rotation
smithscel
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2025
- Posts
- 880
- Reputation
- 1,012
This is a topic I thought would be useful to cover, however after multiple hours of writing this thread, I left the thread and more than half of it got deleted (65%ish)
and those were the actual relevant points to do with nutrition, that actually mattered
regardless, I am posting what was left, and maybe I will follow it up with a part 2
please correct me if I am wrong about anything here
you have been left with the shitty irrelevant points
to be clear, not a molecule of this was gpt. I did not use it for summaring, writing, or sourcing.
this is typical primal bro oversimplified arguments, and the argument is not even correct
yes obviously some plants contain oxalates, but fibre and calcium together actually reduce oxalate absorption by binding it in the gut
The biggest kidney-stone risk factors are low hydration alongside high animal protein intake, and low citrate, not moderate plant consumption
not to mention the reduction of oxalates (for example in spinach) which are removed post-cooking
eating a moderate amount of plant foods lowers the risk of kidney stones, and all the data supports it
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
obviously plant foods do contain oxalates, you would have to be very very retarded to not realise that
but the epidemiological and mechanistic human data literally show that higher fibre/plant‑rich diets lower incidence of kidney stones
they do not show that the risk is increased in any way
the idea that “plant fibre causes kidney stones via oxalate” is not supported by the strongest current human data
you can cherry pick as much as you want, but I am using the best current data we have, and data is not biased
unless you want to say it was funded by the jews
If anyone actually read it (DNR), let me know what you thought
I did quite a bit of research into some of the topics I was not too well-versed on
@fk732 wanted to be tagged, since he was interesting in debunking my points
and those were the actual relevant points to do with nutrition, that actually mattered
regardless, I am posting what was left, and maybe I will follow it up with a part 2
please correct me if I am wrong about anything here
you have been left with the shitty irrelevant points
to be clear, not a molecule of this was gpt. I did not use it for summaring, writing, or sourcing.
@fk732 "no human has ever consumed calories"
the argument that "calories are not real" and do not contribute to weight gain/loss or health outcomes is something I see a surprising amount, especially in this forum
nobody has ever eaten a calorie because a calorie isn’t a thing, it is a unit of energy
but the food you eat always contains energy, and that energy in food is measured in calories, you don't quite literally have to be consuming the word
you do not just happen to breathe Pascals, but air pressure still exists (although I would not be suprised to see people denying it)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
each of these studies undeniably show the linear progression of more calories equating to more weight gains, and that as calories go up/down, weight goes up/down accordingly
the studies pretty much show that while diet/composition/hormones/metabolism etc modulate things, the fundamental driver of weight change is the net energy balance.
This was a low effort segment, it is just something I see far too much
the argument that "calories are not real" and do not contribute to weight gain/loss or health outcomes is something I see a surprising amount, especially in this forum
nobody has ever eaten a calorie because a calorie isn’t a thing, it is a unit of energy
but the food you eat always contains energy, and that energy in food is measured in calories, you don't quite literally have to be consuming the word
you do not just happen to breathe Pascals, but air pressure still exists (although I would not be suprised to see people denying it
)
An objective estimate of energy intake during weight gain using the intake-balance method - PubMed
The intake-balance method can be used to estimate EI during a period of weight gain as a result of 40% overfeeding in individuals who are inpatients or free-living with only a slight underestimate of actual EI by 0.2-3.8%.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Effect of calorie restriction with or without exercise on body composition and fat distribution - PubMed
Exercise plays an equivalent role to CR in terms of energy balance; however, it can also improve aerobic fitness, which has other important cardiovascular and metabolic implications.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
each of these studies undeniably show the linear progression of more calories equating to more weight gains, and that as calories go up/down, weight goes up/down accordingly
the studies pretty much show that while diet/composition/hormones/metabolism etc modulate things, the fundamental driver of weight change is the net energy balance.
This was a low effort segment, it is just something I see far too much
@VampyrMaxx "There is no reason an indigestible part of a plant should be in my digestive tract"
actually, yes there is.
I will spend a little more time on this one, because this guy seems to be somewhat competent, and not a complete retard (only 90% retarded)
firstly, I will just link some literal undeniable outcome data, and see what he thinks about that
primal bros, please do not respond to these with "correlation doesn't = causation", it is a review of 17 million people, it literally cannot be a coincidence
we have very solid evidence that higher fibre intake = much reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality
an umbrella review covering over 17 million people found that higher fibre intake was over and over again shown to lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, among loads of other outcomes
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
here is another meta-analysis that found that people in the highest fibre‐intake groups had about 23% lower all-cause mortality compared with lowest groups
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
and here is one showing the reduced risk of cardiovascular disease from a high fiber diet
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5731843
I also have a significant amount of studies showing the benefits for gut health/bowel function, as as better metabolic health
I will link them all below, but I cannot be bothered to keep summarising them so please just read the study if you are interested
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
actually, yes there is.
I will spend a little more time on this one, because this guy seems to be somewhat competent, and not a complete retard (only 90% retarded
)firstly, I will just link some literal undeniable outcome data, and see what he thinks about that
primal bros, please do not respond to these with "correlation doesn't = causation", it is a review of 17 million people, it literally cannot be a coincidence
we have very solid evidence that higher fibre intake = much reduced risk of cardiovascular disease and mortality
an umbrella review covering over 17 million people found that higher fibre intake was over and over again shown to lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, among loads of other outcomes
The impact of dietary fiber consumption on human health: An umbrella review of evidence from 17,155,277 individuals - PubMed
https://osf.io/37tyc/.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
here is another meta-analysis that found that people in the highest fibre‐intake groups had about 23% lower all-cause mortality compared with lowest groups
Dietary fiber intake and total mortality: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies - PubMed
Greater intake of dietary fiber has been associated with lower risk of several chronic diseases. Some observational studies have examined the association between dietary fiber intake and total mortality, but the results were inconclusive. We conducted a meta-analysis of data from prospective...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
and here is one showing the reduced risk of cardiovascular disease from a high fiber diet
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5731843
I also have a significant amount of studies showing the benefits for gut health/bowel function, as as better metabolic health
I will link them all below, but I cannot be bothered to keep summarising them so please just read the study if you are interested
Effects of Dietary Fiber Supplementation on Gut Microbiota and Bowel Function in Healthy Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial - PubMed
This randomized, double-blind, controlled trial evaluated the effects of 4-week dietary fiber supplementation on gut microbiota, bowel-related quality of life, and secondary outcomes, including sleep and skin condition. A total of 105 healthy adults received either low-fiber foods (2.2 g/day...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Associations between dietary fiber intake and cardiovascular risk factors: An umbrella review of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials - PubMed
Although several meta-analyses have revealed the beneficial effects of dietary fiber intake on human health, some have reported inconsistent findings. The purpose of this work was to perform an umbrella meta-analysis to evaluate the relevant evidence and elucidate the effect of dietary fiber...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Dietary fiber and health outcomes: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses - PubMed
Our results support dietary recommendations that promote higher fiber intake as part of a healthy diet.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
@VampyrMaxx
"Your argument is that fiber ferments into short chain fatty acids like Butyrate, Acetate, and Propionate which can "improve" colon health and immunity. What about the Aldehydes it ferments into such as Acetaldehyde, Malondialdehyde, etc., which damage DNA and causes oxidative stress. Amines irritate the gut lining and cause inflammation. Don't forget phenols and indoles, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and nitrosamines. Have fun with your constipation, bloating and gas leaf eater. Not to mention the kidney stone you will pee out later from your oxalate consumption."
fermentation of dietary fiber by gut microbes primarily yields the SCFAs acetate, propionate, and butyrate.
these scfas are all well-studied, beneficial metabolites that lower inflammation and improve epithelial integrity
they also have evidence that shows they even protect DNA from oxidative stress, not damage it.
aldehydes like acetaldehyde and malondialdehyde are not even close to being major and definitely not normal fermentation products of fiber.
they are always mainly formed through lipid peroxidation (oxidized fats) and alcohol metabolism
they can also be formed through chronic inflammation, not fibre fermentation.
fibre actually reduces aldehyde load by binding mutagenic compounds and speeding their excretion (I was not sure about this one at first, but after some further digging I can confirm it is 100% true)
fibre fermentation quite literally produces protective molecules and not carcinogenic aldehydes
sources: (since this nigga cannot produce a single one)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
"Your argument is that fiber ferments into short chain fatty acids like Butyrate, Acetate, and Propionate which can "improve" colon health and immunity. What about the Aldehydes it ferments into such as Acetaldehyde, Malondialdehyde, etc., which damage DNA and causes oxidative stress. Amines irritate the gut lining and cause inflammation. Don't forget phenols and indoles, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and nitrosamines. Have fun with your constipation, bloating and gas leaf eater. Not to mention the kidney stone you will pee out later from your oxalate consumption."
First Claim: “Fiber ferments into aldehydes like acetaldehyde, malondialdehyde, etc., which damage DNA and cause oxidative stress.”
this is incorrect, and a very bold claim for something which is not truefermentation of dietary fiber by gut microbes primarily yields the SCFAs acetate, propionate, and butyrate.
these scfas are all well-studied, beneficial metabolites that lower inflammation and improve epithelial integrity
they also have evidence that shows they even protect DNA from oxidative stress, not damage it.
aldehydes like acetaldehyde and malondialdehyde are not even close to being major and definitely not normal fermentation products of fiber.
they are always mainly formed through lipid peroxidation (oxidized fats) and alcohol metabolism
they can also be formed through chronic inflammation, not fibre fermentation.
fibre actually reduces aldehyde load by binding mutagenic compounds and speeding their excretion (I was not sure about this one at first, but after some further digging I can confirm it is 100% true
)fibre fermentation quite literally produces protective molecules and not carcinogenic aldehydes
sources: (since this nigga cannot produce a single one)
A randomized dietary intervention to increase colonic and peripheral blood SCFAs modulates the blood B- and T-cell compartments in healthy humans - PubMed
Increasing colonic and peripheral blood SCFA has discrete effects on circulating immune cells in healthy humans following 3-wk intervention. Further studies (e.g., in patients with inflammatory disease) are necessary to determine whether 1) these changes have immunomodulatory effects, 2) they...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Dynamics of Human Gut Microbiota and Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Response to Dietary Interventions with Three Fermentable Fibers - PubMed
Production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), especially butyrate, in the gut microbiome is required for optimal health but is frequently limited by the lack of fermentable fiber in the diet. We attempted to increase butyrate production by supplementing the diets of 174 healthy young adults for...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Effects of high-fiber diets enriched with carbohydrate, protein, or unsaturated fat on circulating short chain fatty acids: results from the OmniHeart randomized trial - PubMed
Macronutrient composition of high-fiber diets affects circulating SCFAs, which are associated with measures of appetite and cardiometabolic health. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00051350.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Short-chain fatty acid kinetics and concentrations are higher after inulin supplementation in young and older adults: a randomized trial - PubMed
OAs have a lower SCFA production. Inulin intake increases SCFA production. Tracer pulse approach detects SCFA metabolism changes more sensitively than plasma or fecal concentration measurements (NCT04459156).
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Tolerability and SCFA production after resistant starch supplementation in humans: a systematic review of randomized controlled studies - PubMed
Available evidence suggests that RS supplementation is tolerated in both healthy subjects and in those with an underlying medical condition. In addition, SCFA production was increased in most of the studies.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Second Claim: “Amines, phenols, indoles, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, nitrosamines are produced and irritate the gut."
this is false, and in my opinion very misleading.
and I was not very well versed on this topic, and so I did a few hours of looking further into it, and what I found was very funny
those compounds he mentioned are produced in the gut, that is correct
but they are produced from protein fermentation, not fibre fermentation
when microbes metabolize amino acids (from his beloved meat or undigested protein) they release phenols, indoles, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and nitrosamines
high-protein and low-fibre diets increase almost always increase these potentially toxic metabolites because the bacteria have no carbohydrates to ferment, which just forces them to ferment the protein instead
fibre actually reduces gut irritation by feeding beneficial microbes, but I know this primal faggot has a lot to say about that
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
this is false, and in my opinion very misleading.
and I was not very well versed on this topic, and so I did a few hours of looking further into it, and what I found was very funny
those compounds he mentioned are produced in the gut, that is correct
but they are produced from protein fermentation, not fibre fermentation
when microbes metabolize amino acids (from his beloved meat or undigested protein) they release phenols, indoles, ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, and nitrosamines
high-protein and low-fibre diets increase almost always increase these potentially toxic metabolites because the bacteria have no carbohydrates to ferment, which just forces them to ferment the protein instead
fibre actually reduces gut irritation by feeding beneficial microbes, but I know this primal faggot has a lot to say about that
Microbial Fermentation of Dietary Protein: An Important Factor in Diet–Microbe–Host Interaction - PMC
Protein fermentation by gut microbiota contributes significantly to the metabolite pool in the large intestine and may contribute to host amino acid balance. However, we have a limited understanding of the role that proteolytic metabolites have, ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
What we know about protein gut metabolites: Implications and insights for human health and diseases - PMC
High protein diet is linked to various disorders such as cancer, obesity, diabetes or dysbiosis. Undigested protein catabolism by microbiota results in metabolites considered as risk factors related to several gastrointestinal diseases. Ammonia, ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
High animal protein diet and gut microbiota in human health - PubMed
The role of the intestinal flora in health and disease has become a research hotspot. Compared with carbohydrates and fats, proteins are metabolized primarily by microbial fermentation in the intestine. The production of protein fermentation products and metabolites depends on the composition...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
High-protein, reduced-carbohydrate weight-loss diets promote metabolite profiles likely to be detrimental to colonic health - PubMed
After 4 wk, weight-loss diets that were high in protein but reduced in total carbohydrates and fiber resulted in a significant decrease in fecal cancer-protective metabolites and increased concentrations of hazardous metabolites. Long-term adherence to such diets may increase risk of colonic...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Third Claim: “Kidney stones from oxalates in plants.”
this is typical primal bro oversimplified arguments, and the argument is not even correct
yes obviously some plants contain oxalates, but fibre and calcium together actually reduce oxalate absorption by binding it in the gut
The biggest kidney-stone risk factors are low hydration alongside high animal protein intake, and low citrate, not moderate plant consumption
not to mention the reduction of oxalates (for example in spinach) which are removed post-cooking
eating a moderate amount of plant foods lowers the risk of kidney stones, and all the data supports it
Association between dietary fiber intake and kidney stones: results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2011–2018) - PMC
Studies on the impact of dietary fiber intake on kidney stones are few, and their results were controversial. This study aimed to explore the association between dietary fiber intake and kidney stones in the nationally representative population of ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Dietary Intake of Fiber, Fruit, and Vegetables Decrease the Risk of Incident Kidney Stones in Women: A Women's Health Initiative (WHI) Report - PMC
We evaluated the relationship between dietary fiber, fruit, and vegetable intake, and the risk of kidney stone formation. Overall, 83,922 postmenopausal women from the WHI Observational Study were included and followed prospectively. Cox ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
obviously plant foods do contain oxalates, you would have to be very very retarded to not realise that
but the epidemiological and mechanistic human data literally show that higher fibre/plant‑rich diets lower incidence of kidney stones
they do not show that the risk is increased in any way
the idea that “plant fibre causes kidney stones via oxalate” is not supported by the strongest current human data
you can cherry pick as much as you want, but I am using the best current data we have, and data is not biased
unless you want to say it was funded by the jews
@fk732 "Fruits are seasonal and vegetables doesn't exist they're made of cross breading u iqlet"
firstly, the correct spelling is breeding, faggot
and I am not sure where the idea that you can only eat fruits in the summer - and at any other time they are bad for you came from, but it is severely retarded
humans can obviously eat fruits year‑round without health harm
while obviously fruits naturally ripen in certain seasons, modern agriculture, global trade, refrigeration, and storage make them available literally 365 days a year
and i do not even understand the logic behind this argument tbh
studies on fruit intake consistently show health benefits regardless of season
it doesnt matter if you eat them in the winter, you still get the reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity
and some studies I looked at show reduced risk of certain cancers
nutrient content is still beneficial off-season
for example, citrus fruit stored in controlled conditions for months still retains most vitamin C
and there is not a molecule of evidence showing that there are negative health outcomes from eating fruit out of season
and you primal dudes refuse to address that low fruit intake (regardless of season) is consistently associated with higher disease risk.
seasonality is cultural/historical, and in no way is it whatsoever biological necessity
claiming “off-season fruits are bad” is pseudo-scientific fear-mongering and is not evidence based at all nigga
obviously there are no specific studies of seasonal fruit intake, but here are some from all times of year showing health outcomes
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
firstly, the correct spelling is breeding, faggot
and I am not sure where the idea that you can only eat fruits in the summer - and at any other time they are bad for you came from, but it is severely retarded
humans can obviously eat fruits year‑round without health harm
while obviously fruits naturally ripen in certain seasons, modern agriculture, global trade, refrigeration, and storage make them available literally 365 days a year
and i do not even understand the logic behind this argument tbh
studies on fruit intake consistently show health benefits regardless of season
it doesnt matter if you eat them in the winter, you still get the reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity
and some studies I looked at show reduced risk of certain cancers
nutrient content is still beneficial off-season
for example, citrus fruit stored in controlled conditions for months still retains most vitamin C
and there is not a molecule of evidence showing that there are negative health outcomes from eating fruit out of season
and you primal dudes refuse to address that low fruit intake (regardless of season) is consistently associated with higher disease risk.
seasonality is cultural/historical, and in no way is it whatsoever biological necessity
claiming “off-season fruits are bad” is pseudo-scientific fear-mongering and is not evidence based at all nigga
obviously there are no specific studies of seasonal fruit intake, but here are some from all times of year showing health outcomes
Fresh fruit consumption and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: findings from the China Kadoorie Biobank - PMC
Higher fruit consumption is associated with lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Substantial uncertainties remain, however, about the associations of fruit consumption with all-cause mortality and mortality from subtypes of CVD and major ...
pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Fruit intake and cardiovascular disease mortality in the UK Women's Cohort Study - PubMed
In observational studies, fruit intake is associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD), though fruit type has been less frequently explored. The aim of the current study was to explore the association between total fruit and fruit subgroup intake according to polyphenol content...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Effect of increasing fruit and vegetable intake by dietary intervention on nutritional biomarkers and attitudes to dietary change: a randomised trial - PubMed
This trial was registered at Controlled-Trials.com; registration ISRCTN71368072.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
"vegetables doesn't exist they're made of cross breading u iqlet"
this is not really even a relevant point to debunk, since nobody cares, but I still will touch on it briefly
this is like saying dogs dont exist because they have been domesticated from wolves
vegetables just exist as biological entities, it is more an argument of definition rofl
a vegetable is simply the bit of a plant that is edible like leaves (spinach), stems (asparagus), roots (carrot), tubers (potato), flowers (broccoli), seeds (peas)
the classification is botanical and culinary, it doesnt matter if humans "bred" them
just because it is domesticated does not mean it isn't real
nearly all crops humans eat today have been domesticated and selectively bred for a very long time
wild cabbage, for example, was selectively bred into broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts etc whatever
and they are all genetically related but are all different plant organs
crossbreeding improves yield/nutrition and does not make them fake
selective breeding increases disease resistance, taste, nutrient density.
humans have been modifying crops for fucking forever like maize from teosinte and wheat from wild grasses
nutrient content remains real and bioavailable
crossbred or selectively bred vegetables still contain all the vitamins, minerals, fiber, and phytonutrients that have measurable health benefits (everything I talked about earlier)
for example modern broccoli is richer in glucosinolates than its wild ancestor
this is not really a point I care about, and it doesn't matter regardless
this is not really even a relevant point to debunk, since nobody cares, but I still will touch on it briefly
this is like saying dogs dont exist because they have been domesticated from wolves
vegetables just exist as biological entities, it is more an argument of definition rofl
a vegetable is simply the bit of a plant that is edible like leaves (spinach), stems (asparagus), roots (carrot), tubers (potato), flowers (broccoli), seeds (peas)
the classification is botanical and culinary, it doesnt matter if humans "bred" them
just because it is domesticated does not mean it isn't real
nearly all crops humans eat today have been domesticated and selectively bred for a very long time
wild cabbage, for example, was selectively bred into broccoli, cauliflower, kale, Brussels sprouts etc whatever
and they are all genetically related but are all different plant organs
crossbreeding improves yield/nutrition and does not make them fake
selective breeding increases disease resistance, taste, nutrient density.
humans have been modifying crops for fucking forever like maize from teosinte and wheat from wild grasses
nutrient content remains real and bioavailable
crossbred or selectively bred vegetables still contain all the vitamins, minerals, fiber, and phytonutrients that have measurable health benefits (everything I talked about earlier)
for example modern broccoli is richer in glucosinolates than its wild ancestor
this is not really a point I care about, and it doesn't matter regardless
If anyone actually read it (DNR
), let me know what you thoughtI did quite a bit of research into some of the topics I was not too well-versed on
@fk732 wanted to be tagged, since he was interesting in debunking my points
Last edited:
