DENYING IT lmao.
>You synthesize that shit on your own
gee thanks didn't know this senpai what else basic facts that are commonly already know do you have to share with us
>and your body also has other ways of regulating cholesterol levels as well
which is where the dietary intake of cholesterol and saturated fats comes into play, it fucks your lipid metabolism up.

>what's false flagging

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox
morans

i think its funny how there is a not a single good doctor who would disagree that eating cholesterol also raises your own cholesterol level.
but I guess I will just watch (Dr) (((Eric Berg))) about how eating butter and eggs is healthy.

are you gonna post le mexican paraxod as well?

from your own link, I am gonna copy paste this because you obviously didn't even read it

>It has also been suggested that the French paradox is an illusion, created in part by differences in the way that French authorities collect health statistics, as compared to other countries, and in part by the long-term effects, in the coronary health of French citizens, of changes in dietary patterns which were adopted years earlier.

youtube.com/watch?v=b7zWNabebxs
Next.

The science does NOT support veganism, plain and fucking simple.

>another retard posting le ebin youtube diet gurus with no credentials talking about their ideal diet
based and dumbpilled
do urself a favour and take cult mentality out of this shit, the study's findings which OP is salivating on are published not my vegans and the study itself is not conceived by vegans or vegetarians but by normal scientists.

>being this obtuse
he lists all his sources all of which are credible studies

Thus spaketh the vegans.
And we know how "healthy" they are

youtube.com/watch?v=pji8zXeS9gY

The only time vegans ever tell the truth is when they dump Veganism, return to carnivore to finally regain their health, and admit how sick they were under Veganism----

youtube.com/watch?v=yC5AOntPZQ4

Bonnie Rebecca, another HUGE YouTube vegan channel, looks like she dumped veganism today. Another escapeee from the starvation cult.

If Veganism is "the healthiest most complete diet known to man" how come so many quit after experiencing nothing but sickness and suffering???

youtube.com/watch?v=ZI1Be8C37-k

Raw alignment isn't far behind, she's praising and "understanding" every ex vegan who escapes (on their channel comments)

please shoot yourself in the head with an AR-15

>Eating a fuckton of meat, exclusively red meat, instead of having a balanced diet is bad for your health, so you should stop eating every single animal product (including fish, eggs and milk) entirely

Athletes are on an incredibly higher risk of getting sport-related injuries and they can get hurt if they drop a free weight on their foot, so you should stop exercising entirely!

Shit thread, have some derail

Attached: 1546627621415.jpg (1280x1005, 235K)

>dat source

Attached: 1545597418655.jpg (819x1428, 239K)

BFGHI

thats all i gotta say

G, H and L are absolutely absolute

Fuck you man, choosing 40% of the options is not really choosing

>not going for the nopan, emerald eyes, big tiddy pretty princess L
The bad taste of some

>Contrary to popular belief, consuming a higher amount of fat (about 35 per cent of energy) is associated with a lower risk of death compared to lower intakes. However, a diet high in carbohydrates (of more than 60 per cent of energy) is related to higher mortality, although not with the risk of cardiovascular disease." "The research on dietary fats found that they are not associated with major cardiovascular disease, but higher fat consumption was associated with lower mortality; this was seen for all major types of fats (saturated fats, polyunsaturated fats and mono unsaturated fats), with saturated fats being associated with lower stroke risk. The researchers point out that, while this may appear surprising to some, these new results are consistent with several observational studies and randomized controlled trials conducted in Western countries during the last two decades." "The large new study, when viewed in the context of most previous studies, questions the conventional beliefs about dietary fats and clinical outcomes, says Mahshid Dehghan, the lead author for the study and an investigator at PHRI.
>sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170829091027.htm
>authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
>authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/
>authoritynutrition.com/saturated-fat-good-or-bad/
>chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy/
>uib.no/en/node/103172
>healthline.com/nutrition/5-studies-on-saturated-fat
>bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/31/bjsports-2016-097285
>press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
>suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/05/bcfa-gut-health-immunity-cancer.html
>breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-heal

Attached: Cholesterol.png (671x198, 53K)

>eggs
>healthline.com/nutrition/10-proven-health-benefits-of-eggs
>healthline.com/nutrition/6-reasons-why-eggs-are-the-healthiest-food-on-the-planet#section1
>suppversity.blogspot.com/search?q=eggs
>jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/189529
>bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8539
>suppversity.blogspot.com/search?q=egg yolk
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2015/07/egg-ology-today-underappreciated-health.html
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2013/11/underestimated-vitamin-d-sources.html

Attached: egg_yolk_facts.jpg (454x322, 52K)

>B,F,I,J,G

THE MILK TRUCK'S IN TOWN BOYS

>plagueofstrength.com/vegetarianism-and-veganism-bes/
>plagueofstrength.com/vegetarianism-and-veganism-are-as/
>lloydianaspects.co.uk/opinion/veggie.html
>thetab.com/uk/2017/02/16/vegetarians-unhealthy-mentally-disturbed-says-new-research-33067
>plagueofstrength.com/the-war-on-coffee-and-common-sense-or/
>sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-health-a-movie-with-an-agenda/

Attached: tfw not vegan.jpg (650x491, 56K)

>meat
>plagueofstrength.com/the-simplicity-of-dieting-it-really-is/
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3529694/#!po=57.9365
>suppversity.blogspot.de/2016/10/latest-study-shows-that-33-gkg-high.html
>ajcn.nutrition.org/content/42/1/127
>breakingmuscle.com/healthy-eating/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health

Attached: 1d3ea027bc3856f62ae2141fa1e7695d_signs-eat-more-protein_580x326_featuredImage.jpg (580x326, 53K)

>milk
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2014/01/true-or-false-dairy-is-toxic-hormone.html
>sciencedrivennutrition.com/hormones-milk/
>suppversity.blogspot.de/2014/05/bcfa-gut-health-immunity-cancer.html
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2013/12/dairy-good-bad-or-ugly-latest-studies.html
>suppversity.blogspot.com/2016/07/cheese-your-health-cvd-cancer-metabolic.html
>tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2011.1071999
>healthline.com/nutrition/foods/milk
>southeastdairy.org/three-surprising-health-benefits-chocolate-milk/
>healthyeating.sfgate.com/benefit-drinking-chocolate-milk-athletes-6965.html
>livestrong.com/article/46306-chocolate-milk-nutrition-information/
>healthline.com/diabetesmine/from-jdrf-detroit-lessons-on-chocolate-milk-and-a1c-imperfection

Attached: Milk doesn't lower testosterone.png (674x318, 34K)

Attached: casein.png (1706x453, 72K)

Attached: Dairy good for kids.png (1094x707, 43K)

>Shit like this is irrelevant because people with naturally low cholesterol do not show nay negative health symptoms compared to the average, and in fact have less disease particularly diabetes or cardiovascular disease.
You just quoted something, said it was "irrelevant", and then stated a claim that literally opposes what you quoted. So is it wrong or is it right? Your logic is completely fucked.

i dont give a flying fuck about carnivore vs vegan beef and even i know that this graph was debunked already. the presentation of those values is totally skewed

>giving me (You)s as if I was a disgusting vegan
No faggot, you are supposed to shitpost about which glasses girl would you hug

>tits lover
>forgets L
How dare you

I'll shitpost my wife to hell and back

If you eat meat you should give a fuck about this.

Thats an assalt rifle that should be banned

J