He eats red meat more than one 3 oz serving a week

Lol! Implying everything in life doesnt come with sacrifice. You want gainz you gotta make the sacrifice. Shave off a bit of quantity for positive quality. What's next? You gonna start telling CEOs working 16 hour days, not seeing your family as often as you like, and not taking vacation days isnt healthy? They fucking know. They make the sacrifice for the life of the company and get rewarded with big moolahs. What do you want more user? To live a few more years in basic mediocrity because "its healthy"? Or do you want to be Jeff Bezos?

>he has more than 2-3 servings of dairy a week
I also eat 200g of raw cheese every day

>he doesn't eat at least 3-5 servings of fruits and vegetables daily
I do, but low carb and low in antinutrients obviously

>he doesn't eat at least 5 servings of whole grains daily
kek, imagine being so stupid as to eat grains AT ALL
youtube.com/watch?v=gdwKApl94qw

>he doesn't eat nuts and seeds daily
kek, ask me how I know you have rotten teeth

Attached: howdidyouknow.jpg (1280x720, 47K)

>unironically listening to this tard
youtu.be/eVP9IKnaoHs

>Seventh Day Adventists live over a decade longer due to healthy diet and active lifestyle.
And pescatarian adventists live longer then the vegetarians ino the same studies you reference
Your point?

not after this little dosage of CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

>imagine using a fitness video to try to debunk a nutrition video using an ad hominem

>but you're fucking destroying your body and life expectancy
Wrong.

>imagine using broscience to debunk peer-reviewed studies following tens of thousands of people across decades that show red meat leads to increased mortality rate and whole grain consumption leads to reduced mortality rate

cringe
hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/whole-grains/

Yeah that's because fish has fatty acids and b vitamins which vegans get very little of and is necessary for heart health

>>he eats processed meats at all
Processed meats are an ancient tradition of all European peoples. OP shitskin confirmed.

Attached: sausages.jpg (416x625, 45K)

Reviewed by the same peers who claimed for decades that fat consumption specifically caused obesity because their mouse studies weren't isocaloric. Nutritionists are the niggers of biomed and their field is a fucking joke. ALL human nutritional survey studies are meaningless because of how differently healthy and unhealthy people live. The same logic that leads them to the conclusion that whole grains convey longevity would reveal that simply owning a piano decreases blood pressure.

post body.

>imagine falling for the whole grains meme
youtube.com/watch?v=nF7XPU9UzpU

>broscientist on youtube
>objective data based on peer reviewed studies of diets and mortality from tens of thousands of people across decades
Hmmm... that's a tough one, I'm not sure which is more credible

>he eats less than a pound of red meat per day

Attached: 1567470457684.jpg (476x600, 60K)

Here's a hint, it's the one who's livelihood isn't determined by whether or not he contradicts other people in his field

>NOOOOOOOO!!! IT'S A MASSIVE CONSPIRACY THAT EVERY SINGLE RESEARCHER IS IN ON!!! SEE ALL THESE DOZENS OF STUDIES, THEY ARE ALL FAKE AND FABRICATED!!!! WHERE DID I PUT MY TINFOIL HAT!!??
Seriously fuck off retard, we are only trying to help. We are totally fine with you dying of CVD by 40. Keep following your little echo chamber of broscientists on YT with no credentials.

This isn't a mouse study you mong, this is a massive dietary and mortality study of tens of thousands of people over many decades. It's actually real life application of diet because nutrition science and the body are incredibly complex so you can't directly tell impact on life expectancy from a lab experiment/finding.

I've already tried to anhero, I just want to not spend the rest of this pointless existence as a useless fat fuck.

It's not fabricated or a conspiracy. If you think that management is needed to maintain incorrect dogma, you're obviously not a scientist. Peer review is critical, but it also gives enormous inertia to past ideas, even if they're actually unfounded.
>This isn't a mouse study you mong
Correct, it's a survey, which is way the fuck worse than a mouse study. Mouse studies can be extremely powerful if they are designed well. Surveys always suck dick, because it's impossible to control for confounding factors, which are usually much stronger than the variable in question.

>thinking science is immune to bias
You wouldn't have survived the camps.

Multiple highly detailed studies with tens of thousands of subjects and controlling for other factors found the same result and your only response is "B-BUT THEY ALL LIED ABOUT WHAT THEY ATE IN EVERY STUDY!!! WHEN THEY SAID THEY ATE WHOLE GRAINS THEY ACTUALLY MEANT A LB OF RED MEAT INSTEAD!!"

Clearly people won't always know exact portions and won't remember every detail but when study after study after study all shows whole grains, fruits, and veggies to be heavily associated with long life expectancy and red and processed meats associated with increased mortality, CVD, diabetes, and cancer then that's a hell of a lot stronger than some unapplied lab finding about how one specific part of a food reacts in one specific context with one specific part of the body (or a rodent's body lmao)

>believing in science
>not God
Boiz we've known that meat > plants since Genesis 4, seriously, that's right at the frickin beginning

Such a low t thread, how much of a bitch do you have to be to lecture people on what they eat, if they’re gonna die fuck em, focus on your own life.

> at least 5 servings of grains a day
U fokin wot m8

>life expectancy
Medical science is progressing that by the time we get old enough, almost everyone will die of old age. It's not about length of life but quality of life at this point.

You probably have dumb reasons for it.

someone get the Vocaroo over here so op can end his life

>currently eating at the very least 5lbs of processed frozen red meat every week

Give it to me straight, is it going to affect my health ? Should i diminish my intake ?

I'm eating one pound of tuna right now and FUCK OP

Congrats, you’re chances of cancer went from 0.0013 to 0.013

>Multiple highly detailed studies with tens of thousands of subjects
They could have ten million and it wouldn't matter. A high subject count can't fix bad methodology.
>and controlling for other factors
Literally not possible.
>but when study after study after study all shows whole grains, fruits, and veggies to be heavily associated with long life expectancy and red and processed meats associated with increased mortality, CVD, diabetes, and cancer then that's a hell of a lot stronger
No, it's not. It's just basic bitch correlation, with dozens of extremely powerful confounding factors.

More like 0.0013 to 0.00135, maybe

>imagine using broscience to debunk peer-reviewed studies following tens of thousands of people across decades that show red meat leads to increased mortality rate and whole grain consumption leads to reduced mortality rate
>imagine thinking the number of people in an epidemiological self reported correlational study makes it better

>controlling for other factors found the same result
>asking what a person ate in the last 3 months in controlled
Pic related

Attached: 1568007433507.jpg (921x741, 301K)

what is healthy user bias
durrrr
a study comparing vegans and meat eaters that shop at whole foods(so they are at least moderately health conscious) found no difference in longevity between those groups. Eat shit nigger

>oz
>servings
>cups
>portions
>scoops
>spoons
>handfuls
Why are amerifats so dumb? Does being fat correlate with lack of mental capacity?

well yeah, it does

Yes absolutely

Any single measurement in cooking other than mass in grams is brainlet.

Attached: 3d7a98605debaf15dae8ed7122cf7fe2.jpg (640x534, 137K)

Are you an uneducated simpleton? Causation is extraordinarily difficult to prove, especially in a field as complex and varied as nutrition and longevity. The entire foundation of data research is to get as much information as possible and to try to remove or account for as many factors as possible. Of course you can never fully 100% account for every single possible variable, that is absurd to even suggest, but you can use regressions and multivariate analysis and past knowledge on how various risk factors contribute to longevity to try to remove as much external factors as possible. You have dozens of studies that all show a similar result, and you just completely dismiss this in favor of isolated lab studies done on rodents examining the effects of one specific compound of a food or diet in one specific area of this rodent's body or function. As I said, nutrition and the effects of food on the body is an extremely complex field and we are not close to determining the granular long-term effects of specific foods on the body, so we use masses of data to try to see long-term trends.

False equivalency. This is a group of people that are literally delusional and deny objective reality. Of course the study will find that some fatties are lying about how strictly they stick to their diet to cope with their situations over the laws of thermodynamics being wrong.

Did this study find there was no difference in longevity or were they simply unable to determine that there was a difference in longevity. These are two very different things. It's also worth noting that unprocessed, grass-fed red meat is quite a bit different from mass-produced animal meat with poor diets, genetic modification, and possible fillers. I think it's reasonable to assume that grass-fed natural red meat is more healthy for you, but it's also much more expensive and not what most people are consuming.

Also if people who see themselves as healthy are more prone to describe their lifestyle/diet as more healthy than it actually is, then isn't that going counter to what you are arguing? Wouldn't the healthy people actually be less healthy than what they are self-describing themselves as, so the true longevity of someone who genuinely follows a healthy lifestyle would be even longer? I don't really understand your logic here. Yes, people won't always know or remember exactly what they ate in the exact quantities, no that does not indicate some kind of systemic conspiracy that has not been uncovered across dozens of studies by educated researches (instead of YouTube broscientists), and no, that does not debunk dozens of studies all showing the same trend.

>Causation is extraordinarily difficult to prove,
Yeah, hard enough to be someone's fucking job even
>Of course you can never fully 100% account for every single possible variable, that is absurd to even suggest, but you can use regressions and multivariate analysis and past knowledge on how various risk factors contribute to longevity to try to remove as much external factors as possible.
In other words, p hack and obfuscate like your life depends on it.
>You have dozens of studies that all show a similar result,
Because they all have the same problem: healthy people do and are lots of different things compared to unhealthy people in very strong clusters
>and you just completely dismiss this in favor of isolated lab studies done on rodents examining the effects of one specific compound of a food or diet in one specific area of this rodent's body or function.
Correct, because this is how actual fucking science is performed. Through motherfucking hypothesis testing, not reading fucking tea leaves.
>It's also worth noting that unprocessed, grass-fed red meat is quite a bit different from mass-produced animal meat with poor diets, genetic modification,
There actually isn't much difference
>and possible fillers.
Maybe if you live in brazil or india
Also you've completely misunderstood the healthy user bias. By the same logic that red meat is correlated with heart failire, so is living in a smaller house, recycling, or not owning a fishing rod

HAHAHAAHA you are so fucking braindead bro. You are some uneducated dropout retard who has no idea what he is talking about and gets his education from other uneducated idiots on YouTube that regurgitate what they want to hear to them. The saddest part is that you are so arrogant too, it's hilarious.

>Yeah, hard enough to be someone's fucking job even
>In other words, p hack and obfuscate like your life depends on it.
No, it's not someone's fucking job in the field of nutrition to show direct causation from complex long term diets for a large sector of the population. Find me a SINGLE meta analysis study that proves causation between overall diet and long-term life expectancy, IT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST you absolute moron. You have no understanding of even the basic principles of data research. You are the fucking pseudo-intellectual retard who feels the need to reiterate with every fucking study that comes out that "causation =/= correlation guys remember that! I learned that one in high school!" The entire foundation of data research is removing or controlling for as many external variables as possible and see if the correlation is still present.

>Because they all have the same problem: healthy people do and are lots of different things compared to unhealthy people in very strong clusters
Yes, and that is why the studies controls for it through statistical methods. "Healthy" people btw being people who, you know, don't fucking gorge themselves with red and processed meat or protein powder laden with heavy metals.

>Correct, because this is how actual fucking science is performed. Through motherfucking hypothesis testing, not reading fucking tea leaves.
HAHAHHAH YOU ARE SO FUCKING BRAINDEAD MY DUDE. YOU HAVE MIDDLE SCHOOL KNOWLEDGE OF FUCKING DATA ANALYTICS AND THINK THAT A META ANALYSIS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND COUNTLESS VARIABLES IS COMPARABLE TO SOME FUCKING SCIENCE EXPERIMENT YOU DID ABOUT WATERING A BEAN PLANT. Holy shit you need a reality check my man.

>There actually isn't much difference
Well, that is completely unfounded statement. Do you actually think before you type? We know that diet of an animal affects the nutritional value of the meat, and also genetic engineering and fillers (which are not only present in third world countries as you erroneously state) have not been thoroughly tested for long-term health effects. This is just a completely asinine statement.

>Maybe if you live in brazil or india
Not true at all, meat fillers are present all over the globe and certain restaurants and distributors receive their meat internationally.

>Also you've completely misunderstood the healthy user bias. By the same logic that red meat is correlated with heart failire, so is living in a smaller house, recycling, or not owning a fishing rod
No, I understand it very well. Certain demographics tend to have certain characteristics. Someone who is conscientious about the environment is more likely to be conscientious about their food and what they are putting in their body. Just like how church-goers have longer life-expectancy. It's not the act of walking into church that makes you live longer, it's that religious people tend to have less stress, more social connections, and more goals/purpose. The issue here is that all reasonable factors affecting life expectancy are ACCOUNTED for. I already said this, but you don't have any knowledge of data analytics and think that a nutritional study is comparable to your high school bean plant experiment.

>this is the IQ of the average meat eater
Honestly, I'm pretty glad you retards are dying young of CVD and cancer

Attached: 6dBt2Oj.jpg (600x315, 21K)

I'm literally a PDAC lab monkey.
>No, it's not someone's fucking job in the field of nutrition to show direct causation
Correct, which is why nutritionists are, as previously established, the niggers of biomed.
>Find me a SINGLE meta analysis study that proves causation between overall diet and long-term life expectancy, IT DOESN'T FUCKING EXIST you absolute moron.
This hurts your argument. If you can't prove causation, you haven't proven anything.
>Yes, and that is why the studies controls for it through statistical methods.
No they don't. They try to, and fail, because you can't calculate your way out of shitty data.
>protein powder laden with heavy metals
You are unbelievably stupid.
>AND THINK THAT A META ANALYSIS OF HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE AND COUNTLESS VARIABLES IS COMPARABLE TO SOME FUCKING SCIENCE EXPERIMENT YOU DID ABOUT WATERING A BEAN PLANT.
No, I say your survey based statistical analysis is LESS valid than a middle school experiment about growing beans, because they're actually providing evidence of causation.
>Well, that is completely unfounded statement.
I suggested the null hypothesis, that's never 'unfounded'.
>We know that diet of an animal affects the nutritional value of the meat,
It doesn't, not meaningfully anyway.
>And also genetic engineering and fillers (which are not only present in third world countries as you erroneously state) have not been thoroughly tested for long-term health effects.
"Filler" is absolutely a third world phenomena. GMod food has been in the market for over a decade, and there's no sign or reason to suspect it would be bad in the first place.
>The issue here is that all reasonable factors affecting life expectancy are ACCOUNTED for.
They literally can't. It's just not possible.
Not an argument, samefag.

Fuck science, fuck faggots, fuck vegans, fuck your mom
also fuck jannies
You can eat all the bugs you want, eat the carrots, eat my ass afterwards

Pussy faggot bitches

Unironically minimum 600g

Who gives a fuck when it makes me look and feel better? Day as a lion, hundred years as a sheep, fuck you get off my board

He's not even right. Every national healthcare authority recommends strength training

>Correct, which is why nutritionists are, as previously established, the niggers of biomed.
>This hurts your argument. If you can't prove causation, you haven't proven anything.
You are either trolling or just fucking braindead.

Diet effects on long-term all-cause mortality is not something that can be causally proved. The foundation of data research is through removing or controlling for external factors. If you want to ignore all of the wealth of data we have showing that red/processed meat consumption is continually linked to higher rates of all-cause mortality, CVD, and cancer while fruits, vegetables, whole grains are continually linked to lower rates of all-cause mortality, CVD, and cancer then do that. I really don't care if you eat like shit and die early.

>They literally can't. It's just not possible.
Yes, you can't 100% account for every single one of the countless variables in existence, what a very insightful statement!

Your entire "argument" basically boils down to 100% perfect research is not possible so we should just not even bother.

>"Filler" is absolutely a third world phenomena.
Completely false.
youtube.com/watch?v=0v6OWi1zayg
youtube.com/watch?v=hXXrB3rz-xU
youtube.com/watch?v=xd3Trr8Xrdc

>GMod food has been in the market for over a decade, and there's no sign or reason to suspect it would be bad in the first place.
It's generally regarded as safe but there is not sufficient long-term research done on its effects
gmwatch.org/en/news/archive/2014/15506-cancer-deaths-double-where-gm-crops-and-agro-chemicals-used
responsibletechnology.org/genetically-modified-corn-study-reveals-health-damage-and-cover-up/

>It doesn't, not meaningfully anyway.
Completely false, for example, eggs and salmon nutrition vary wildly depending on diet.
More testing is needed, but there are definitive differences between the two sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174013004944

This. Lab coats can suck my cock

>eating grains
>in any amount

>Diet effects on long-term all-cause mortality is not something that can be causally proved
That's because "all-cause mortality" is absolutely fucking meaningless.
>If you want to ignore all of the wealth of data we have showing that red/processed meat consumption is continually linked to higher rates of all-cause mortality, CVD, and cancer while fruits, vegetables, whole grains are continually linked to lower rates of all-cause mortality, CVD, and cancer then do that.
I will, because the data's shit, because survey associations are shit data. And gathering up a whole ton of shit doesn't make it not shit.
>Your entire "argument" basically boils down to 100% perfect research is not possible so we should just not even bother.
The research isn't just imperfect, it's garbage. Closer to ten percent than one hundred.
>Completely false.
Your first link is literally a kind of beef
The second isn't a filler, that said, it obviously shouldn't be used in products sold as cuts, because cuts are supposed to be relatively sterile in the middle
The third link is complaining about the existence of brine and seasoning
>It's generally regarded as safe but there is not sufficient long-term research done on its effects
There is no mechanism by which it could have those effects, also those links are clickbait horseshit
>Completely false, for example, eggs and salmon nutrition vary wildly depending on diet.
Well that's not in your link, which does show that grass fed beef has only modestly different nutritional quality than grain fed, not enough to make any kind of health difference, plus it's not even clear if the difference is due to feeding or caging conditions.

Depends how processed we're talking
Switch to 5 lbs of grass fed organ meats and cuts and you'll have a better time

If you're eating cornfed, don't. It's really bad for you.
Replace all 5lbs with grassfed/finished beef and you're golden.

>That's because "all-cause mortality" is absolutely fucking meaningless.
LOL. It covers all causes of death which can be attributed to food/health (CVD, cancers, diseases/disorders)

>The research isn't just imperfect, it's garbage. Closer to ten percent than one hundred.
Ok, you're just completely trolling. Not even putting any effort in now. Imagine the ego trip it gives you fucking braindead degenerate simpletons with your room temp IQ to waste my time like this. It's just insane. You are just

>Your first link is literally a kind of beef
Yes, an animal byproducts slurry

>The second isn't a filler
Meat glue is not a filler? LOL

>The third link is complaining about the existence of brine and seasoning
HAHAHAHA YES I AM SURE THAT OVER 50% OF THE COOKED PRODUCT IS "BRINE AND SEASONING" God, you are so fucking retarded, watch the fucking video you inbred.

>There is no mechanism by which it could have those effects, also those links are clickbait horseshit
Ah yes, a substance where the long term health effects are not proven absolutely could not have long-term effects. Everything you say just boggles my mind people are actually this fucking stupid.

>Well that's not in your link, which does show that grass fed beef has only modestly different nutritional quality than grain fed, not enough to make any kind of health difference, plus it's not even clear if the difference is due to feeding or caging conditions.
Doesn't need to be in my link (char limit), do your own research and this is public knowledge and common sense. Grass-fed beef contains 2-5x as much omega 3, twice as much CLA, and less monounsatured fat. Yet again, you just say completely wrong, uneducated garbage. DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH BEFORE YOU JUST THROW OUT COMPLETELY WRONG GARBAGE

Attached: af.jpg (213x237, 11K)

>which can be attributed to food/health
Can be, but shouldn't be, because without causality your attribution is unsubstantiated.
>Ok, you're just completely trolling.
I don't think you know what trolling is. "Trolling" would be if I was disingenuous. And I'm clearly being very genuine.
>an animal byproducts slurry
Okay? It's still beef. Just shitty beef.
>Meat glue is not a filler? LOL
Correct, it's not filler. "Filler" is something you add to a product to make it weigh more and thus increase how much you charge for it. Like mixing nickel into silver and still saying it's just silver. This meat glue enzyme ends up being less than 0.01% of the mass of the product. Though, as I said, using it to misrepresent what kind of meat you're selling is wrong.
>HAHAHAHA YES I AM SURE THAT OVER 50% OF THE COOKED PRODUCT IS "BRINE AND SEASONING"
It's not, the assay was just wrong, because it's a fucking low budget TV show trying to make a story out of going to fast food restaurants. You don't test for starch content with a fucking DNA assay. Which is a weird mistake, because we've had starch assays for decades longer than we've known what DNA fucking is.
>Ah yes, a substance where the long term health effects are not proven absolutely could not have long-term effects.
If you want us to test for effects, you need to describe what the effects fucking are, and the respective mechanisms. Well? How could GM food cause health problems?
>Grass-fed beef contains 2-5x as much omega 3, twice as much CLA, and less monounsatured fat
So? What the fuck does that matter? It doesn't. It's fucking meaningless. It has no effect on the consumer.