are vegetables actually fucking unhealthy?

[5'7" 3/4s]

inbe4 "muh ANTINUTRIENTS" "muh WHEN YOU WERE A BABY YOU DIDNT LIKE TO EAT BROCCOLI" "muh ITS UNNATURAL"

nigga we can dissect these claims 1 by 1 tbh

in regards to "muh antinutrients", this is probably the the biggest claim made by raw carnivores, and probably their most logical one as the other two claims are easily dissected via the naturalistic fallacy(appeal to nature).

it is a fact that vegetables do contain anti nutrients, for example i know potatos are particularly high in oxalate, and the different types of antinutrients are as followed:

1. Glucosinolates and Goitrogens - prevents the absorption of iodine
2. Lectins - can interfere with the absorption of calcium, iron, phosphorus, and zinc.
3. Oxalates - can bind to calcium and prevent it from being absorbed.
4. Phytates - can decrease the absorption of iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium.
5. Saponins - can interfere with normal nutrient absorption.
6. Tannins - can decrease iron absorption.

as you can see, these things are called anti-nutrients because they disrupt the absorption of your macro and micro nutrients to some extent. so the claim from carnivores: is that these anti-nutrients disrupt your nutrient absorption to the extent-- that whatever nutrients you get from the little meat you do eat, they won't be absorbed completely by the body.

the first thing i want to do is get rid of the narrative that anti-nutrients, are only good at disrupting the bioavailability of other nutrients, and we can use phytates as an example

phytates are primarily found in greens, legumes, beans, things like this.. and contrary to current trends against an omnivorous/mixed diet they actually have benefits in the human body outside of fucking up ur nutrient profile.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34072741/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36296918/ - these studies shows that phytate reduces pro inflammatory responses in cancer cells and doesnt do much harm do to regular cells at all

so i dont want you to think that these compounds are "anti" to your body, when they literally stop cancerous cells in your body from spreading

for the purpose of not making this thread too long ill move onto the next general point about anti-nutrients before concluding(but feel free to research the benefits of the other anti nutrients), and it's that anti nutrients don't inhibit nutrient absorption to the extent your favorite guru is telling you.

for proof, let's look at this study(which is probably the most important one so I got it for free for u guys to read through)

Sci-Hub | | 10.1093/ajcn/50.4.830

the study is basically just having people take calcium with oxalate on its own, calcium from milk, and then the Ca Oxalate compound and milk combined to determine the inhibitory effects of oxalate(the antinutrient) on calcium itself.

and the conclusion is that it barely affected the absorption of the calcium in the milk, if at all:

So, before shitting on the antinoooooootrients of vegetables, consider that it doesn't have much of an affect on other nutrients granted they are supplied to you via a diverse diet.

 

[pope]

i think some autist didnt want to eat his veggies and came up with this shit instead

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

i think some autist didnt want to eat his veggies and came up with this shit instead

probably a framecel struggling to get his last bit of chicken and broccoli

 

[̃Star]

Asparagus is nice

 

[IHATEINDIANS]

I don't even care if some raw meat retard calls vegetables bad, they make it 1000x easier to cut/maintain when you add a shitload into your meals since most have negligible calories and they absorb flavors well.

 

[hd82]

Eat your greens

 

[mogtivism]

I don't even care if some raw meat retard calls vegetables bad, they make it 1000x easier to cut/maintain when you add a shitload into your meals since most have negligible calories and they absorb flavors well.

I barely eat them, i prefer fruits for low calorie yet filling meals, although i got nothing against vegetable stir fry.

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

I don't even care if some raw meat retard calls vegetables bad, they make it 1000x easier to cut/maintain when you add a shitload into your meals since most have negligible calories and they absorb flavors well.

exactly, and raw meat copers will say "muh but less cravings so its easier to diet"

nigga eliminating carbs is the most restricting shit in the world, the amount of ways u can satitate cravings in healthy way with carbs is insane.

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

also rep the thread if u want more high effort post

 

[Jager]

but muh raw chicken

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

bumping cause high iq

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

i think some autist didnt want to eat his veggies and came up with this shit instead

@asdvek was just a picky eater all along

 

[NotAMogger]

5’7 cope

 

[asdvek]

Low IQ. You're 5'7

 

[sub5ascension]

inbe4 "muh ANTINUTRIENTS" "muh WHEN YOU WERE A BABY YOU DIDNT LIKE TO EAT BROCCOLI" "muh ITS UNNATURAL"

nigga we can dissect these claims 1 by 1 tbh

in regards to "muh antinutrients", this is probably the the biggest claim made by raw carnivores, and probably their most logical one as the other two claims are easily dissected via the naturalistic fallacy(appeal to nature).

it is a fact that vegetables do contain anti nutrients, for example i know potatos are particularly high in oxalate, and the different types of antinutrients are as followed:

1. Glucosinolates and Goitrogens - prevents the absorption of iodine
2. Lectins - can interfere with the absorption of calcium, iron, phosphorus, and zinc.
3. Oxalates - can bind to calcium and prevent it from being absorbed.
4. Phytates - can decrease the absorption of iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium.
5. Saponins - can interfere with normal nutrient absorption.
6. Tannins - can decrease iron absorption.

as you can see, these things are called anti-nutrients because they disrupt the absorption of your macro and micro nutrients to some extent. so the claim from carnivores: is that these anti-nutrients disrupt your nutrient absorption to the extent-- that whatever nutrients you get from the little meat you do eat, they won't be absorbed completely by the body.

the first thing i want to do is get rid of the narrative that anti-nutrients, are only good at disrupting the bioavailability of other nutrients, and we can use phytates as an example

phytates are primarily found in greens, legumes, beans, things like this.. and contrary to current trends against an omnivorous/mixed diet they actually have benefits in the human body outside of fucking up ur nutrient profile.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34072741/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36296918/ - these studies shows that phytate reduces pro inflammatory responses in cancer cells and doesnt do much harm do to regular cells at all

so i dont want you to think that these compounds are "anti" to your body, when they literally stop cancerous cells in your body from spreading

for the purpose of not making this thread too long ill move onto the next general point about anti-nutrients before concluding(but feel free to research the benefits of the other anti nutrients), and it's that anti nutrients don't inhibit nutrient absorption to the extent your favorite guru is telling you.

for proof, let's look at this study(which is probably the most important one so I got it for free for u guys to read through)

Sci-Hub | | 10.1093/ajcn/50.4.830

the study is basically just having people take calcium with oxalate on its own, calcium from milk, and then the Ca Oxalate compound and milk combined to determine the inhibitory effects of oxalate(the antinutrient) on calcium itself.

and the conclusion is that it barely affected the absorption of the calcium in the milk, if at all:
View attachment 4028551
View attachment 4028552

View attachment 4028549

So, before shitting on the antinoooooootrients of vegetables, consider that it doesn't have much of an affect on other nutrients granted they are supplied to you via a diverse diet.

Watching too much goatis, primal diet wont fix your sub5 recessed ass

 

[karmacita901]

im gonna find out

 

[Magnus Ironblood]

Yes some are really good for you. Humans are omnivores.

 

[fwhr glazer]

inbe4 "muh ANTINUTRIENTS" "muh WHEN YOU WERE A BABY YOU DIDNT LIKE TO EAT BROCCOLI" "muh ITS UNNATURAL"

nigga we can dissect these claims 1 by 1 tbh

in regards to "muh antinutrients", this is probably the the biggest claim made by raw carnivores, and probably their most logical one as the other two claims are easily dissected via the naturalistic fallacy(appeal to nature).

it is a fact that vegetables do contain anti nutrients, for example i know potatos are particularly high in oxalate, and the different types of antinutrients are as followed:

1. Glucosinolates and Goitrogens - prevents the absorption of iodine
2. Lectins - can interfere with the absorption of calcium, iron, phosphorus, and zinc.
3. Oxalates - can bind to calcium and prevent it from being absorbed.
4. Phytates - can decrease the absorption of iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium.
5. Saponins - can interfere with normal nutrient absorption.
6. Tannins - can decrease iron absorption.

as you can see, these things are called anti-nutrients because they disrupt the absorption of your macro and micro nutrients to some extent. so the claim from carnivores: is that these anti-nutrients disrupt your nutrient absorption to the extent-- that whatever nutrients you get from the little meat you do eat, they won't be absorbed completely by the body.

the first thing i want to do is get rid of the narrative that anti-nutrients, are only good at disrupting the bioavailability of other nutrients, and we can use phytates as an example

phytates are primarily found in greens, legumes, beans, things like this.. and contrary to current trends against an omnivorous/mixed diet they actually have benefits in the human body outside of fucking up ur nutrient profile.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34072741/ and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36296918/ - these studies shows that phytate reduces pro inflammatory responses in cancer cells and doesnt do much harm do to regular cells at all

so i dont want you to think that these compounds are "anti" to your body, when they literally stop cancerous cells in your body from spreading

for the purpose of not making this thread too long ill move onto the next general point about anti-nutrients before concluding(but feel free to research the benefits of the other anti nutrients), and it's that anti nutrients don't inhibit nutrient absorption to the extent your favorite guru is telling you.

for proof, let's look at this study(which is probably the most important one so I got it for free for u guys to read through)

Sci-Hub | | 10.1093/ajcn/50.4.830

the study is basically just having people take calcium with oxalate on its own, calcium from milk, and then the Ca Oxalate compound and milk combined to determine the inhibitory effects of oxalate(the antinutrient) on calcium itself.

and the conclusion is that it barely affected the absorption of the calcium in the milk, if at all:
View attachment 4028551
View attachment 4028552

View attachment 4028549

So, before shitting on the antinoooooootrients of vegetables, consider that it doesn't have much of an affect on other nutrients granted they are supplied to you via a diverse diet.

Shit thread, anything that tastes bad is bad

 

[User28823]

who fucking gives a fuck

eat what u want

 

[5'7" 3/4s]

Low IQ. You're 5'7

5’7 cope

Watching too much goatis, primal diet wont fix your sub5 recessed ass

^

 

[asdvek]

1. Glucosinolates and Goitrogens - prevents the absorption of iodine
2. Lectins - can interfere with the absorption of calcium, iron, phosphorus, and zinc.
3. Oxalates - can bind to calcium and prevent it from being absorbed.
4. Phytates - can decrease the absorption of iron, zinc, magnesium, and calcium.
5. Saponins - can interfere with normal nutrient absorption.
6. Tannins - can decrease iron absorption.

Here.