*Destroys your gains and health*

Still sugar.

Thats why you shouldn't eat fruits. Like you know grapes? One cup of it has 25 grams of sugar, no fat no protein just sugar, why eat that?

Why not just to add fruit or berries? Are you a kid?

youtu.be/f_4Q9Iv7_Ao

Fruit isn't bad for you. Added sugar is bad for you. There are endless studies showing the health benefits of eating fruit and none showing health impairment of any kind. The fiber in fruit slows the absorption of sugar to the point that it does not have any negative health biomarkers associated with it and fruit is nutrient dense and filled with micronutrients that can only be obtained in high quantities through fruit consumption.

More like >fuels gains

Put natural coccoa! You need more GAINS

Not all fruit and after certain serving size, they are unhealthy.

It's surprising how many people don't understand fiber. Fruit is great as long as it has a lot of fiber. Eat the skin on a kiwi bitch.

Fruits in nature occur in seasons and provide animals with a source of carbs to fatten up for hibernation.

The sugar jew is just a meme. It's only bad if you have an addiction. Plenty of athletes eat candy and a lot of sugar before workouts. Just don't eat that shit if you aren't going to use it as fuel.

Everything in moderation.

So eating just fruits all year and getting fat isn't natural

>Everything in moderation.
Addict cope.

>le carbs are bad meme
Humans have been consuming grains for thousands of years. You're a wingnut.

How many % of my calories should come from sugar in maximum?

Unfortunately our bodies don't evolve that fast

>Humans have been consuming grains for thousands of years. You're a wingnut.
So?

0.

Fortunately we've had no trouble consuming carbs throughout human history and obesity is a recent epidemic

Alright faggot. How do I quit sugar then?

Attached: 1549766093366.jpg (518x600, 125K)

Depends on your weight and depends on when you're eating it.
A general rule of thumb is 40g max for men.

Only eat processed sugar if you are going to work out right after or use it as fuel. Even then it's not the best to consume but if you are going to, make sure you use it and not sit on it.

Natural sugar from fruits etc. have fiber which help regulate your blood sugar and stops sugar spikes from happening, and is also more effecient at refueling your muscle glycogen.

Personally, I consume processed sugar (from my pre-workout) before I go to the gym, and eat my fruits after I go to the gym for recovery. After that no heavy sugar for the rest of the day except from natural sugars like in my sweet potatoes and milk.

>So?
you're implying that eating fruit = getting fat and you're a wingnut. animals in nature eat for different reasons and respond differently to nutrients than humans

Grains are the cause of the jaw and braces epidemic, retard.

I'm not the same guy.

thanks user

Attached: 1540851078699.png (1022x1146, 494K)

Both responses implied the same thing. Doesn't matter which one you were I quoted both of your retarded asses.

>le
First of all fuck you
>humans have been eating grains for thousands of years
Humans have also been dying at 35 for thousands of years so what’s your point?
Also, 75% of your calories from grains as a Roman soldier who burns that shit off marching or building fortifications all day is different from eating a bunch of refined carbs while sitting on ass and shitposting all day. The comparison isn’t even close

Look it up. The transition from hard to soft foods (agriculture) have contributed to it. And no, they didn't imply the same thing, brainlet.

Insulin resistance among other things

>First of all fuck you
No, fuck you bitch.
>Humans have also been dying at 35 for thousands of years so what’s your point?
Funny we've been living longer than ever while consuming more fruit than ever.
>Also, 75% of your calories from grains as a Roman soldier who burns that shit off marching or building fortifications all day is different from eating a bunch of refined carbs while sitting on ass and shitposting all day.
Projecting much? My life is marching all day faggot. Kill yourself.
>The transition from hard to soft foods (agriculture) have contributed to it.
Or maybe the fact that we have modern dentistry contributed to it you absolute brainlet
>And no, they didn't imply the same thing, brainlet.
Yes, they did. In fact your replies literally followed from each other.

Your probably cucks from japan who can't get fruit because it's too expensive so you're reasoning down even worse you're ketofags once again reasoning down. Kill yourself. You're an idiot and nobody takes you seriously.

Oof. Being this reddit

>Or maybe the fact that we have modern dentistry contributed to it you absolute brainlet.
No, you idiot. Malocclusion was very rarely seen in pre agricultural human societies.

>Yes, they did. In fact your replies literally followed from each other.

>Your probably cucks from japan who can't get fruit because it's too expensive so you're reasoning down even worse you're ketofags once again reasoning down. Kill yourself. You're an idiot and nobody takes you seriously.
SEETHING.

sugar is required for optimal brain function. Maybe you should eat some.

Attached: 1527026623751.png (645x730, 27K)

What about Oat Groats

no, glucose is you turbo brainlet

Never tried them, but it really doesn't matter as long as you have enough hard food in your diet and practice hard and tongue chewing.

You think preagricultural human societies had the means of collecting stats on malocclusion? lmao @ your life
>SEETHING.
not an argument you fruitcake

>You think preagricultural human societies had the means of collecting stats on malocclusion? lmao @ your life
Nice b8. We know thanks to something called anthropology.

>not an argument you fruitcake
Neither was yours.

>Nice b8. We know thanks to something called anthropology.
Interesting choice since anthropology is both scarce and doesn't support your theory, either.
> In conclusion, the findings of the current study suggest that malocclusion of developmental origin was already present in early anatomically modern humans (AMH) (the present case being the oldest known case, dated to ca. 100,000 years); that there is no basis to the notion that early AMH had a better adjustment between teeth and jaw size; and that jaw-teeth size discrepancy could be found in prehistoric populations and is not a recent phenomenon
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3835570/
>Neither was yours
I'm shitting on you dumbo

please spell personal correctly.

Nice outdated study.
sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150204144653.htm

Attached: 437EA9A7-3CE2-4EF3-A47A-DD4DCD0C16B8.jpg (267x360, 21K)

Retard

It's not outdated dumbo the fossil in the study predates your "new" study findings by about 90,0000+ years. Early anatomically modern humans already had malocclusion therefor your theory requires another explanation.

You are misunderstanding me. There are cases where maloclussion is genetic, but far from all and the rate at which happens now is not normal.

Attached: 8D2905D0-8AE3-479D-B491-CD5F7B17ABFA.jpg (1242x1150, 435K)

Eating lollies is cute and girls will highland fantasise about sucking the sweetness from your cock.

Attached: th.jpg (474x315, 36K)

>There are cases where maloclussion is genetic, but far from all and the rate at which happens now is not normal
It is genetic and normal. Here's another study.
> The remains were found at the archaeological site of Roaix, located in the south of France. Radiocarbon dating indicated that the lower layer was from 2150 +/- 140 years BC (date +/- 1 standard deviation) and the upper level from 2090 +/- 140 years. The graves were estimated to contain the remains of 150 adults and 50 children. Forty-three intact mandibles were used for this study. All of the mandibles presented incisor crowding with a majority of minimal and moderate irregularities, but in seven cases there were extreme irregularities and in two canine impaction was observed
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15130037

Furthermore twin studies support genetics as the main factor. See: twin studies: revealing the genetic basis of malocclusion

Im addicted to honey, it's so gooood.

Attached: 5302a51a.jpg (480x360, 14K)

i ate kiwi without skin my whole life then one day i decided to just eat it with the skin. the skin is thin as fuck and literally tastes good. don't fall for the peeling jew. eat kiwi with skin

Agriculture already existed back then.

The salient point is that copper aged diets were not soft food therefor hereditary factors strongly predict malocclusion.

With salt, the mix in taste in delicious. Also put it on rice vermicellis, not a large amount mind you.

Good point, but soft food is just one of the factors in maloclussion if my claim is correct.

Do you put meat or veg through it? Literally never thought of this combo, may try it

I'd be looking at meal frequency of pregricultural humans before looking at carbs.

You should feel bad.

no u

I drink that shit everyday, a protein bar with 18gr sugar 25gr protein and a glass of fruit juice with added vitamins how am I getting memed by sugar kikes?

Attached: arla-protein-chocolate-milk-light-web.png (400x640, 90K)

>how
I mean am I getting memed by sugar kikes with their "healthy" foods?

Yeah, that's a factor.

High glycemic load foods are linked to wrikle development (skin aging), acne and earlier baldness onset.

>earlier onset baldness
>tfw started balding since 18

FUCK

F.

That and brushing your teeth properly throw all malocclusion theories beyond genetics into chaos. Also preagricultural humans ate plenty of carbs they've found grinding tools with oats on them.

>brushing your teeth properly throw all malocclusion theories beyond genetics into chaos.
Brushing your teeth? Isn't it only to prevent tooth decay?

>Also preagricultural humans ate plenty of carbs they've found grinding tools with oats on them.
Yeah, but hunter gatherers wore down their teeth much, much more and earlier than farmers.

>Brushing your teeth? Isn't it only to prevent tooth decay?
I meant that as a preemptive response to the carbs = malocclusion theory when looking for reasons other than how hard the food is to explain it.
>Yeah, but hunter gatherers wore down their teeth much, much more and earlier than farmers.
This is akin to saying they ate harder food. Again this theory doesn't make sense when taking meal frequency into account. When they did eat, they ate harder foods, sure but we eat so frequently that we eat just as much hard food if not more than them due to widespread access to food and meal frequency.

We eat just as much hard food as them and we brush our teeth to prevent any kind of additional tooth related bone loss or other deterioration based malocclusion. So if you believe preagricultural man didn't suffer from malocclusion then it doesn't make sense to conclude it was from diet.

>Again this theory doesn't make sense when taking meal frequency into account. When they did eat, they ate harder foods, sure but we eat so frequently that we eat just as much hard food if not more than them due to widespread access to food and meal frequency.
Not all tooth wear is due to bacteria, but chewing. The foods were harder (cartilage, skin, etc.) and we took more time to chew them.

In the end, the tongue is key to proper development.

Attached: 12F70B21-D1BB-414B-8F78-BE4DBD7F8CCB.jpg (1242x322, 160K)

>The foods were harder
No, they weren't and we chew hard foods more frequently due to widespread access to food.
>we took more time to chew them
Again, we eat more frequently therefor we spend far more time chewing our food than them
>the tongue is key to proper development
I think this just strengthens jaw muscles creating the illusion of a superior bone structure. Most people would look like they had a good jaw if they just kept their chin up and lost some weight.

Genetics explains everything else.

>No, they weren't and we chew hard foods more frequently due to widespread access to food.
Do most people chew cartilage, skin, fibrous plants, etc.? Only modern, isolated societies do and guess what, maloclussion is rarely seen in those societies.

>Again, we eat more frequently therefor we spend far more time chewing our food than them
Time doesn't mean anything, it is the effort we take in chewing.

>I think this just strengthens jaw muscles creating the illusion of a superior bone structure. Most people would look like they had a good jaw if they just kept their chin up and lost some weight.
No, there have been experiments done on monkeys where they drop the tongue and they develop crooked teeth.

Attached: F6E54066-E93C-40DB-B52A-9B136306CE1B.jpg (1183x761, 406K)

Which Kalergi-tier fuck wrote this nonsense?

Kalergi-tier? You are the supid one, I have sources to back up my claims.

>maloclussion is rarely seen in those societies
Isolated societies do suffer from malocclusion and all this does is show us that genetics is the main factor as isolated tribes are often heavily inbred.
See: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4296623/
>Time doesn't mean anything
It literally does. You said they chew their food more and to that I respond we chew food more frequently because we eat more therefor we chew our food more.
>it is the effort we take in chewing
More frequently eating results in more frequent effort filled chewing. Throughout the course of the average human life we'll eat tons of hard to chew foods, arguably more than ancient man and more food overall and if your theory is true then we should have better developed mouth structures to support chewing, not worse.
>No, there have been experiments done on monkeys where they drop the tongue and they develop crooked teeth
source?

1. That is in strark contrast with what Weston Price found throughout many societies, who I may add, gave pictures as proof.
2. Chewing peanut butter 2 hours is not the same as chewing raw broccoli for 30 minutes.
3. Where is the dental wear then? People who suffer from bruxism also experience it and their jaw muscles are overdeveloped.
4.pdfs.semanticscholar.org/92bb/372e8216f6c17533e2cdddfb6f4850926323.pdf

My point is that hard chewing will place the tongue in the proper position and make the face develop properly. Chewing is just a factor in maloclussion and a way to get proper oral posture.

>you are the stupid one
Are you even trying to respond to what's written instead of just pushing your agenda?

>Weston Price found throughout many societies
Amusing how you use this old, biased nonsense as your source material without flinching.

What agenda, idiot? I responded to your shit bait, I don't know what you are talking about.

Nice argument. Same guy as above?

Giving up sugar was cake but fuck I miss bread and potatoes

How are pictures biased?
Just take a look at old pictures of natives across the world before and after they introduced a western diet.
If you have proof that nothing changed then post the pictures.

>That is in strark contrast with what Weston Price found throughout many societies, who I may add, gave pictures as proof.
And there are many societies that show the opposite in fact in the study I linked there can be no other conclusion than hereditary factors.
>Chewing peanut butter 2 hours is not the same as chewing raw broccoli for 30 minutes.
You're right and you know what thanks to the widespread access of food modern man does both and then has some jerky and chews some gum while they're at it meanwhile your ancient man rarely uses their mouth because they can't find food very easily.
>Where is the dental wear then?
The modern diet reduces dental wear through superior nutrition
>pdfs.semanticscholar.org/92bb/372e8216f6c17533e2cdddfb6f4850926323.pdf
This is interesting but I'd say that the way an animal's mouth behaves when it's nasal passage is forcefully obstructed is going to be different than when it naturally breathes through its mouth, aside from the difference in features between human and monkey.

>My point is that hard chewing will place the tongue in the proper position and make the face develop properly
And my point is that we chew hard more frequently than ancient man because we simply eat more often therefor our mouths should be developed better for this purpose not worse.

Brown sugar is brown because of molasses.
Still the same shit.

But its hairy as fuck

No it isn't you retarded vegan.

No good reason to give up potatoes. And you can still eat bread just make sure it’s whole grain.

Your entire body runs on glucose, it even converts other nutrients into glucose when you're deficient.

1. No pics.
2. The vast majority of food isn't hard.
3. I know, you aren't addressing my question. Bruxism makes the person overdevelop their jaw muscles and they have extensive dental wear.
4. The primates dropped the tongue, that's the only thing that changed when mouth breathing. This kid suffered the same consequences as those monkeys.
5. Explain bruxism and dental wear.

Attached: BFFBE537-D3F5-48A2-A298-36F8514D89E2.jpg (1286x496, 311K)

Yes, HG load.

>No pics
Are you calling Normando a liar? Perhaps you should read through some of the other scientific studies he has done or contributed to,
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Normando D[Author]&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=25162560
>The vast majority of food isn't hard
This "argument" has already been thoroughly debunked by the fact we eat vastly more food, with a large percentage being softer food but still as much hard food as they ate thanks to widespread access to food that they were not privy to. Eating more and chewing more alone works all that muscle and bone very hard.
>Bruxism makes the person overdevelop their jaw muscles and they have extensive dental wear
Apples to oranges.
>The primates dropped the tongue, that's the only thing that changed when mouth breathing
No, that's the only variable they looked for. The neuromuscular system is obscenely complex and you can't just plug holes and equate results, especially not across species.
>Explain bruxism and dental wear
No food between the teeth.

He said sugar specifically though, and you don't even need carbs either.

1. The kid has the same characteristics as those monkeys and he didn't have his holes plugged. The tongue has great pushing force. Even dentists know the correct oral posture is this way.

Despite denying the conclusions of that study you aren't providing any other explanations. You are very stubborn.

2. The fact that they show tooth wear and overdeveloped muscles just like pre agricultural humans kills your argument that we are chewing harder and more. You don't need food or chewing to work the jaw muscles.

>The kid has the same characteristics as those monkeys and he didn't have his holes plugged
That doesn't mean anything. I can find a kid that shows the opposite.
>The fact that they show tooth wear and overdeveloped muscles just like pre agricultural humans kills your argument that we are chewing harder and more
No, it doesn't because there are many modern humans with overdeveloped muscles. That's called genetics.

>That doesn't mean anything. I can find a kid that shows the opposite.
Do so.
>No, it doesn't because there are many modern humans with overdeveloped muscles. That's called genetics.
And can you prove they don't have any dental wear? You can find plenty of progress pics of people who chew mastic gum and develop their jaw muscles on youtube, google, etc.; meaning they hadn't chewed hard and long enough.

I don't even know what you're trying to argue anymore. Working your jaw muscles more makes them grow more? Uh, duh? They're not immune to the laws of muscular growth. They're a muscle just like any other. Your whole point was about malocclusion to that of which you still don't have one.