Diet for NTs?

[6’5 retard]

I’m not autistic and I’m not Latvian so I’m not going to eat raw organs all day. I’m also in university so can’t afford that diet anyway, what should I be eating?

I have quite a fast metabolism so eat a lot of bread, pasta, rice etc alongside the necessary proteins and vegetables. Are there some foods that I should be prioritising and some that I should be cutting out e.g. maybe I should eat more rice over pasta or maybe I should be eating broccoli over peas, shit like that.

TLDR; what should one eat if they’re poor and need lots of calories.

 

[Zeekie]

I continue to ignore it because you have failed to show that it is a trend? Do you know what a trend is? Can you define what a statistical trend is? I'll give you a sec to ask chat gpt that really quickly, when the fuck have I ignored that meta analysis interpret a broad spectrum of research I think I have made that very clear.

You wont jump on discord because you know you are outclassed and have literally no clue what you're talking about, you didn't know what a cross sectional study was until this debate.

I already gave you my evidence, there is literally no studies contradicting the neutral claims I'm making, if there was you would be able to show that already. Not hard.

Once again, let's hop on discord, don't dodge like a little pussy. You're not going to do it because you know you will make a fucking fool of yourself without being to have a grace period before every response where u can consult chatgpt

My claim is essentially that there is no evidence of meaningful nutritional deficiencies in the west and that further exceeding the intake of the recommended RDI's will do fuck all for your health per the literature that is currently out there. What do you not comprehend?

"You wont jump on discord because you know you are outclassed and have literally no clue what you're talking about, you didn't know what a cross sectional study was until this debate." yeah bro

"I already gave you my evidence, there is literally no studies contradicting the neutral claims I'm making, if there was you would be able to show that already. Not hard." and "My claim is essentially that there is no evidence of meaningful nutritional deficiencies in the west and that further exceeding the intake of the recommended RDI's will do fuck all for your health per the literature that is currently out there." No, your claims were not neutral and you have NOT provided evidence for them. First off, You made a positive claim, that exceeding RDI “does nothing” and “there are no meaningful nutritional deficiencies in the West.” If that's true, it’s on you to back that with evidence, those are positive claims. Going off your definition of "viable evidence", then you must have cited a meta-analysis or a systematic review, you haven't done that.

"Once again, let's hop on discord, don't dodge like a little pussy. You're not going to do it because you know you will make a fucking fool of yourself without being to have a grace period before every response where u can consult chatgpt" Attacking someone character is not an argument bro

 

[llane9]

"You wont jump on discord because you know you are outclassed and have literally no clue what you're talking about, you didn't know what a cross sectional study was until this debate." yeah bro

"I already gave you my evidence, there is literally no studies contradicting the neutral claims I'm making, if there was you would be able to show that already. Not hard." and "My claim is essentially that there is no evidence of meaningful nutritional deficiencies in the west and that further exceeding the intake of the recommended RDI's will do fuck all for your health per the literature that is currently out there." No, your claims were not neutral and you have NOT provided evidence for them. First off, You made a positive claim, that exceeding RDI “does nothing” and “there are no meaningful nutritional deficiencies in the West.” If that's true, it’s on you to back that with evidence, those are positive claims. Going off your definition of "viable evidence", then you must have cited a meta-analysis or a systematic review, you haven't done that.

"Once again, let's hop on discord, don't dodge like a little pussy. You're not going to do it because you know you will make a fucking fool of yourself without being to have a grace period before every response where u can consult chatgpt" Attacking someone character is not an argument bro

Okay ready, I'll rephrase my claim. I am agnostic to the fact that raising above the RDI would do anything as there is no literature stating that it does, you're making the positive claim that there is, so just show it man! Should be an easy win right?! What evidence would I need to provide if there's no evidence to the contrary? But once again I'll rephrase my question, I am agnostic to the fact whether or not nutritional deficiencies exist in the west, if they do as you are claiming, once again just show the research and super easy win for you!

I never said it was, you are just a fucking retard and continue to prove so. It's extremely telling that you wont hop on discord, keep pivoting little man, I'm sending you my discord right now. Don't be a pussy! maybe you can use the speech option on chatgpt and it can tell you what to say!

 

[Zeekie]

Also the fact your trying to act like a couple replicated cross sectional studies to a meta analysis is absolutely fucking comical, if you understood anything about research you would understand how this grossly displays how little you actually understand about what you're talking about. But I'm still waiting for you to DM me that discord !!!

But since you like to say I use ChatGPT so much then let's ask the man himself what does he think!

Sorry bro, the AI says you have to cite your sources.

 

[llane9]

But since you like to say I use ChatGPT so much then let's ask the man himself what does he think!
View attachment 3791582View attachment 3791584

Sorry bro, the AI says you have to cite your sources.

Once again, I rephrased my claims as you were not understanding my position. It's funny how it already has the context of our conversation and names, almost like you've been talking to it this whole time! Hop on discord sissy boy, stop fucking dodging.

 

[Zeekie]

Once again, I rephrased my claims as you were not understanding my position. It's funny how it already has the context of our conversation and names, almost like you've been talking to it this whole time! Hop on discord sissy boy, stop fucking dodging.

I'm sorry but if the AI and I are borth not understand my position then we're not the one with the issue Also, you cannot just say something and then backtrack and act like it never happened you nigger, you made positive statements, not once, not even twice, many times, you have to respond to them. Despite how much you'd like to claim you're an "agnostic" you're not, think I have to be the one to provide and cite the studies YOU want while you do none of that and simply resort to saying "yeah they're not valid" based on some arbitrary set of standards that you made up? Be fucking for real.

 

[llane9]

I'm sorry but if the AI and I are borth not understand my position then we're not the one with the issue Also, you cannot just say something and then backtrack and act like it never happened you nigger, you made positive statements, not once, not even twice, many times, you have to respond to them. Despite how much you'd like to claim you're an "agnostic" you're not, think I have to be the one to provide and cite the studies YOU want while you do none of that and simply resort to saying "yeah they're not valid" based on some arbitrary set of standards that you made up? Be fucking for real.

I poorly phrased my statements thus you poorly interpreted them, they have literally not changed whatsoever. I am completely agnostic with a bias towards it doing fuck all because there is no evidence that it does. The standards I set are the furthest thing from arbitrary possible, the fact you're trying to argue this still is hilarious, and I already explained to you why we need higher quality studies that a few cross sectional studies man this is getting ridiculous . Once again, I extend my invite to discord where we can actually debate this live, save time, and have a more productive convo. If you can't keep up with a live debate because you don't know what you're talking about, just say so, no worries little bro.

 

[llane9]

Appealing to gpt too is wild, never thought I would of seen that before

 

[Zeekie]

Appealing to gpt too is wild, never thought I would of seen that before

yeah but if you were to be right the thing would've agreed with you, right? I suggest you try it for yourself, give it all the text in this conversation and ask it's opinion about it, it will side with me. That's evidence enough that I'm right and you're given, given that all you have provided are insults and dismissals of perfectly viable evidence, ALL WHILE PROVIDING NONE OF YOUR OWN, it's obvious why

 

[Zeekie]

I poorly phrased my statements thus you poorly interpreted them, they have literally not changed whatsoever. I am completely agnostic with a bias towards it doing fuck all because there is no evidence that it does. The standards I set are the furthest thing from arbitrary possible, the fact you're trying to argue this still is hilarious, and I already explained to you why we need higher quality studies that a few cross sectional studies man this is getting ridiculous . Once again, I extend my invite to discord where we can actually debate this live, save time, and have a more productive convo. If you can't keep up with a live debate because you don't know what you're talking about, just say so, no worries little bro. View attachment 3791627

Also, yeah, "poorly phrased" want me to start quoting your words? It's not that they were poorly phrased or ambiguous, it's that you stated something clearly and then tried to fix it when you realized you actually had to move a finger instead of constantly denying what is shown to you. I'll keep denying your request and your rebuttal of my evidence until you can provide evidence that suits your standard to validate your positive claims.

I'm waiting.

 

[llane9]

yeah but if you were to be right the thing would've agreed with you, right? I suggest you try it for yourself, give it all the text in this conversation and ask it's opinion about it, it will side with me. That's evidence enough that I'm right and you're given, given that all you have provided are insults and dismissals of perfectly viable evidence, ALL WHILE PROVIDING NONE OF YOUR OWN, it's obvious why

HAHAHAHA NO FUCKING WAY DUDE, NO FUCKING WAY YOU'RE ACTUALLY APPEALING TO CHAT GPT BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE BRO . You can make chatgpt tell you all sorts of ridiculous fucking things, and you didn't even phrase my claims correctly in the first plac. Just admit you LOST at this point, you're literally appealing to an AI that has insane implicit biases towards the user it's speaking with and is relatively primitive when it comes to interpreting things like this. Once again, WHY WONT YOU HOP ON DISCORD?!

 

[llane9]

Also, yeah, "poorly phrased" want me to start quoting your words? It's not that they were poorly phrased or ambiguous, it's that you stated something clearly and then tried to fix it when you realized you actually had to move a finger instead of constantly denying what is shown to you. I'll keep denying your request and your rebuttal of my evidence until you can provide evidence that suits your standard to validate your positive claims.

I'm waiting.

I have not made a single positive claim other than like some RDI's can be slightly too high based off lobbying from certain industries and cus it fails to lack any nuance, do you want me to substantiate that? not sure what else I really could substantiate off of when everything else is agnostic, you clearly do not understand basic formal logic if you think this is how debates work.

 

[llane9]

And once again, I sound like a broken record because you cannot fucking comprehend literally anything I have said but the RDI debate is literally irrelevant until you can prove the vast majority of people in the west arent hitting the rdis, do you understand that fuck head? is it too hard for your pea sized brain to comprehend?

 

[Zeekie]

HAHAHAHA NO FUCKING WAY DUDE, NO FUCKING WAY YOU'RE ACTUALLY APPEALING TO CHAT GPT BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE BRO . You can make chatgpt tell you all sorts of ridiculous fucking things, and you didn't even phrase my claims correctly in the first plac. Just admit you LOST at this point, you're literally appealing to an AI that has insane implicit biases towards the user it's speaking with and is relatively primitive when it comes to interpreting things like this. Once again, WHY WONT YOU HOP ON DISCORD?!

"you didn't even phrase my claims correctly in the first plac." I copied and pasted your words VERBATIM, again do it yourself and see what answer it gives. I said, "who's right" "Zeekie:" provided all the text I've given in this conversation and "llane9" and provided all of your statements, ChatGPT had no way of knowing who the hell is who, yet again, it still sided with me.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE SO FAR IM WINNING, allow me to remind you that for the entirety of this conversation your argument can be summarized on: insulting my personal character, making positive claims WHICH YOU HAVE YET TO SUPPORT, and denying evidence. Please, again, you have made positive statements, that is not a debate, that is not an error in how you phrased your words, you did, so be a fucking and respond to them, by the way, you EXPLICITLY SAID in a previous message "based on the literature I've read" THERE! YOU HAVE READ LITERATURE AND THE WAY YOU SAID IT SUGGESTS THAT IT CAN VALIDATE YOUR BELIEFS, so again, why are you so scared to cite even a single meta-analysis?

The moment you can do that for me, I'll hop on Discord instantly.

 

[Zeekie]

And once again, I sound like a broken record because you cannot fucking comprehend literally anything I have said but the RDI debate is literally irrelevant until you can prove the vast majority of people in the west arent hitting the rdis, do you understand that fuck head? is it too hard for your pea sized brain to comprehend?

“RDIs are arbitrary.” and “People in the West aren’t really deficient.” again these are positive claims, again I have provided evidence to support why this is not the case which you dismissed because it didn't hold up to your standards, and you have failed to provide your own evidence to support your positive claims. Positive claims that aren't even my invention, without citing studies, all it takes is a few Google searches to be directed to articles of reputable healthcare organizations saying the exact same thing. You made positive claims, you're contradicting established knowledge, therefore you have to deny said knowledge and provide support for your claims.

I'm waiting.

 

[llane9]

"you didn't even phrase my claims correctly in the first plac." I copied and pasted your words VERBATIM, again do it yourself and see what answer it gives. I said, "who's right" "Zeekie:" provided all the text I've given in this conversation and "llane9" and provided all of your statements, ChatGPT had no way of knowing who the hell is who, yet again, it still sided with me.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE SO FAR IM WINNING, allow me to remind you that for the entirety of this conversation your argument can be summarized on: insulting my personal character, making positive claims WHICH YOU HAVE YET TO SUPPORT, and denying evidence. Please, again, you have made positive statements, that is not a debate, that is not an error in how you phrased your words, you did, so be a fucking and respond to them, by the way, you EXPLICITLY SAID in a previous message "based on the literature I've read" THERE! YOU HAVE READ LITERATURE AND THE WAY YOU SAID IT SUGGESTS THAT IT CAN VALIDATE YOUR BELIEFS, so again, why are you so scared to cite even a single meta-analysis?

The moment you can do that for me, I'll hop on Discord instantly.

dude the fact that you're using chat gpt as some sort of objective truth is absolutely fucking comical. you are not winning, quite the opposite, you're resorting to appealing to literal fucking chat gpt, you have not substantiated anything with sufficient evidence, and you failed to prove literally any claim you have made. and once again, keep having to repeat myself, but I can sbustantiate the onye positive claim I have made (which is irrelevant to the debate in the first place until you establish people are deficient) about rdis, would you like me to do that? You are not going to hop on discord, do it right now then, why do I have to meet some pre requisite that isn't even logically possible in the first place. Like I said I can substantiate the RDI claim if you'd really like.

 

[Zeekie]

“RDIs are arbitrary.” and “People in the West aren’t really deficient.” again these are positive claims, again I have provided evidence to support why this is not the case which you dismissed because it didn't hold up to your standards, and you have failed to provide your own evidence to support your positive claims. Positive claims that aren't even my invention, without citing studies, all it takes is a few Google searches to be directed to articles of reputable healthcare organizations saying the exact same thing. You made positive claims, you're contradicting established knowledge, therefore you have to deny said knowledge and provide support for your claims.

I'm waiting.

Also, please note that the rebuttal of the evidence I provided wasn't even based on some other studies or in stronger contradictory evidence, it was entirely "No, that's a weak study" literally that's the only way you've defended yourself. LMAOOOOOOO

 

[llane9]

“RDIs are arbitrary.” and “People in the West aren’t really deficient.” again these are positive claims, again I have provided evidence to support why this is not the case which you dismissed because it didn't hold up to your standards, and you have failed to provide your own evidence to support your positive claims. Positive claims that aren't even my invention, without citing studies, all it takes is a few Google searches to be directed to articles of reputable healthcare organizations saying the exact same thing. You made positive claims, you're contradicting established knowledge, therefore you have to deny said knowledge and provide support for your claims.

I'm waiting.

yeah I said RDI's are arbitrary once again, are you ready, cus they ignore nuance and are subject to lobbying from certain industries, like what are you not understanding my boy? do you understand that? if you acknowledge that you understand it i'll further substantiate the claims.

 

[Zeekie]

dude the fact that you're using chat gpt as some sort of objective truth is absolutely fucking comical. you are not winning, quite the opposite, you're resorting to appealing to literal fucking chat gpt, you have not substantiated anything with sufficient evidence, and you failed to prove literally any claim you have made. and once again, keep having to repeat myself, but I can sbustantiate the onye positive claim I have made (which is irrelevant to the debate in the first place until you establish people are deficient) about rdis, would you like me to do that? You are not going to hop on discord, do it right now then, why do I have to meet some pre requisite that isn't even logically possible in the first place. Like I said I can substantiate the RDI claim if you'd really like.

"Like I said I can substantiate the RDI claim if you'd really like." Yeah go ahead then, after you do that I can hop on Discord and I can kindly debate the response you give them.

 

[Zeekie]

yeah I said RDI's are arbitrary once again, are you ready, cus they ignore nuance and are subject to lobbying from certain industries, like what are you not understanding my boy? do you understand that? if you acknowledge that you understand it i'll further substantiate the claims.

Okay, so?

 

[llane9]

Also, please note that the rebuttal of the evidence I provided wasn't even based on some other studies or in stronger contradictory evidence, it was entirely "No, that's a weak study" literally that's the only way you've defended yourself. LMAOOOOOOO

Defending what, my agnostic claims? I simply explained to you why this isnt sufficient evidence to support your claims. I don't need to provide positive evidence to something that is inherently neutral? what is there not to comprehend? Just stop dodging discord brother, it's extremely telling to anyone reading. I dmed you it let's hop on right now, I don't care if you're a kid or a squeaker or some shit, don't worry, i'll be nice.

 

[Zeekie]

Defending what, my agnostic claims? I simply explained to you why this isnt sufficient evidence to support your claims. I don't need to provide positive evidence to something that is inherently neutral? what is there not to comprehend? Just stop dodging discord brother, it's extremely telling to anyone reading. I dmed you it let's hop on right now, I don't care if you're a kid or a squeaker or some shit, don't worry, i'll be nice.

So, saying that RDIs are an arbitrary measurement is neutral? Provide the evidence to support your positive statements first, then I hop on Discord.

 

[llane9]

"Like I said I can substantiate the RDI claim if you'd really like." Yeah go ahead then, after you do that I can hop on Discord and I can kindly debate the response you give them.

Awesome.

Report: Nearly Half of Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Have Conflicts of Interest

Nine out of 20 members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee have conflicts of interest with food, drug or weight loss companies or industry groups, according to a new report by the nonprofit public health group U.S. Right to Know.

usrtk.org

Experts Say Lobbying Skewed the U.S. Dietary Guidelines

Prominent experts say the 2015 guidelines were influenced by industry

time.com

Special Considerations and Adjustments - Dietary Reference Intakes - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[llane9]

So, saying that RDIs are an arbitrary measurement is neutral? Provide the evidence to support your positive statements first, then I hop on Discord.

Once again, that is literally the only positive claim I made, and it doesn't even matter to the grand scheme of the dfebate when you haven't demonstrated that people arent hitting the RDIs anayways, do you understand that? regardless, let's hop on discord now to talk, I'm waiting

 

[llane9]

I have to go to work in like 20 minutes so add me, call, and lets hash this out, don't dodge brother

 

[Zeekie]

Awesome.

Report: Nearly Half of Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Have Conflicts of Interest

Nine out of 20 members of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee have conflicts of interest with food, drug or weight loss companies or industry groups, according to a new report by the nonprofit public health group U.S. Right to Know.

usrtk.org

Experts Say Lobbying Skewed the U.S. Dietary Guidelines

Prominent experts say the 2015 guidelines were influenced by industry

time.com

Special Considerations and Adjustments - Dietary Reference Intakes - NCBI Bookshelf

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NOT ONLY IS NONE OF THOSE GOLD STANDARD FOR META-ANALYSES, ONE OF THEM ISN'T EVEN FROM A REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC PORTAL IT IS FROM A MEDIA COMPANY AND TWO OF THEM ALSO RELIES ON AN ARGUMENT OF AUTHORITY BY APPEALING TO THE OPINION OF "experts", which you hate so much. I AT LEAST TRIED TO CITE ACTUAL RESEARCH, you couldn't even cite me the actual papers, and you had to do it by a journalist groups. The only one I'm taking is the Dietary Reference Intakes but... how exactly does it support your argument, gave it a kick skim and so far nothing??

So, I have to be the one to provide the gold standard research, but this is the best you could come up with?

 

[llane9]

LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

NOT ONLY IS NONE OF THOSE GOLD STANDARD FOR META-ANALYSES, ONE OF THEM ISN'T EVEN FROM A REPUTABLE SCIENTIFIC PORTAL IT IS FROM A MEDIA COMPANY AND TWO OF THEM ALSO RELIES ON AN ARGUMENT OF AUTHORITY BY APPEALING TO THE OPINION OF "experts", which you hate so much. I AT LEAST TRIED TO CITE ACTUAL RESEARCH, you couldn't even cite me the actual papers, and you had to do it by a journalist groups. The only one I'm taking is the Dietary Reference Intakes but... how exactly does it support your argument, gave it a kick skim and so far nothing??

So, I have to be the one to provide the gold standard research, but this is the best you could come up with?

wait so you want me to show you a meta analysis for the fact that nutritional rdis are subject to lobbying by companies of interest? LOLLLL HOLY FUCKING RETARD BRO, that is not how this shit works. Where the fuck is the discord friend request by the way? It isn't a scientific claim, why would it require scientific evidence, really goes to show how little you know about what you're making claims on.

 

[llane9]

Once again the fact you think a meta analysis for a claim like that would even exist is fucking ridiculous, and once again completely irrelevant to the scope of the debate. I am not letting you dodge this, add me on discord and let's call right now. Stop being a fucking pussy.

 

[Zeekie]

wait so you want me to show you a meta analysis for the fact that nutritional rdis are subject to lobbying by companies of interest? LOLLLL HOLY FUCKING RETARD BRO, that is not how this shit works. Where the fuck is the discord friend request by the way?

No, I want you to show me a meta-analysis supporting your point that RDIs are an arbitrary measurement, I'm sure there must be something out there, perhaps suggesting that the currently established allowances are too high and that people thrive on lower amounts, anything along those lines.

But then you should see the absurdity of asking me to provide the same thing when it comes to what I claim, that RDIs are a very functional measurement and that in fact going above the RDIs is beneficial, also that that most people are indeed deficient in a lot of nutrients, if you want me to I could cite 1000 papers from journalist sources like you just did, but that isn't real science. No one has bothered producing meta-analysis to support my claims because NO ONE FUCKING CARES AND EVERYBODY AGREES ON IT, we do have a lot of studies, randomized controlled trials and even some reviews or meta-analysis on the role and allowances of specific nutrient and their roles on real, some of which I provided, yet you blatantly denied them.

Regardless, you still have to provide meta-analysis to support your claims and don't strawman me again, I never asked you to provide evidence for "lobbying by companies of interest" you fucking came to that conclusion yourself, I'm very clear on what I'm asking.

 

[llane9]

No, I want you to show me a meta-analysis supporting your point that RDIs are an arbitrary measurement, I'm sure there must be something out there, perhaps suggesting that the currently established allowances are too high and that people thrive on lower amounts, anything along those lines.

But then you should see the absurdity of asking me to provide the same thing when it comes to what I claim, that RDIs are a very functional measurement and that in fact going above the RDIs is beneficial, also that that most people are indeed deficient in a lot of nutrients, if you want me to I could cite 1000 papers from journalist sources like you just did, but that isn't real science. No one has bothered producing meta-analysis to support my claims because NO ONE FUCKING CARES AND EVERYBODY AGREES ON IT, we do have a lot of studies, randomized controlled trials and even some reviews or meta-analysis on the role and allowances of specific nutrient and their roles on real, some of which I provided, yet you blatantly denied them.

Regardless, you still have to provide meta-analysis to support your claims and don't strawman me again, I never asked you to provide evidence for "lobbying by companies of interest" you fucking came to that conclusion yourself, I'm very clear on what I'm asking.

Brother, is this some sort of joke, why would a meta analysis for something like that exist. Why would scientific research for a claim I'm making that is based purely off of financial interested? Like dude, you clearly have no fucking idea what you're talkinga bout.

Regardless, you still have to provide meta-analysis to support your claims and don't strawman me again, I never asked you to provide evidence for "lobbying by companies of interest" you fucking came to that conclusion yourself, I'm very clear on what I'm asking.

Once again what are you saying? How is this a straw man whatsoever, I made the claim that they can be somewhartt arbitrary solely off the fact that theyre subject to lobbying biases. Like what?

 

[Zeekie]

Once again the fact you think a meta analysis for a claim like that would even exist is fucking ridiculous, and once again completely irrelevant to the scope of the debate. I am not letting you dodge this, add me on discord and let's call right now. Stop being a fucking pussy.

"Once again the fact you think a meta analysis for a claim" STRAWMANNN, I didn't ask for a meta-analysis of that, you know very well what I asked for but let me repeat myself, you made TWO POSITIVE STATEMENTS:
1. That RDIs are arbitrary, blown out of proportion and that people do well on lower amounts. I'm sure there's indeed not a meta-analysis for that, but at the very least there should be some kind of research, SINCE YOU HAVE READ SO MUCH LITERATURE ON THE TOPIC, WHERE IS IT, YOUR WORDS NOT MINE BY THE WAY
2. You have stated that the majority of the West isn't suffering from any micronutrient deficiency, again, what's the evidence to support that, and how does it contradict the evidence that says people in the West do?

I'm going to make it easier for you buddy, don't even give me a meta-analysis, because its obvious you can't give me any scientifically rigorous form of evidence for these claims. Don't be a pussy and back-up what you say, we don't need to hop on a call yet for you to do that, stop relying on worth of mouth and pull out the evidence bro

 

[llane9]

Alright wait wait, before I reply to any of this, where is the discord friend you said you would give? I have very limited time.

 

[Zeekie]

Brother, is this some sort of joke, why would a meta analysis for something like that exist. Why would scientific research for a claim I'm making that is based purely off of financial interested? Like dude, you clearly have no fucking idea what you're talkinga bout.

Regardless, you still have to provide meta-analysis to support your claims and don't strawman me again, I never asked you to provide evidence for "lobbying by companies of interest" you fucking came to that conclusion yourself, I'm very clear on what I'm asking.

Once again what are you saying? How is this a straw man whatsoever, I made the claim that they can be somewhartt arbitrary solely off the fact that theyre subject to lobbying biases. Like what?

Oh so now it isn't about nutritional science, it is a conspiracy theory about financial interest, EXCELLENT, VERY SCIENTIFIC INDEED

You're strawmanning me because what I asked for was evidence for two very exact things, immediately afterward, you ignored that, provided a journalist article to support a claim about something totally unrelated to that, and then you started saying "YEAH HOW DO YOU EXPECT A META-ANALYSIS FROM THAT?! ARE YOU STUPID" like that was what I asked for, you intentionally misinterpreted my argument to make it easier to attack. Does it ring any bells?

 

[Zeekie]

Alright wait wait, before I reply to any of this, where is the discord friend you said you would give? I have very limited time.

yeah, I said I'd hop on discord once you provided the evidence, yet I'm still waiting for it?

 

[llane9]

yeah, I said I'd hop on discord once you provided the evidence, yet I'm still waiting for it?

I already provided evidence to the claim I made, which by the way for the millionth time, I cannot believe im repeating myself again, is completely irrelevant to the conversation when you still have failed to substantiate literally any claim you have made.

There is no scientific research for a claim that has no basis in science.

If you're not going to hop on discord you can fuck off, based off your post history you're clearly a prepubescent child that's pissing himself at the thought of being in a live intellectual conversation where you cant pivot and speak to chat gpt, are you worried your moms gonna hear u talking to strangers on the internet?

In summary you got absolutely butt fucked this entire debate, you appealed to chat gpt, failed to substantiate any claims you have made with sufficient evidence. (one or two irrelevant cross sectional studies do not show us any broader picture whatsoever and mean literally nothing, anyone with any basic knowledge on research understands this). You made grossly absurd claims about testosterone and provided completely irrelevant studies where men were literally using PEDS (chat gpt, and you completely pivoted away from all that when you realized how fucking dumb it was.) You have no fundamental understanding of how to interpret research, the different type of studies and their scientific weight. You have zero understanding of formal logic and made fallacious arguments the entire time instead of writing out a basic syllogism to support your claims. Literally would be as simple as a couple premises that come to a conclusion.

Once again, completely FAILED to substantiate your claims with any research that has ANY scientific value, blatantly used chat gpt to debate the whole time, literally tried appealing to chatgpt to say you won . And you FAILED to show any evidence to the contrary of my agnostic claims. Completely outclassed you half-wit prebuscent faggot. I have to drive to work but I am MORE than happy to continue shitting on you through voice call, you will not show up tho, as you were desperately avoiding it the whole time . I appreciate the laughs tho, fuck tard. Maybe keep talking to chatgpt, learn some formal logic, and a basic level of research interpretation and you can try again in a couple months little guy!

Once again, happy to talk on discord in a live scene where you can't pivot, appeal to gpt, and have to use ur live raw intellect. Until then not interacting with this as I can't and I have to go, and you're getting literally no where, I'm just shitting on you over and over. Good try tho, bud. Hopefully when AI gets a little more advanced it can help you out with some of the nuance so you don't continue to embarrass the fuck out of yourself against anyone with an iq over 80

tl;dr: he is a child with implicit biases in his head trying to cope that he's actually doing something for his health by asking chatgpt to hold his hand through a debate in a topic he has 0 fucking foundational understanding in (evident by how he thinks endocrinology, and nutritional research works).

 

[Zeekie]

I already provided evidence to the claim I made, which by the way for the millionth time, I cannot believe im repeating myself again, is completely irrelevant to the conversation when you still have failed to substantiate literally any claim you have made.

There is no scientific research for a claim that has no basis in science.

If you're not going to hop on discord you can fuck off, based off your post history you're clearly a prepubescent child that's pissing himself at the thought of being in a live intellectual conversation where you cant pivot and speak to chat gpt, are you worried your moms gonna hear u talking to strangers on the internet?

In summary you got absolutely butt fucked this entire debate, you appealed to chat gpt, failed to substantiate any claims you have made with sufficient evidence. (one or two irrelevant cross sectional studies do not show us any broader picture whatsoever and mean literally nothing, anyone with any basic knowledge on research understands this). You made grossly absurd claims about testosterone and provided completely irrelevant studies where men were literally using PEDS (chat gpt, and you completely pivoted away from all that when you realized how fucking dumb it was.) You have no fundamental understanding of how to interpret research, the different type of studies and their scientific weight. You have zero understanding of formal logic and made fallacious arguments the entire time instead of writing out a basic syllogism to support your claims. Literally would be as simple as a couple premises that come to a conclusion.

Once again, completely FAILED to substantiate your claims with any research that has ANY scientific value, blatantly used chat gpt to debate the whole time, literally tried appealing to chatgpt to say you won . And you FAILED to show any evidence to the contrary of my agnostic claims. Completely outclassed you half-wit prebuscent faggot. I have to drive to work but I am MORE than happy to continue shitting on you through voice call, you will not show up tho, as you were desperately avoiding it the whole time . I appreciate the laughs tho, fuck tard. Maybe keep talking to chatgpt, learn some formal logic, and a basic level of research interpretation and you can try again in a couple months little guy!

Once again, happy to talk on discord in a live scene where you can't pivot, appeal to gpt, and have to use ur live raw intellect. Until then not interacting with this as I can't and I have to go, and you're getting literally no where, I'm just shitting on you over and over. Good try tho, bud. Hopefully when AI gets a little more advanced it can help you out with some of the nuance so you don't continue to embarrass the fuck out of yourself against anyone with an iq over 80

tl;dr: he is a child with implicit biases in his head trying to cope that he's actually doing something for his health by asking chatgpt to hold his hand through a debate in a topic he has 0 fucking foundational understanding in (evident by how he thinks endocrinology, and nutritional research works).

Sorry dumbfuck had to do something

"I already provided evidence to the claim I made" No you haven't.

"There is no scientific research for a claim that has no basis in science." Then such claim shouldn't be utilized in a scientific debate.

"You're clearly a prepubescent child that's pissing himself at the thought of being in a live intellectual conversation" Again, attacking my character isn't a real argument, and in case you weren't aware this is anything but an intellectual conversation at this point.

The rest of your argument is you fucking bullshit and attacking my character like always, insulting someone doesn't make what you say any less unevidenced LMAO Let's sort through the facts.

What you have done the entire argument:
1. Made outrageous claims which do not align with commonly established foundations in nutrition.
2. Deny the accuracy of RDI as a guideline for micronutrient intake, claiming it is "arbitrary".
3. Claimed that most of the western population is not suffering from nutritional deficiencies.
4. Failed to provide any evidence to support any of your claims, and also failed to provide contradictory evidence for my claims, relying on word of mouth to contradict them, and then had the audacity to claim intellectual superiority in the conversation.
5. The amount of slurs, calling a "prepubescent child" or trying to say that I relied on ChatGPT throughout the conversation is pretty damn hilarious, sadly it doesn't deny anything here.
6. You did try to provide "evidence" for your claims. One of them was a section from a book regarding dietary guidelines, I skimmed through the material and have yet to understand how is that relevant to your argument, you didn't explain that either. Another of your "sources" isn't even a scientific portal, it is a media company, the bulk of the argument in the study was a group of "experts" (appeal to authority, which you expressed distaste about before) and doesn't really cite any research at all. The last of your "evidence" was sourced from a journalism site, it was some sort of analysis on a group of papers, again the conclusion of the article doesn't have anything to do with the topic discussed and even worse, you couldn't actually go out of your way to cite the report analyzed itself, you pride yourself on being this "intellectual and educated" but you couldn't even directly reference the research?

What I've done the entire argument:
1. I tried to be respectful to begin with, and didn't start attacking you directly until you did that first, and even then that was later in the conversation after you had already barraged me many times before for… Disagreeing with you? Very mature dude, seems like you're projecting something about the being a child part.
2. I addressed each of your points, citing actual research, and even going as far to explain how it is relevant to my argument. Your response was to deny its validity, not through providing contradictory research or denying the content or credibility of the studies themselves, but you did completely base on the fact that they weren't meta-analysis or systematic reviews? Not only do you contradict yourself by not providing the same grade of research to back up your own claims, but you also failed to recognize that the same gold-standard of research you adore so much, is fundamentally built on the research which you were denying just now. Also, please note, when I later asked you to provide evidence for your claims you defended yourself saying "how can you expect to find a meta-analysis on that?!" but didn't stop to question the absurdity of asking me for the same thing? Even then, I did provide research, any research at all (which again you denied based on NOTHING), unlike what you did.
3. Half-way through the argument I realized that you're actually too stupid to give up on this, and that you don't have any evidence for what you say, the best you could do was hiding behind a mask of "agnosticism", which is false because you aren't an agnostic in this context. So yeah, I asked ChatGPT about and it said I was right? So what? That's on the same level of absurd shit you were doing by denying my claims through word of mouth, sorry but if you don't believe me, you at least have to believe the AI and since according to you, I'm already "using it", what difference does it make?

So if this is your definition of "shitting on someone", then it's pretty far off. Please get over yourself, gather some proper evidence for what you said, and don't have the insolence to deny conclusive studies because they do not fit your worldview all-while providing nothing for your own claims.

The fact that I won't hop on a call with you, since you have yet to provide any evidence for your claims, doesn't make you any less right. If you had actually been respectful from the start, if you had been intellectually honest, and you had provided evidence for all the bullshit you have been saying, then maybe I would have considered.

The verdict is clear.... 1) You're denying nutritional understanding, based on NOTHING 2) You cannot go 2 paragraphs without trying to insult someone like that gives you any more credibility 3) You dismiss perfectly good studies, again, BASED ON NOTHING 4) Then you have the nerve to try to shift your argument to try and appear "neutral", despite not being that the entire conversation, to try and avoid having to actually cite any meaningful research.

You're a moron who has way too big of an ego and actually thinks they're intelligent. None of what you have said in this entire thread suggests that. Once you can provide any type of evidence, again, I'm not even asking you for meta-analysis because that's almost impossible, to support your positive claims or deny the century-old model RDI model, which to this day is used in nutritional sciences, then I may consider hopping on a call with you, so as it stands now, you're a crybaby, with no arguments, no evidence, and who apparently seems to think that the more you insult the other person the more right you are. Pathetic.

 

[Zeekie]

Also, just so you get even more butthurt, ChatGPT says I'm right again

Sorry buddy, not even the fucking robot could stand you. That's really sad bro

 

[Tusseleif]

Chicken clubs