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.

 

[llane9]

It barely matters after you're developed, just eat whatever bullshit you want.

 

[Zeekie]

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.

In your case, I'd focus on nutrition first, then calories. Eggs, beef, fish, vitamin C fruits, nuts/seeds, dairy, maybe another protein like chicken or pork, avocado, leafy greens, etc. I can provide an exact diet that provides 100% of your micronutrient needs for around 9 dollars per day.

After you have your nutritional foundation, you can worry about calories. Generally dairy, nuts/seeds, high fat foods, rice, oats, sweet potatoes, etc, will be your friends. Really fill in the rest of your calories with whatever foods you enjoy as long as they're not too processed.

 

[Zeekie]

It barely matters after you're developed, just eat whatever bullshit you want.

Yeah but a good diet doesn't only matter for development. If you eat like shit, you feel like shit, and you perform like this (at work, at your business, at school, in your goals) since you're depriving your body of the essential components it needs to function, meaning less hormonal optimization and eventually looksminin yourself. Then there's the issue of general health, I do not know about you, but I wanna make it past 70 and retaining most of my cognitive and physical abilities...

 

[llane9]

Yeah but a good diet doesn't only matter for development. If you eat like shit, you feel like shit, and you perform like this (at work, at your business, at school, in your goals) since you're depriving your body of the essential components it needs to function, meaning less hormonal optimization and eventually looksminin yourself. Then there's the issue of general health, I do not know about you, but I wanna make it past 70 and retaining most of my cognitive and physical abilities...

This is fucking dumb, as long as you're not eating a piss poor diet that consists of like only packaged noodles you'll "get all the essential compounds" whatever the fuck that means. Nutritional decencies are literally almost non existent in the west and I would be astonished if you could eat a diet so shit it would have an effect on your hormonal profile. And as far as general health goes once again it barely matters, the metric in which determines your health and longevity is mainly your body weight and lipids of course which strongly correlate.

 

[Zeekie]

This is fucking dumb, as long as you're not eating a piss poor diet that consists of like only packaged noodles you'll "get all the essential compounds" whatever the fuck that means. Nutritional decencies are literally almost non existent in the west and I would be astonished if you could eat a diet so shit it would have an effect on your hormonal profile. And as far as general health goes once again it barely matters, the metric in which determines your health and longevity is mainly your body weight and lipids of course which strongly correlate.

Nutritional deficinecies DO exist in the west, and almost everyone has them to some, like every adult male in the US is deficient in vitamin D. Then, what are the essential compounds? That should be obvious, but here:

And yeah, most people eat a diet so shit that it affects their hormones, testosterone levels decline by 1% every single year, the average guy's testosterone is like 400-500 ng/dl or something ridiculous like that nowadays, my testosterone used to be 600 ng/dl, and when I corrected my diet (and other lifestyle changes) I started to sit around 800 ng/dl.

Also, no? I mean, yeah your body weight and lipids are very important, but go ahead and ask any longevity expert if "diet doesn't matter" and see the response you get. An ideal diet should give you perfect blood markers, no nutritional deficiencies, no issues with your thyroid, hormones, lipid profile, etc. We cannot summarize it to "weight and lipids".

 

[Zeekie]

You know it's a little scary that you think like this, diet will not turn you into a superhuman, but it is FOUNDATIONAL along with sleep, staying on top of your mental health, fitness and hormonal health. That's literally the base pillar for everything in life, from looksmaxxing, to having a successful career.

Do people succeed at these without focusing on their health? Of course, but is that ideal? Not at all. It's not stupid, and it isn't a waste of time, having OPTIMAL health, not "good enough" is the best thing you could do for yourself in every aspect.

 

[6’5 retard]

Yeah that’d be great if you could, thanks.

 

[Zeekie]

Yeah that’d be great if you could, thanks.

This diet is about 9 dollars if you buy the cheapest options available to you and will get you 100% of your RDA for every single vitamin and mineral.

Meal 1: 6 eggs, 1 oz cheese, 3 oz spinach, 1 glass of milk, 1 oz almonds
Meal 2: 1/2 lb beef, 1 oz cheese, rice (as much as you want, cheap af)
Meal 3: 1/2 lb CANNED salmon, 10 oz potatoes, 3 oz broccoli

About 2500-2600 calories if I'm not wrong, high protein, high in fats, maybe a little low on the carb, use it just as a guideline, do adjustment as required.

 

[llane9]

Nutritional deficinecies DO exist in the west, and almost everyone has them to some, like every adult male in the US is deficient in vitamin D. Then, what are the essential compounds? That should be obvious, but here:
View attachment 3789917View attachment 3789918
And yeah, most people eat a diet so shit that it affects their hormones, testosterone levels decline by 1% every single year, the average guy's testosterone is like 400-500 ng/dl or something ridiculous like that nowadays, my testosterone used to be 600 ng/dl, and when I corrected my diet (and other lifestyle changes) I started to sit around 800 ng/dl.

Also, no? I mean, yeah your body weight and lipids are very important, but go ahead and ask any longevity expert if "diet doesn't matter" and see the response you get. An ideal diet should give you perfect blood markers, no nutritional deficiencies, no issues with your thyroid, hormones, lipid profile, etc. We cannot summarize it to "weight and lipids".

The prevalence of them is extremely low and I mean extremely low, that is why we barely see children with rickets or similar diseases. Based off what OP is already saying he's eating it sounds extremely extremely unlikely that he could be deficient in anything other than vitamin D. Besides we could debate what actually constitutes a clinical deficiency, plenty of the RDIs are set way too high.

And once again it barely effects your hormones, not to any clinical degree at least assuming you have the baseline level of nutrition pretty much every westerner has. And I don't care about your bullshit anecdote simply going off one testosterone test and drawing some causation from it is beyond fucking retarded, that is a millisecond snapshot in time. If you're going to make the positive claim that the average test is lower because of diet, please back it up with something other than an anecdote. It's totally not like there's a million of other environmental, lifestyle, and genetic variables that go into it. Even if I grant you that's true (which I do not) who gives a fuck about a difference in like 100 test it's clinically insignificant and would do fuck all for your health/the way you feel. Pretty much everyone's getting at least adequate baseline levels of the vitamins/minerals that are needed for your body to produce test.

Yeah dude I really care what a "longevity" expert has to say, I don't give a fuck about your appeal to authority. Show me some clinical evidence that contradicts what I'm saying. I'm not saying it won't help to any degree for your longevity but the degree to which it could is completely overblown and almost negligible from the literature I've read.

 

[Andremln]

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.

Cooked good quality meat, simple sugars (Fructose, Lactose), lots of waters, butter in moderate amounts and you're set

 

[llane9]

You know it's a little scary that you think like this, diet will not turn you into a superhuman, but it is FOUNDATIONAL along with sleep, staying on top of your mental health, fitness and hormonal health. That's literally the base pillar for everything in life, from looksmaxxing, to having a successful career.

Do people succeed at these without focusing on their health? Of course, but is that ideal? Not at all. It's not stupid, and it isn't a waste of time, having OPTIMAL health, not "good enough" is the best thing you could do for yourself in every aspect.

Yeah, I agree dude of course it's foundational. Luckily pretty much everyone in the west already has that foundation and doesn't need to eat some meticulous planned out diet. And I agree of course that sleep is important, and if you have fitness goals just hit your macros in a reasonable manner and you don't have to worry about shit. No need to be hyper pedantic and obsess over things when it makes basically no difference.

 

[Zeekie]

The prevalence of them is extremely low and I mean extremely low, that is why we barely see children with rickets or similar diseases. Based off what OP is already saying he's eating it sounds extremely extremely unlikely that he could be deficient in anything other than vitamin D. Besides we could debate what actually constitutes a clinical deficiency, plenty of the RDIs are set way too high.

And once again it barely effects your hormones, not to any clinical degree at least assuming you have the baseline level of nutrition pretty much every westerner has. And I don't care about your bullshit anecdote simply going off one testosterone test and drawing some causation from it is beyond fucking retarded, that is a millisecond snapshot in time. If you're going to make the positive claim that the average test is lower because of diet, please back it up with something other than an anecdote. It's totally not like there's a million of other environmental, lifestyle, and genetic variables that go into it. Even if I grant you that's true (which I do not) who gives a fuck about a difference in like 100 test it's clinically insignificant and would do fuck all for your health/the way you feel. Pretty much everyone's getting at least adequate baseline levels of the vitamins/minerals that are needed for your body to produce test.

Yeah dude I really care what a "longevity" expert has to say, I don't give a fuck about your appeal to authority. Show me some clinical evidence that contradicts what I'm saying. I'm not saying it won't help to any degree for your longevity but the degree to which it could is completely overblown and almost negligible from the literature I've read.

yeah why do I never get dudes like you when it's not close to my bedtime? I'd love to indulge in that, no one who likes citing research more than me, I hope you await my response tomorrow, I don't have the energy to actually have to think about stuff like this.

 

[Zeekie]

Yeah, I agree dude of course it's foundational. Luckily pretty much everyone in the west already has that foundation and doesn't need to eat some meticulous planned out diet. And I agree of course that sleep is important, and if you have fitness goals just hit your macros in a reasonable manner and you don't have to worry about shit. No need to be hyper pedantic and obsess over things when it makes basically no difference.

But as a last there's a reaso why RDIs are set to specific amounts, nutrition scientists did not wake up one day and decide to set the minimum requirement for vitamin E to be 15mg for no reason, it's because that translates to the best health outcomes as far as we're aware. But again, that's a topic I'm not getting into depth today.

 

[6’5 retard]

thank you man

 

[6’5 retard]

This diet is about 9 dollars if you buy the cheapest options available to you and will get you 100% of your RDA for every single vitamin and mineral.

Meal 1: 6 eggs, 1 oz cheese, 3 oz spinach, 1 glass of milk, 1 oz almonds
Meal 2: 1/2 lb beef, 1 oz cheese, rice (as much as you want, cheap af)
Meal 3: 1/2 lb CANNED salmon, 10 oz potatoes, 3 oz broccoli

About 2500-2600 calories if I'm not wrong, high protein, high in fats, maybe a little low on the carb, use it just as a guideline, do adjustment as required.

are there any easy and/or good variations you could suggest to keep things interesting? I’m not too bothered about eating gormet food, I just don’t want to go insane eating the same thing everyday. Thanks again

 

[llane9]

But as a last there's a reaso why RDIs are set to specific amounts, nutrition scientists did not wake up one day and decide to set the minimum requirement for vitamin E to be 15mg for no reason, it's because that translates to the best health outcomes as far as we're aware. But again, that's a topic I'm not getting into depth today.

I really don't care about appeals to authority, man. RDIs just really aren't the best guideline. For example, dairy is egregiously high, and it's likely because the dairy industry lobbied a fuck ton to get it there. Iron is way too high, iirc it's because it's to prevent deficiency in like menstruating women. Most of these numbers ignore any nuance, but I digress. Even if we use RDIs as a standard, pretty much everyones going to hit them even with the slop they eat. Throw like 2 cups of cherrios and a cup and a half of milk into cronometerr, and you'll hit like half the micros already off 500 cals.

 

[llane9]

yeah why do I never get dudes like you when it's not close to my bedtime? I'd love to indulge in that, no one who likes citing research more than me, I hope you await my response tomorrow, I don't have the energy to actually have to think about stuff like this.

i'll respond

 

[Zeekie]

The prevalence of them is extremely low and I mean extremely low, that is why we barely see children with rickets or similar diseases. Based off what OP is already saying he's eating it sounds extremely extremely unlikely that he could be deficient in anything other than vitamin D. Besides we could debate what actually constitutes a clinical deficiency, plenty of the RDIs are set way too high.

And once again it barely effects your hormones, not to any clinical degree at least assuming you have the baseline level of nutrition pretty much every westerner has. And I don't care about your bullshit anecdote simply going off one testosterone test and drawing some causation from it is beyond fucking retarded, that is a millisecond snapshot in time. If you're going to make the positive claim that the average test is lower because of diet, please back it up with something other than an anecdote. It's totally not like there's a million of other environmental, lifestyle, and genetic variables that go into it. Even if I grant you that's true (which I do not) who gives a fuck about a difference in like 100 test it's clinically insignificant and would do fuck all for your health/the way you feel. Pretty much everyone's getting at least adequate baseline levels of the vitamins/minerals that are needed for your body to produce test.

Yeah dude I really care what a "longevity" expert has to say, I don't give a fuck about your appeal to authority. Show me some clinical evidence that contradicts what I'm saying. I'm not saying it won't help to any degree for your longevity but the degree to which it could is completely overblown and almost negligible from the literature I've read.

Actually fuck it, I'm willing to dip a little bit into my sleep time just for this shit.

Edit: Forgot to mention, but I'm not speaking about severe deficiencies, like rickets, which are uncommon in developed countries, but rather subclinical deficiencies, which ARE common in developed countries.

1. “Deficiencies are rare, so it's not worth worrying about”
That is wrong, straight up. Over 40% of the U.S adults are deficient in vitamin D, and estimated 50% are deficient in magnesium, same is true for potassium, zinc, some B vitamins and don't get me started on the west's Omega 3:6 ratios. It is not a factual statement that people are meeting the recommended intakes for majority of the essential minerals and vitamins.

PMID: 21310306 / PMID: 22364157 / PMID: 36882596

2. “Meeting the baseline is enough”
Aside from the fact that an alarming amount of people aren't meeting the baseline at all, meeting the bare minimum to avoid collapsing isn't exactly "thriving", it is that, doing the bare minimum. The RDIs are not targets for optimal function, they're set to prevent diseases of deficiency, not to maximize metabolic, neurological, or endocrine health. What you're basically suggesting is that "meeting 60% in a test is good enough! Why try to get 100%?!", see how ridiculous that sounds?

For high-performance bodily systems like the endocrine system, immunity, or cognition, you need to go beyond nutritional sufficiency.

3. “Micronutrients barely affect hormones”
Interesting...

• Zinc: Low zinc LOWERS testosterone. Correcting a zinc deficiency can increase T by up to 250% in some studies. (PMID: 8875519 / PMID: 36577241)
• Vitamin D: Low D is correlated with low testosterone in men. (PMID: 30896763)
• Magnesium: Helps maintain free testosterone by lowering SHBG. (PMID: 21675994)
• Cholesterol & B Vitamins: All steroid hormones are made from cholesterol, and the conversion requires B5, B6, and vitamin C. (No citing, this is just common knowledge)

So micronutrients DO affect your hormones, I'm gonna appeal to authority, sorry but if you approach an endocrinologist with concerns of low testosterone, one of the first things they'll work with you is your nutrition, that's for a reason. Basically all vitamins and minerals have a direct or indirect effect on the endocrine system, any slight deviation from ideal intake, will therefore negatively affect it.

4. “A 100 point change in testosterone is clinically insignificant”
First, that’s false. A 100 ng/dL difference in testosterone can mean the difference between feeling like a soy boy or a literal superhuman.

Second, men with testosterone < 300 ng/dL report more fatigue, depression, low libido, poor muscle mass, and lower quality of life, and getting from 400 to 500 is enough to noticeably improve energy, mood, and recovery.

PMID: 35211178 / PMID: 26966591 / PMID: 11465516 / doi:10.1001 / PMID: 25288577

5. "Appealing to authority"
You're overstating how much of an issue that is, I'm sorry but dudes who have spent years studying the subject, definitely know more than you and I ever will. If an expert claims something, you have the right to be skeptical of course, under certain limitations, but the moment you lose that right is when HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of experiments all agree on the same things, it's your word against them, I'm sorry but one of them have more weight than the other, I'm trusting the people who read and write the textbooks, instead of someone who gets angry at anecdotes on a forum.

6. "None of this matters"
I just disagree with that attitude, you're a conformist, there's no worst mindset out there. Deficiencies are in fact not rare, around 50% of adults aren't meeting them. As stated before, nutrition DOES affect hormones. I'm not working off only anecdotes either, dozens of RCTs and population studies show real improvements. That's all settled, I hope.

But the last point I wanted to address is the topic of longevity. We know that low B12, B6, and folate levels (common deficiencies btw) elevate homocysteine, increasing risk for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline (PMID: 15671130). Higher micronutrient intake (particularly vitamins C, D, E, and omega-3s) is associated with longer telomeres (PMID: 36145097). We could talk about oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction or cardiovascular risks, but having to sort through all of those studies is already work enough.

 

[Zeekie]

I really don't care about appeals to authority, man. RDIs just really aren't the best guideline. For example, dairy is egregiously high, and it's likely because the dairy industry lobbied a fuck ton to get it there. Iron is way too high, iirc it's because it's to prevent deficiency in like menstruating women. Most of these numbers ignore any nuance, but I digress. Even if we use RDIs as a standard, pretty much everyones going to hit them even with the slop they eat. Throw like 2 cups of cherrios and a cup and a half of milk into cronometerr, and you'll hit like half the micros already off 500 cals.

Well I assume that was a joke but just in case... No?

RDI are the minimum intake needed to avoid long-term functional deficiencies, not to thrive, first off, claiming that they're too high is already a huge statement, those standards are set to cover BARELY almost everyone's doses of nutrition. I'm sorry, but look up the definition of the RDI and the history behind it, how can you even suggest that could be "overstated" or "too much"?

And let me give you some anecdotal evidence because a little can't hurt anyone: You're taking nutrition way too lightly. And it's concerning, I mean not really, you're like the average person, BUT DO YOU WANT THAT? I'm sorry, but that's not me, my blood tests are ideal, my hormones (testosterone, estrogen, SHBG, thyroid panel, etc.) are perfect, I have ZERO nutritional deficiencies, and I couldn't feel better, that's way more than the average person can say nowadays. Being average just doesn't cut it, man, we're in fact being too liberal with our standards of health. “Not being malnourished” ISN'T INTERCHANGEABLE WITH “having optimal health”, there’s a huge quality-of-life gap between those two.

 

[llane9]

Actually fuck it, I'm willing to dip a little bit into my sleep time just for this shit.

Edit: Forgot to mention, but I'm not speaking about severe deficiencies, like rickets, which are uncommon in developed countries, but rather subclinical deficiencies, which ARE common in developed countries.

1. “Deficiencies are rare, so it's not worth worrying about”
That is wrong, straight up. Over 40% of the U.S adults are deficient in vitamin D, and estimated 50% are deficient in magnesium, same is true for potassium, zinc, some B vitamins and don't get me started on the west's Omega 3:6 ratios. It is not a factual statement that people are meeting the recommended intakes for majority of the essential minerals and vitamins.

PMID: 21310306 / PMID: 22364157 / PMID: 36882596

2. “Meeting the baseline is enough”
Aside from the fact that an alarming amount of people aren't meeting the baseline at all, meeting the bare minimum to avoid collapsing isn't exactly "thriving", it is that, doing the bare minimum. The RDIs are not targets for optimal function, they're set to prevent diseases of deficiency, not to maximize metabolic, neurological, or endocrine health. What you're basically suggesting is that "meeting 60% in a test is good enough! Why try to get 100%?!", see how ridiculous that sounds?

For high-performance bodily systems like the endocrine system, immunity, or cognition, you need to go beyond nutritional sufficiency.

3. “Micronutrients barely affect hormones”
Interesting...

• Zinc: Low zinc LOWERS testosterone. Correcting a zinc deficiency can increase T by up to 250% in some studies. (PMID: 8875519 / PMID: 36577241)
• Vitamin D: Low D is correlated with low testosterone in men. (PMID: 30896763)
• Magnesium: Helps maintain free testosterone by lowering SHBG. (PMID: 21675994)
• Cholesterol & B Vitamins: All steroid hormones are made from cholesterol, and the conversion requires B5, B6, and vitamin C. (No citing, this is just common knowledge)

So micronutrients DO affect your hormones, I'm gonna appeal to authority, sorry but if you approach an endocrinologist with concerns of low testosterone, one of the first things they'll work with you is your nutrition, that's for a reason. Basically all vitamins and minerals have a direct or indirect effect on the endocrine system, any slight deviation from ideal intake, will therefore negatively affect it.

4. “A 100 point change in testosterone is clinically insignificant”
First, that’s false. A 100 ng/dL difference in testosterone can mean the difference between feeling like a soy boy or a literal superhuman.

Second, men with testosterone < 300 ng/dL report more fatigue, depression, low libido, poor muscle mass, and lower quality of life, and getting from 400 to 500 is enough to noticeably improve energy, mood, and recovery.

PMID: 35211178 / PMID: 26966591 / PMID: 11465516 / doi:10.1001 / PMID: 25288577

5. "Appealing to authority"
You're overstating how much of an issue that is, I'm sorry but dudes who have spent years studying the subject, definitely know more than you and I ever will. If an expert claims something, you have the right to be skeptical of course, under certain limitations, but the moment you lose that right is when HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of experiments all agree on the same things, it's your word against them, I'm sorry but one of them have more weight than the other, I'm trusting the people who read and write the textbooks, instead of someone who gets angry at anecdotes on a forum.

6. "None of this matters"
I just disagree with that attitude, you're a conformist, there's no worst mindset out there. Deficiencies are in fact not rare, around 50% of adults aren't meeting them. As stated before, nutrition DOES affect hormones. I'm not working off only anecdotes either, dozens of RCTs and population studies show real improvements. That's all settled, I hope.

But the last point I wanted to address is the topic of longevity. We know that low B12, B6, and folate levels (common deficiencies btw) elevate homocysteine, increasing risk for Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline (PMID: 15671130). Higher micronutrient intake (particularly vitamins C, D, E, and omega-3s) is associated with longer telomeres (PMID: 36145097). We could talk about oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction or cardiovascular risks, but having to sort through all of those studies is already work enough.

Responding to each of your points one by one.

These studies are weak and prove nothing and honestly are barely even relevant to your claims, I'm not sure if you even actually read them. When we're looking at research especially in something like health outcomes the gold standard and the only thing we should look at to draw conclusions are meta analysis and systemic reviews. The first study you linked me is a CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY about vitamin d deficiency, if you actually know how to properly interpret literature you would understand these studies mean literally fuck all when we look at them in isolation, for one you can hardly draw ANY causality from this type of design, there is a clear sample bias, and the sample size only 4500. The second one is literally a narrative review, do I even need to address why that's fucking ridiculous? And the last study is a meta analysis which is cool but what relevance does it have to the debate on hand (very confused by why you included this one?) All this shows is that people tend to have an unfavorable sodium to potassium ratio per the whos standards? Show that actually matters, this study has zero health outcome data or anything else relevant. Again ZERO idea why you sent this one.

You still have not demonstrated that most people are not meeting the baseline, and I have no clue what point you're trying to make. Are you saying we should aim to go above the RDI's now? Kind of contradictory to what you were saying before, this seems like you're just copying what chat gpting is telling you :. Anyways, if you want to pivot and make that claim now please substantiate it instead of just speaking out of your ass.

Of course these micronutrients effect hormones but to the degree in which they do is completely overstated and most people already have a healthy baseline of them anyways. You have still FAILED to demonstrate that the majority of people in the west are deficient in these vitamins/minerals so these studies are completely irrelevant. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE WEST ARE DEFICIENT.

This is just like formal logic 101, appealing to authority is just as fallacious and as much of a poor argument as any other logical fallacy. When doctors were preforming lobotomies and advocating for them does this mean they were an efficacious and effective treatment? No of course not, that's why everything in medicine is constantly being challenged and we do not take everything spewed out by some authority as gods word. I don't even get what you're trying to say here "when HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of experiments all agree on the same things" did you mean medical authority figures or actual studies? If it's studies great, please show me some meta analysis and systematic reviews that support anything you're saying, surely there is some if there's already "thousands of experiments". lmfao

This has to be by far the dumbest shit you have claimed so far, if you're not on exogenous test with steady state levels your test will constantly fluctuate every single day by a few 100 points, do you flop back and forth from feeling like a super human and a soy boy all day :cage:. First study is a study where hypogonadal men went on exogenous testosterone. Of course they will feel better they were hypogonadal, this is not the norm, most people are not hypogonadal and once you are in the reference range no matter how high up you get you will feel relatively the same. Second study same thing, exogenous test adminstered to hypogonadal men, same with the third. I don't even want to look at the last two but again this is just so fucking beyond stupid man. If you're coming from hypogonadal levels and you are put on exogenous test you will feel better, you will maintain a disproportionately high free T and you will have constant steady state levels. In some of these studies they are literally administering supraphysiological amounts of test, this is not representative of the claim you are making at all, this isn't the difference of 100 ng/dl this is literally 1k+, with once again steady state levels all day and dispraorptinately high free T. Appeal to authority again idgaf to reply to this as its fallacious as fuck but that's not even what endos look at first, it's far down the list in fact. Also never claimed micro nutrients have NO impact on test just not to the degree you're acting like they do and for the millionth fucking time most people are getting sufficient micro nutrients for synthesis and you still have failed to demonstrate otherwise

I never agreed that nutrition doesn't matter, obviously it matters but the degree in which you are trying to claim it does simply is not true and you have still failed to prove that it does on ANY metric. As long as you live in the west, and you're eating adequate calories and maintaining a healthy body weight you will in all likelihood be completely fine. Once again you literally have provided zero evidence for any of this besides horrendous irrelevant studies that I already explained to you why they mean literally nothing. I'm about to go to bed so I don't care to look at 15671130, and I don't even need to because you would first need to demonstrate that the majority of ppl in the west are deficient in b12, b6, and folate. The omega3:6 ratio isn't even an established thing and it is complete bullshit, both are essential fats and you'd die without them, relative to the current literature you don't need to eat them in any certain balance for optimal health outcomes. 36145097 is another narrative review which once again means FUCKKKKK ALLLLLLLLL holy shit you're beyond fucking retarded and scrambling to try and substantiate your cope narrative but you lack the intellect to do so

" We could talk about oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction or cardiovascular risks, but having to sort through all of those studies is already work enough."(caged so fucking hard at this one )
Brother, you are not even looking at the fucking studies you are sending, if you were and you had literally any fucking IQ you would realize how literally everything you sent is something completely different from what you are arguing, and all are some of the lowest level of research on the hierarchy of scientific evidence. And for like the 10th time you still have failed to demonstrate that deficiencies are even a relevant tangible problem anymore so all of the research is completely completely fucking useless untill you can demonstrate that first.

You are clearly in over your head this is the most chat gpt written bullshit I've seen in my life, you have no idea how to formulate a formal argument and you clearly lack any idea on how to properly interpret research evident by providing studies that have literal 0 relevancies to the claims you are making. It's probably cus you didn't even try to interpret them and just had chatgpt do it for you. Why even give out advice if you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[llane9]

Well I assume that was a joke but just in case... No?
View attachment 3790041View attachment 3790042

RDI are the minimum intake needed to avoid long-term functional deficiencies, not to thrive, first off, claiming that they're too high is already a huge statement, those standards are set to cover BARELY almost everyone's doses of nutrition. I'm sorry, but look up the definition of the RDI and the history behind it, how can you even suggest that could be "overstated" or "too much"?

And let me give you some anecdotal evidence because a little can't hurt anyone: You're taking nutrition way too lightly. And it's concerning, I mean not really, you're like the average person, BUT DO YOU WANT THAT? I'm sorry, but that's not me, my blood tests are ideal, my hormones (testosterone, estrogen, SHBG, thyroid panel, etc.) are perfect, I have ZERO nutritional deficiencies, and I couldn't feel better, that's way more than the average person can say nowadays. Being average just doesn't cut it, man, we're in fact being too liberal with our standards of health. “Not being malnourished” ISN'T INTERCHANGEABLE WITH “having optimal health”, there’s a huge quality-of-life gap between those two.

No clue why you're rambling about this again because I already addressed why RDI's aren't the best standard(and you completely ignored it). But who gives a fuck we don't even need to debate about that! Simply just demonstrate that not meeting your arbitrary RDI's you've set (because apparently you are raising them now) has any better health outcomes than just eating a normal standard westerner diet (which you still haven't proved is deficient) you simply cannot because there is 0 fucking difference and no evidence to support so .

Cool story bro, you still haven't demonstrated how I'm taking nutrition "too lightly" all you have shown is that you are a child using chat gpt and have never actually looked at any of the literature. Please show me any evidence that adopting your arbitrary standard of "optimal health" leads to any better quality of life or health outcomes. Your anecdote of "feeling great" once again means fuck all, I feel great running steroids and smoking cigs all day, does that mean it's optimal for my health? I'm sure meth users feel great smoking meth and jerking off all day does that mean it's optimal for their health? That is simply not how we evaluate truths because it leads to absurdities. You are a complete and utter fucking moron holy shit.

 

[Zeekie]

Responding to each of your points one by one.

These studies are weak and prove nothing and honestly are barely even relevant to your claims, I'm not sure if you even actually read them. When we're looking at research especially in something like health outcomes the gold standard and the only thing we should look at to draw conclusions are meta analysis and systemic reviews. The first study you linked me is a CROSS SECTIONAL STUDY about vitamin d deficiency, if you actually know how to properly interpret literature you would understand these studies mean literally fuck all when we look at them in isolation, for one you can hardly draw ANY causality from this type of design, there is a clear sample bias, and the sample size only 4500. The second one is literally a narrative review, do I even need to address why that's fucking ridiculous? And the last study is a meta analysis which is cool but what relevance does it have to the debate on hand (very confused by why you included this one?) All this shows is that people tend to have an unfavorable sodium to potassium ratio per the whos standards? Show that actually matters, this study has zero health outcome data or anything else relevant. Again ZERO idea why you sent this one.

You still have not demonstrated that most people are not meeting the baseline, and I have no clue what point you're trying to make. Are you saying we should aim to go above the RDI's now? Kind of contradictory to what you were saying before, this seems like you're just copying what chat gpting is telling you :. Anyways, if you want to pivot and make that claim now please substantiate it instead of just speaking out of your ass.

Of course these micronutrients effect hormones but to the degree in which they do is completely overstated and most people already have a healthy baseline of them anyways. You have still FAILED to demonstrate that the majority of people in the west are deficient in these vitamins/minerals so these studies are completely irrelevant. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN THE WEST ARE DEFICIENT.

This is just like formal logic 101, appealing to authority is just as fallacious and as much of a poor argument as any other logical fallacy. When doctors were preforming lobotomies and advocating for them does this mean they were an efficacious and effective treatment? No of course not, that's why everything in medicine is constantly being challenged and we do not take everything spewed out by some authority as gods word. I don't even get what you're trying to say here "when HUNDREDS if not THOUSANDS of experiments all agree on the same things" did you mean medical authority figures or actual studies? If it's studies great, please show me some meta analysis and systematic reviews that support anything you're saying, surely there is some if there's already "thousands of experiments". lmfao

This has to be by far the dumbest shit you have claimed so far, if you're not on exogenous test with steady state levels your test will constantly fluctuate every single day by a few 100 points, do you flop back and forth from feeling like a super human and a soy boy all day :cage:. First study is a study where hypogonadal men went on exogenous testosterone. Of course they will feel better they were hypogonadal, this is not the norm, most people are not hypogonadal and once you are in the reference range no matter how high up you get you will feel relatively the same. Second study same thing, exogenous test adminstered to hypogonadal men, same with the third. I don't even want to look at the last two but again this is just so fucking beyond stupid man. If you're coming from hypogonadal levels and you are put on exogenous test you will feel better, you will maintain a disproportionately high free T and you will have constant steady state levels. In some of these studies they are literally administering supraphysiological amounts of test, this is not representative of the claim you are making at all, this isn't the difference of 100 ng/dl this is literally 1k+, with once again steady state levels all day and dispraorptinately high free T. Appeal to authority again idgaf to reply to this as its fallacious as fuck but that's not even what endos look at first, it's far down the list in fact. Also never claimed micro nutrients have NO impact on test just not to the degree you're acting like they do and for the millionth fucking time most people are getting sufficient micro nutrients for synthesis and you still have failed to demonstrate otherwise

I never agreed that nutrition doesn't matter, obviously it matters but the degree in which you are trying to claim it does simply is not true and you have still failed to prove that it does on ANY metric. As long as you live in the west, and you're eating adequate calories and maintaining a healthy body weight you will in all likelihood be completely fine. Once again you literally have provided zero evidence for any of this besides horrendous irrelevant studies that I already explained to you why they mean literally nothing. I'm about to go to bed so I don't care to look at 15671130, and I don't even need to because you would first need to demonstrate that the majority of ppl in the west are deficient in b12, b6, and folate. The omega3:6 ratio isn't even an established thing and it is complete bullshit, both are essential fats and you'd die without them, relative to the current literature you don't need to eat them in any certain balance for optimal health outcomes. 36145097 is another narrative review which once again means FUCKKKKK ALLLLLLLLL holy shit you're beyond fucking retarded and scrambling to try and substantiate your cope narrative but you lack the intellect to do so

" We could talk about oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction or cardiovascular risks, but having to sort through all of those studies is already work enough."(caged so fucking hard at this one )
Brother, you are not even looking at the fucking studies you are sending, if you were and you had literally any fucking IQ you would realize how literally everything you sent is something completely different from what you are arguing, and all are some of the lowest level of research on the hierarchy of scientific evidence. And for like the 10th time you still have failed to demonstrate that deficiencies are even a relevant tangible problem anymore so all of the research is completely completely fucking useless untill you can demonstrate that first.

You are clearly in over your head this is the most chat gpt written bullshit I've seen in my life, you have no idea how to formulate a formal argument and you clearly lack any idea on how to properly interpret research evident by providing studies that have literal 0 relevancies to the claims you are making. It's probably cus you didn't even try to interpret them and just had chatgpt do it for you. Why even give out advice if you have no clue what you're talking about.

"These studies are weak and prove nothing" This is wrong. Yes, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are the gold standard when it comes to evidence, but they rely on the availability of the very research you call “weak.” Without primary studies, there is no meta-analysis. ALL LEVELS OF EVIDENCE CONTRIBUTE TO UNDERSTANDING, you cannot reduce the “truth” to a single type of study. Ignoring one type of scientific research and dismissing it as “meaningless” is very fucking dishonest.

Now, let’s go over how each study is relevant to the argument:
- PMID: 21310306 - Pretty obvious: "The overall prevalence rate of vitamin D deficiency was 41.6%” in the US.
- PMID: 22364157 - “Almost half (48%) of the US population consumed less than the required amount of magnesium” between 2005-2006 and that’s still the case today.
- PMID: 36882596 - “Global mean potassium intake (2.25 g/day) falls below current guideline recommended intake level of >3.5 g/day, with only 14% (95% CI 11-17%) of the global population achieving guideline-target mean intake.”
- PMID: 8875519 - "About 30 mg/day of zinc increased testosterone levels in men from 8.3 to 16.0 nmol/L.”
- PMID: 36577241 - “In conclusion, serum zinc was positively correlated with total testosterone, and moderate supplementation plays an important role in improving androgen.” Key word here being moderate supplementation. If the subjects from the 38 papers analyzed were already meeting their “ideal zinc intake,” then how come supplementation improved their androgen levels?
- PMID: 30896763 - This study supports the relationship between vitamin D and testosterone: “Lower 25(OH)D levels were associated with lower total T (β, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.58) after multivariable adjustment.”
- PMID: 37006940 - States that 15.7% of the population had serum 25(OH)D levels below 30 nmol/L (severe deficiency the levels shown to reduce testosterone in the previous study), 47.9% had levels below 50 nmol/L (deficiency), and 76.6% had levels below 75 nmol/L (insufficiency).

I assume you're going to say, "that doesn’t prove people are struggling because of their vitamin D3 levels" or something along those lines. Then there’s PMID: 22220644 and PMID: 25044703, both concluding that 82-102 nmol/L is optimal to prevent symptoms of hypogonadism. Again, 76.6% of the world has levels below 75 nmol/L.

“Oh, but this was worldwide, not in the West.” Except it's still the case in the West, see PMID: 36263304, which found:
- 40.9% of participants had vitamin D insufficiency (50-75 nmol/L),
- 34.5% had vitamin D sufficiency (>75 nmol/L),
- 22.0% had moderate deficiency (25-50 nmol/L), and
- 2.6% had severe deficiency (<25 nmol/L).

Only 34% of the US is meeting the requirement for vitamin D which means:
The majority of people are deficient

I'm not going to bother drawing conclusions from who knows how many other studies just to prove to you that the majority of people are deficient in most of the essential vitamins and minerals, that would be a monumental task. But we already know that most people in the US aren’t even meeting the requirements for vitamin D, and that a good chunk of them (estimated 40-50%) aren’t meeting the requirement for magnesium the same goes for potassium, zinc, etc. Other deficiencies may be more rare, but they're still prevalent.

Use your brain for a second and stop being pedantic. Isn’t it obvious that, given this body of evidence, we can logically conclude that most people in the West are statistically suffering from at least one deficiency?

ALL THIS IS EVIDENCE that either
1. Meeting the required RDI for vitamins and minerals is very important for overall health, or
2. People aren’t meeting their required RDIs.

“You still have not demonstrated that most people are not meeting the baseline.” Aside from what I've said before, I’m sure that if you actually did research, you’d find even more. So why don’t you provide some research instead? One that shows none of this matters and that RDIs are an arbitrary metric?

 

[kenibba]

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.

just eat whole foods as unprocessed as possible, meat, fruit, vegetables, maybe just try to avoid grains. btw you can def afford organs they are cheap asf.

 

[Zeekie]

View attachment 3790116View attachment 3790117

No clue why you're rambling about this again because I already addressed why RDI's aren't the best standard(and you completely ignored it). But who gives a fuck we don't even need to debate about that! Simply just demonstrate that not meeting your arbitrary RDI's you've set (because apparently you are raising them now) has any better health outcomes than just eating a normal standard westerner diet (which you still haven't proved is deficient) you simply cannot because there is 0 fucking difference and no evidence to support so .

Cool story bro, you still haven't demonstrated how I'm taking nutrition "too lightly" all you have shown is that you are a child using chat gpt and have never actually looked at any of the literature. Please show me any evidence that adopting your arbitrary standard of "optimal health" leads to any better quality of life or health outcomes. Your anecdote of "feeling great" once again means fuck all, I feel great running steroids and smoking cigs all day, does that mean it's optimal for my health? I'm sure meth users feel great smoking meth and jerking off all day does that mean it's optimal for their health? That is simply not how we evaluate truths because it leads to absurdities. You are a complete and utter fucking moron holy shit.

"Are you saying we should aim to go above the RDI's now" I never said you shouldn't. Ideally, that would be best. By the simplest definition possible, the RDI is the minimum intake of a micronutrient someone needs to barely function, not to achieve optimal health. That’s what I’m debating here. Most people are suffering from a deficiency even by RDI standards, which don’t ensure health, only that your body isn't shutting down. So again: why shouldn’t people go above the RDI?

"Most people already have a healthy baseline of them anyways" No. And if they do, then provide the evidence to support that. Maybe most people are meeting some of their nutritional requirements, but that’s barely scraping by. Meeting most of your RDIs doesn’t mean you don’t have specific nutritional deficiencies.

"When doctors were performing lobotomies and advocating for them..." That’s completely blown out of proportion, lmao. Appealing to authority does matter in this context. You’re making all these claims, dismissing evidence as “irrelevant,” and saying the medical consensus is wrong, yet you haven’t provided your own evidence. Given that, I can appeal to authority and question your validity. People with MDs and PhDs mostly disagree with you. And mind you, this isn’t new science either. We’ve known about RDIs for at least a century, and the fundamentals have barely changed. If something has remained unchanged for a long time, and people with far more knowledge than you and I haven’t revised their stance, what gives your word more weight than theirs? That sounds like a pretty logical argument to me. Please provide YOUR evidence that what YOU say carries more scientific weight than the consensus among credentialed experts.

"If you're not on exogenous test with steady state levels your test will constantly fluctuate every single day by a few 100 points" Ugh, touché. But I TRY to get my tests around this, and so far, my levels have stayed relatively the same! Not gonna debate this though.

"Also never claimed micro nutrients have NO impact on test just not to the degree you're acting like they do" And the degree you claim they do is massively understated. But now that you bring it up what is the supposed ideal intake of these nutrients, since you think the RDI is wrong?

Let’s go back to vitamin D. We've established that being closer to 75 nmol/L or higher is ideal for reproductive and general health, and that lower levels correlate with hypogonadism. Now, what do the RDIs say we should consume? The dietary allowance is about 600 IUs. Finding studies that translate IU intake to blood levels is tricky, but based on one I found (in line with several others), 1.77 nmol/L per 100 IU of vitamin D3 is a rough estimate. That would put 600 IU at 10.62 nmol/L, sure, sunlight helps, but most people aren’t getting enough sun either way, so even the RDI is below what would be ideal...

the intake required to reach 75 nmol/L based on that estimate is around 2825 IU, far above the RDI. Again the RDI is the bare minimum, the literal lowest amount needed to prevent major negative health outcomes. Yet you still claim RDI suggestions are exaggerated and should be lower? My ass.

"I never agreed that nutrition doesn't matter" Yes, you did. Nutritional science recommends meeting 100% of your RDI for minimum body function. You're rejecting that therefore, you're rejecting the principles of nutrition. Making claims that go directly against the established science is denial, regardless of how you frame it. It’s like me saying “animals can’t change over time” and then insisting “I’m not denying evolution.”

"The omega-3:6 ratio isn't even an established thing, and it is complete bullshit" "It may not be officially established in all guidelines, sure. But that’s an overly narrow way of putting it.

Let’s look at what research says:
Omega-3 (1g) and vitamin D3 (2000 IU) supplementation in a randomized controlled trial (PMID: 39900648) showed improvements in DNA methylation linked to slower aging. Why does this matter? Because most people don’t meet either of those requirements through diet alone. Classic essential fatty acid deficiency is rare in healthy U.S. adults (PMID: 12449285), but many studies, including this one, show that higher omega-3 levels are associated with a reduced risk of chronic diseases like coronary heart disease.

That supports my point: barely meeting RDIs isn’t enough. And even then, most U.S. adults consume far less EPA and DHA than recommended about 0.1g/day, below the American Heart Association’s recommendation.

When it comes to omega 3:6, the typical Western diet ranges between 10:1 to 20:1, and this has been associated with increased all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality (https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90132.3). That conclusion isn’t from one study, it’s backed by dozens. I’m not going to list them all, but if you want more, I can.

 

[Zeekie]

Also, what fucking cups are you using "2 cups of cherrios and a cup of milk" IS NOT THAT MUCH. Lastly, allow me to remind that you that if you're arguing against decades of well-established research, the burden of proof is on YOU to present stronger evidence, not the other way around. You're the one denying the research, claiming it is weak, and disregarding the opinion of experts and have yet to support your own claims with anything other than the "literature you've read".

 

[llane9]

"Are you saying we should aim to go above the RDI's now" I never said you shouldn't. Ideally, that would be best. By the simplest definition possible, the RDI is the minimum intake of a micronutrient someone needs to barely function, not to achieve optimal health. That’s what I’m debating here. Most people are suffering from a deficiency even by RDI standards, which don’t ensure health, only that your body isn't shutting down. So again: why shouldn’t people go above the RDI?

"Most people already have a healthy baseline of them anyways" No. And if they do, then provide the evidence to support that. Maybe most people are meeting some of their nutritional requirements, but that’s barely scraping by. Meeting most of your RDIs doesn’t mean you don’t have specific nutritional deficiencies.

"When doctors were performing lobotomies and advocating for them..." That’s completely blown out of proportion, lmao. Appealing to authority does matter in this context. You’re making all these claims, dismissing evidence as “irrelevant,” and saying the medical consensus is wrong, yet you haven’t provided your own evidence. Given that, I can appeal to authority and question your validity. People with MDs and PhDs mostly disagree with you. And mind you, this isn’t new science either. We’ve known about RDIs for at least a century, and the fundamentals have barely changed. If something has remained unchanged for a long time, and people with far more knowledge than you and I haven’t revised their stance, what gives your word more weight than theirs? That sounds like a pretty logical argument to me. Please provide YOUR evidence that what YOU say carries more scientific weight than the consensus among credentialed experts.

"If you're not on exogenous test with steady state levels your test will constantly fluctuate every single day by a few 100 points" Ugh, touché. But I TRY to get my tests around this, and so far, my levels have stayed relatively the same! Not gonna debate this though.

"Also never claimed micro nutrients have NO impact on test just not to the degree you're acting like they do" And the degree you claim they do is massively understated. But now that you bring it up what is the supposed ideal intake of these nutrients, since you think the RDI is wrong?

Let’s go back to vitamin D. We've established that being closer to 75 nmol/L or higher is ideal for reproductive and general health, and that lower levels correlate with hypogonadism. Now, what do the RDIs say we should consume? The dietary allowance is about 600 IUs. Finding studies that translate IU intake to blood levels is tricky, but based on one I found (in line with several others), 1.77 nmol/L per 100 IU of vitamin D3 is a rough estimate. That would put 600 IU at 10.62 nmol/L, sure, sunlight helps, but most people aren’t getting enough sun either way, so even the RDI is below what would be ideal...

the intake required to reach 75 nmol/L based on that estimate is around 2825 IU, far above the RDI. Again the RDI is the bare minimum, the literal lowest amount needed to prevent major negative health outcomes. Yet you still claim RDI suggestions are exaggerated and should be lower? My ass.

"I never agreed that nutrition doesn't matter" Yes, you did. Nutritional science recommends meeting 100% of your RDI for minimum body function. You're rejecting that therefore, you're rejecting the principles of nutrition. Making claims that go directly against the established science is denial, regardless of how you frame it. It’s like me saying “animals can’t change over time” and then insisting “I’m not denying evolution.”

"The omega-3:6 ratio isn't even an established thing, and it is complete bullshit" "It may not be officially established in all guidelines, sure. But that’s an overly narrow way of putting it.

Let’s look at what research says:
Omega-3 (1g) and vitamin D3 (2000 IU) supplementation in a randomized controlled trial (PMID: 39900648) showed improvements in DNA methylation linked to slower aging. Why does this matter? Because most people don’t meet either of those requirements through diet alone. Classic essential fatty acid deficiency is rare in healthy U.S. adults (PMID: 12449285), but many studies, including this one, show that higher omega-3 levels are associated with a reduced risk of chronic diseases like coronary heart disease.

That supports my point: barely meeting RDIs isn’t enough. And even then, most U.S. adults consume far less EPA and DHA than recommended about 0.1g/day, below the American Heart Association’s recommendation.

When it comes to omega 3:6, the typical Western diet ranges between 10:1 to 20:1, and this has been associated with increased all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality (https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.90132.3). That conclusion isn’t from one study, it’s backed by dozens. I’m not going to list them all, but if you want more, I can.

Dude, honestly fuck off with your AI written bullshit. You're pivoting and completely ignoring like half the claims I made before. I already addressed like half of these studies and why they're pretty much irrelevant to the conversation. so I'm not really going to reply to all of this as I don't have to, YOU NEED to show meta analysis and systematic reviews. Cheery picked single studies do not provide NEARLY enough information for something as nuanced as nutrition. It's highly complex and individual which is exactly why we need to rely on meta analysis and systematic reviews, they can address all these issues.

You need to first of all, per your premises, provide evidence that nutritional deficiencies are prevalent in the west to any clinical degree. Second, that RDI's are a good standard to even appeal to in the first place. Thirdly, that these deficiencies are leading to more unfavorable health outcomes. Until you can do so you have failed to substantiate any positive claim you have made.

I'm not going to bother drawing conclusions from who knows how many other studies just to prove to you that the majority of people are deficient in most of the essential vitamins and minerals, that would be a monumental task. What in the fuck are you talking about? All you would have to do is show a few meta analysis, like what?

Aside from what I've said before, I’m sure that if you actually did research, you’d find even more. So why don’t you provide some research instead? One that shows none of this matters and that RDIs are an arbitrary metric? Yeah dude this is a really intellectual statement, honestly one of the biggest cluster fucks i've ever read on here. You first tried to switch the burden of proof on to me (the agnostic), you appealed to ignorance, you made an assumption of truth, and you're using speculative reasoning to vaguely appeal to "research" (that doesnt exist and you have still failed to show it does). The burdern of proof is on you, you absolute fucking bafoon.

I'm just going to be responding in chronological order now cus i cba to format all this its gonna take me like 30 mins to write anyways.

cool story bro, provide evidence to the claim. i'm not sure if you understand basic formal fucking logic but the burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive claim. people can go above the RDI if they'd like, but once again you still have not demonstrated that it would reap any benefits. DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WOULD, with anything other than some bullshit mechanistic data. (you cant)my evidence is that despite the plethora of research there is no meta analysis or study that holds any scientific weight that demonstrates that people are NOT meeting these baselines of nutrition and would benefit more from meeting whatever your arbitrary RDI's in your head are. Again this is why we barely see any children with rickets or other related diseases in the west, the numbers are as low as like 5 in a million.

this isn't blown out of proportion, this is just the logical extension of your argument. If the logic we are using leads to absurdities then it's probably not good to draw conclusions that can justify absurdities like lobotomies. I'll break it down logically for you since you cant comprehend jack fucking all.
p1: doctors, have at times, promoted harmful and ineffective practices
p2: appealing to authority means accepting a claim is true for the sole reason that an authority says its true
p3: doctors, have at times, and continue to promote harmful practices
p4: bind acceptance of authority implies accepting all their claims, including harmful ones.
conclusion: therefore, appealing to authority is logically fallacious because authorities can and do make mistakes all the time. claims pertaining to nutrition/health must be evaluated critically, not accepted blindly.

God dude, this one really goes to show how much of a fucking moron you are . You cannot dictate your hormones in a way naturally that will make your hpta mimic that of a exogenous test user . Even if you "raise your test naturally" it won't create steady state levels as your balls are constantly pulsing out different amounts of test all day. You will never get your test to the levels of the exogenous test in this studies, 200mg weekly puts most guys at a trough of like 1400+.The fact you even tried to use these studies that are not applicable to what you are saying at all really speaks to your intelligence. So I ask you once again, do you feel like a "soy boy" half the day and a "super human the other half"? And why did you even provide these studies in the first place when they are not applicable to the claims you are making at all cough cough chatgpt. DONT PIVOT ANSWER THIS

Hey retard, how many times do I have to fucking explain this. The only claim I made about this is that RDI's fail to acknowledge any nuance and aren't the best standard, as a general guideline they seem fine enough. Regardless, you have still FAILED to demonstrate that people aren't reaching these RDI's. We don't even need to have the debate whether or not they're the best metric to dictate nutrition becauase you still haven't even shown that people aren't reaching these rdi's, and even if you did you would have to demonstrate that it's clinically significant and leads to more unfavorable health outcomes.

Once again show evidence that people are for the majority deficient in the west, and also show that it's leading to unfavorable health outcomes, you have still failed to do so. Yet you still claim RDI suggestions are exaggerated and should be lower? My ass. great straw man, brother. Never claimed they are ALL exaggerated holy fuck man, I cannot believe you are this fucking retarded. I feel like all I'm doing is repeating myself, I said RDI's arent the best guidline cus they ignore nuance and are subject to things likee lobbying by certain groups of interest. Once again the burden of proof is on you fucktard, you are making the positive claim i'm taking an agnostic stance based off the current medical literature.

Again don't care about your appeal to authority, provide evidence that the majority of people aren't meeting the RDI's and more evidence to sh ow it's leading to unfavorable health outcomes.

It's not a narrow way of putting it lol, the research is like fucking none on this and as of right now it's speculation. All that's established is both are essential fatty acids and you need them both or you would die. IIRC they didnt even know omega 6 fatty acids were essential until very recently.

I still don't get why your linking this dog shit research, we need to see these type of things replicated on a broad scale. Not one study with a healthy participant bias, and a very short term follow up. Also DNA methylation clocks are not the full picture of aging or predicting clinical health outcomes lmao, this is like one tiny part of a way bigger picture.

Yeah except it doesn't because it's one dog shit small study on methylation clocks which tell us almost literally fucking nothing, I am actually astonished at your lack of ability to interpret research and draw conclusions based off them.

I'm happy to continue this "debate" of you regurgitating whatever you can find from GPT that fits your cope narrative but first we need to establish a few things.
ONICE AGAIN, You need to first of all, per your premises, provide evidence that nutritional deficiencies are prevalent in the west to any clinical degree.
Second, that RDI's are a good standard to even appeal to in the first place.
Thirdly, that these deficiencies are leading to more unfavorable health outcomes.
Until you can do so you have failed to substantiate any positive claim you have made.
Also I know i've said this a few times but please address the testosterone shit, that shit had me caging so hard.
I am taking the agnostic stance here, you're taking the positive one, the burden of proof is ON YOU.

Also please reply to the shit regarding testosterone, that shit had me caging so fucking hard and really really speaks to your intellect here. once again I have no clue why you're trying to speak on things like endocrinology when you clearly lack even a basic understanding of how your hpta axis works . you clearly have a lack of knowledge of literally anything we're debating and how to debate in this first place evident by how like everything your saying is a chat gpt cluster fuck. just accept defeat little man.

 

[llane9]

Also, what fucking cups are you using "2 cups of cherrios and a cup of milk" IS NOT THAT MUCH. Lastly, allow me to remind that you that if you're arguing against decades of well-established research, the burden of proof is on YOU to present stronger evidence, not the other way around. You're the one denying the research, claiming it is weak, and disregarding the opinion of experts and have yet to support your own claims with anything other than the "literature you've read".

The burden of proof is on you as I'm taking the agnostic stance you still have failed to show any of the "decades of well-established research". So as of right now I'm not arguing against anything

 

[Zeekie]

Dude, honestly fuck off with your AI written bullshit. You're pivoting and completely ignoring like half the claims I made before. I already addressed like half of these studies and why they're pretty much irrelevant to the conversation. so I'm not really going to reply to all of this as I don't have to, YOU NEED to show meta analysis and systematic reviews. Cheery picked single studies do not provide NEARLY enough information for something as nuanced as nutrition. It's highly complex and individual which is exactly why we need to rely on meta analysis and systematic reviews, they can address all these issues.

You need to first of all, per your premises, provide evidence that nutritional deficiencies are prevalent in the west to any clinical degree. Second, that RDI's are a good standard to even appeal to in the first place. Thirdly, that these deficiencies are leading to more unfavorable health outcomes. Until you can do so you have failed to substantiate any positive claim you have made.

I'm not going to bother drawing conclusions from who knows how many other studies just to prove to you that the majority of people are deficient in most of the essential vitamins and minerals, that would be a monumental task. What in the fuck are you talking about? All you would have to do is show a few meta analysis, like what?

Aside from what I've said before, I’m sure that if you actually did research, you’d find even more. So why don’t you provide some research instead? One that shows none of this matters and that RDIs are an arbitrary metric? Yeah dude this is a really intellectual statement, honestly one of the biggest cluster fucks i've ever read on here. You first tried to switch the burden of proof on to me (the agnostic), you appealed to ignorance, you made an assumption of truth, and you're using speculative reasoning to vaguely appeal to "research" (that doesnt exist and you have still failed to show it does). The burdern of proof is on you, you absolute fucking bafoon.

I'm just going to be responding in chronological order now cus i cba to format all this its gonna take me like 30 mins to write anyways.

cool story bro, provide evidence to the claim. i'm not sure if you understand basic formal fucking logic but the burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive claim. people can go above the RDI if they'd like, but once again you still have not demonstrated that it would reap any benefits. DEMONSTRATE THAT IT WOULD, with anything other than some bullshit mechanistic data. (you cant)my evidence is that despite the plethora of research there is no meta analysis or study that holds any scientific weight that demonstrates that people are NOT meeting these baselines of nutrition and would benefit more from meeting whatever your arbitrary RDI's in your head are. Again this is why we barely see any children with rickets or other related diseases in the west, the numbers are as low as like 5 in a million.

this isn't blown out of proportion, this is just the logical extension of your argument. If the logic we are using leads to absurdities then it's probably not good to draw conclusions that can justify absurdities like lobotomies. I'll break it down logically for you since you cant comprehend jack fucking all.
p1: doctors, have at times, promoted harmful and ineffective practices
p2: appealing to authority means accepting a claim is true for the sole reason that an authority says its true
p3: doctors, have at times, and continue to promote harmful practices
p4: bind acceptance of authority implies accepting all their claims, including harmful ones.
conclusion: therefore, appealing to authority is logically fallacious because authorities can and do make mistakes all the time. claims pertaining to nutrition/health must be evaluated critically, not accepted blindly.

God dude, this one really goes to show how much of a fucking moron you are . You cannot dictate your hormones in a way naturally that will make your hpta mimic that of a exogenous test user . Even if you "raise your test naturally" it won't create steady state levels as your balls are constantly pulsing out different amounts of test all day. You will never get your test to the levels of the exogenous test in this studies, 200mg weekly puts most guys at a trough of like 1400+.The fact you even tried to use these studies that are not applicable to what you are saying at all really speaks to your intelligence. So I ask you once again, do you feel like a "soy boy" half the day and a "super human the other half"? And why did you even provide these studies in the first place when they are not applicable to the claims you are making at all cough cough chatgpt. DONT PIVOT ANSWER THIS

Hey retard, how many times do I have to fucking explain this. The only claim I made about this is that RDI's fail to acknowledge any nuance and aren't the best standard, as a general guideline they seem fine enough. Regardless, you have still FAILED to demonstrate that people aren't reaching these RDI's. We don't even need to have the debate whether or not they're the best metric to dictate nutrition becauase you still haven't even shown that people aren't reaching these rdi's, and even if you did you would have to demonstrate that it's clinically significant and leads to more unfavorable health outcomes.

Once again show evidence that people are for the majority deficient in the west, and also show that it's leading to unfavorable health outcomes, you have still failed to do so. Yet you still claim RDI suggestions are exaggerated and should be lower? My ass. great straw man, brother. Never claimed they are ALL exaggerated holy fuck man, I cannot believe you are this fucking retarded. I feel like all I'm doing is repeating myself, I said RDI's arent the best guidline cus they ignore nuance and are subject to things likee lobbying by certain groups of interest. Once again the burden of proof is on you fucktard, you are making the positive claim i'm taking an agnostic stance based off the current medical literature.

Again don't care about your appeal to authority, provide evidence that the majority of people aren't meeting the RDI's and more evidence to sh ow it's leading to unfavorable health outcomes.

It's not a narrow way of putting it lol, the research is like fucking none on this and as of right now it's speculation. All that's established is both are essential fatty acids and you need them both or you would die. IIRC they didnt even know omega 6 fatty acids were essential until very recently.

I still don't get why your linking this dog shit research, we need to see these type of things replicated on a broad scale. Not one study with a healthy participant bias, and a very short term follow up. Also DNA methylation clocks are not the full picture of aging or predicting clinical health outcomes lmao, this is like one tiny part of a way bigger picture.

Yeah except it doesn't because it's one dog shit small study on methylation clocks which tell us almost literally fucking nothing, I am actually astonished at your lack of ability to interpret research and draw conclusions based off them.

I'm happy to continue this "debate" of you regurgitating whatever you can find from GPT that fits your cope narrative but first we need to establish a few things.
ONICE AGAIN, You need to first of all, per your premises, provide evidence that nutritional deficiencies are prevalent in the west to any clinical degree.
Second, that RDI's are a good standard to even appeal to in the first place.
Thirdly, that these deficiencies are leading to more unfavorable health outcomes.
Until you can do so you have failed to substantiate any positive claim you have made.
Also I know i've said this a few times but please address the testosterone shit, that shit had me caging so hard.
I am taking the agnostic stance here, you're taking the positive one, the burden of proof is ON YOU.

Also please reply to the shit regarding testosterone, that shit had me caging so fucking hard and really really speaks to your intellect here. once again I have no clue why you're trying to speak on things like endocrinology when you clearly lack even a basic understanding of how your hpta axis works . you clearly have a lack of knowledge of literally anything we're debating and how to debate in this first place evident by how like everything your saying is a chat gpt cluster fuck. just accept defeat little man.

"You need to first of all, per your premises, provide evidence that nutritional deficiencies are prevalent in the west to any clinical degree." One of the first things I stated in this whole ordeal was" I'm not speaking about severe deficiencies, like rickets, which are uncommon in developed countries, but rather subclinical deficiencies, which ARE common in developed countries." My argument is for subclinical deficiencies and their failure to translate to ideal health outcomes, which I have already evidenced with the research I cited, I do not give a fuck if you consider it weak, you cannot disregard evidence because it "isn't a metanalysis bro"
"Second, that RDI's are a good standard to even appeal to in the first place." I'd like you to do that. YOU carry the burden of proof, since it falls on whoever makes a claim that contradicts the default position or known evidence. We all know the earth is round, everyone agrees on that, so if you were to claim it isn't IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRADICT THE STATE OF AFFAIRS. To begin, I shouldn't be the one having to prove to you that meeting the micronutrient requirements are the bare minimum for health, Why? Let me be intellectually lazy here, CUZ EVERYBODY AGREES ON THAT!! IF YOU DO NOT, THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVE ME WRONG.

"Thirdly, that these deficiencies are leading to more unfavorable health outcomes." Again, already did that.

Also notice how the bulk of your response is insulting my character and saying "nah that evidence is weak so it doesn't count". It’s the equivalent of pretend gunfights where a kid refuses to admit they got hit and just says, "I dodged it!".

 

[llane9]

"You need to first of all, per your premises, provide evidence that nutritional deficiencies are prevalent in the west to any clinical degree." One of the first things I stated in this whole ordeal was" I'm not speaking about severe deficiencies, like rickets, which are uncommon in developed countries, but rather subclinical deficiencies, which ARE common in developed countries." My argument is for subclinical deficiencies and their failure to translate to ideal health outcomes, which I have already evidenced with the research I cited, I do not give a fuck if you consider it weak, you cannot disregard evidence because it "isn't a metanalysis bro"
"Second, that RDI's are a good standard to even appeal to in the first place." I'd like you to do that. YOU carry the burden of proof, since it falls on whoever makes a claim that contradicts the default position or known evidence. We all know the earth is round, everyone agrees on that, so if you were to claim it isn't IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO CONTRADICT THE STATE OF AFFAIRS. To begin, I shouldn't be the one having to prove to you that meeting the micronutrient requirements are the bare minimum for health, Why? Let me be intellectually lazy here, CUZ EVERYBODY AGREES ON THAT!! IF YOU DO NOT, THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVE ME WRONG.

"Thirdly, that these deficiencies are leading to more unfavorable health outcomes." Again, already did that.

Also notice how the bulk of your response is insulting my character and saying "nah that evidence is weak so it doesn't count". It’s the equivalent of pretend gunfights where a kid refuses to admit they got hit and just says, "I dodged it!".

Literally don't give a fuck bro, I can disregard the evidence per it being fucking awful and irrelevant to the claims. You still have not showed evidence to literally any of your claims, I've already established why the evidence is weak, how little it means to the grand scheme of things, and if you want to come to an actual logical conclusion how you would need to substantiate these claims, Ive literally already spoon fed you everything to do, if the research is there just provide it? Not that hard.

Once again, retard, the burden of proof relies on you as im making the agnostic claim, my claim doesn't assert anything other than an agnostic stance, yours asserts a positive one.

Once again YOU HAVE NOT I have spoon fed you what to do for it to be a logically sound argument you fucking inbred, pasting a few single studies from GPT means fuck all, and DUDE LITERALLY EVERY STUDY YOU SENT HAS ALMOST NO RELEVANCY TO YOUR CLAIMS LMAO.

I respond to all your claims directly, you're just a complete and utter fucking moron so I will tell you so, using AI to debate upon topics you have no idea how to engage with or have any pre requisite knowledge on you thought your hpta could mimic that of exogenous test. Literally get the fuck out of here, one of the lowest IQ people i've ever interacted with.

 

[llane9]

and brother just reply without consulting gpt, it's genuinely so fucking obvious and cringe.

 

[Zeekie]

View attachment 3791341
The burden of proof is on you as I'm taking the agnostic stance you still have failed to show any of the "decades of well-established research". So as of right now I'm not arguing against anything

Let me response to all of your bullshit IN YOUR way.

"Nutrition is highly complex!" So is your reading comprehension, apparently. Because somehow, despite that complexity, you feel confident making sweeping, universal claims about RDIs being arbitrary. Wow, so complex it’s totally unknowable, get over yourself and back up what you say.

"Demonstrate RDI's are useful!" You keep saying RDIs are "fine enough as general guidelines" and also that they’re invalid because of "lobbying" and "nuance." So which is it? Are they useful, or not?

"There's no evidence people in the West have nutritional deficiencies!" Yeah, if you fucking stop disregarding evidence as "useless" based on what's convenient for your argument there would be, even if I showed you a hundred meta-analyses you’d still say some stupid bullshit, I'm not going to waste my time citing anything more, because you don't want evidence, you want to be right.

"Burden of proof is on YOU!" Let me go over this again... You’re making the claim that the entire system of nutritional science is invalid, but sure, I’m the one that needs to show homework. Hello?? You’re out here calling entire fields “arbitrary” and “lobbied” with zero citations, oh yeah, very agnostic dude.

"Appealing to authority is fallacious!!!" Yeah, fucking nigger we shouldn’t trust medical experts or nutritionists because doctors in the 1800s once prescribed leeches. Why don't we stop using GPS as well because someone once used a bad map? The entire point of expertise is to update, not to never be wrong.

"You will never naturally raise your testosterone to 1400+ bro!!" THANK YOU, EINSTEIN. Nobody said you could.

"Provide evidence!!!" I did, you just didn't like it. And every time I ask you for your sources that “RDIs are trash” or “nutrition is too nuanced for studies,” you start yelling about soyboys, holy fuck you're a retard.

"Please respond to the testosterone point!!" I said I wouldn't, if you had any shred of common sense you would've realized that I said you had a point ("touché") and that my follow-up to that was a joke.

Also, I didn't know there was any regulation for what studies you could side or not, I also wasn't aware that any data that doesn't come with a meta-analysis is useless. Guess what? Cherry-picking a meta-analysis is still cherry-picking. Congrats, fucking moron.

 

[Zeekie]

and brother just reply without consulting gpt, it's genuinely so fucking obvious and cringe.

Mr. Debate Pro Master right has to resort to claiming ChatGPT instead of providing any fucking evidence for his retarded ass points. You have zero credibility so far.

 

[llane9]

Mr. Debate Pro Master right has to resort to claiming ChatGPT instead of providing any fucking evidence for his retarded ass points. You have zero credibility so far.

Because you are obviously using GPT, most evident by the testosterone claims, good job replying to that, btw . What evidence have I failed to provide?

 

[Zeekie]

Because you are obviously using GPT, most evident by the testosterone claims, good job replying to that, btw . What evidence have I failed to provide?

"What evidence have I failed to provide?" ANYY AT ALL???

 

[Zeekie]

"What evidence have I failed to provide?" ANYY AT ALL???

For example, evidence that RDIs are inherently flawed/arbitrary or evidence that people in the west are meeting RDIs.

Please enlighten me with some lovely meta-analysis, you're so intelligent and literate, you surely should have heaps of evidence to deny modern nutritional understanding.

 

[llane9]

"What evidence have I failed to provide?" ANYY AT ALL???

Wow dude, it's almost like you're the one making the positive claim and have failed to substantiate it in any meaningful way. As the person taking the agnostic stance what is there for me to even reply to? I already replied to your single low quality studies that hold almost no scientific weight and pretty much no relevancy to the topics at hand in the first place. And your absurd claims that make literally no sense. You can't rely on one or two cross sectional studies to paint us a broad picture on something as nuanced as nutrition.

 

[llane9]

For example, evidence that RDIs are inherently flawed/arbitrary or evidence that people in the west are meeting RDIs.

Please enlighten me with some lovely meta-analysis, you're so intelligent and literate, you surely should have heaps of evidence to deny modern nutritional understanding.

Brother, are you reading literally anything I have said? All I said was that some RDI's can be set too high or low based off certain variables which I already provided evidence for. Regardless IT LITERALLY DOES NOT MATTER ANYWAYS WE CAN JUST COMPLETELY IGNORE THAT. So you're asking me to provide a meta analysis for my agnostic stance? What sense does that make LMAO, once again you are the one making positive assertions not me, you still need to demonstrate that people on average aren't even meeting these RDI's in the first place.

 

[llane9]

Do you need me to walk you through how to create a formally valid and logically sound argument? I'm happy to do so if you actually interact with it and follow the parameters I give you, otherwise this argument is circular as fuck and you're just failing to provide sufficient evidence for a single claim you have made.

 

[llane9]

I mean brother, what do you not understand about a single cross sectional study not being enough evidence to apply on a broader scale of people? You understand that these things need to be replicated on a broader scale correct? Genuinely, do you understand how this is not sufficient evidence.

 

[Zeekie]

Wow dude, it's almost like you're the one making the positive claim and have failed to substantiate it in any meaningful way. As the person taking the agnostic stance what is there for me to even reply to? I already replied to your single low quality studies that hold almost no scientific weight and pretty much no relevancy to the topics at hand in the first place. And your absurd claims that make literally no sense. You can't rely on one or two cross sectional studies to paint us a broad picture on something as nuanced as nutrition.

You're claiming deficiencies are rare, RDIs are arbitrary, and hormone modulation through diet is ineffective, ALL POSITIVE CLAIMS, and you’ve provided exactly zero data to back them. Meanwhile, you’ve dismissed my evidence because it's not a meta-analysis, while failing to produce a single systematic review of your own. Are you like mentally fucked? If you're truly "agnostic", you would be asking question and not making definitive conclusions and then demanding the impossible burden of proof only from the other side. You're intellectually a COWARD, shame on you, bro.

Again, funny how it's "low quality" when it challenges your ideas, cross-sectional data are literally the backbone of public health, in case you fucking forgot (or decided to conveniently ignore) meta-analyses are built on those studies. So provide meta-analysis and systematic reviews of your own to support your position (that nutrient deficiencies are clincally irrelevant, that RDIs are junk, and that endogenous testosterone isn't significantly affected by barely meeting RDIs), allow me to remind you, so far you have done NONE OF THAT, while giving plenty of positive statements.

 

[llane9]

OH MY GOD BROTHER IM FUCKING CAGING HOLY SHITTTTT

 

[llane9]

Again, funny how it's "low quality" when it challenges your ideas, cross-sectional data are literally the backbone of public health

Do you want to hop on VC right now and debate this, I guarantee you if I asked you on the fly what a cross sectional study is you wouldn't even be able to answer it. A single cross sectional study means LITERALLY nothing, meta analysis interpret countless of these and pool it into when study, again retard that's when it's useful, when we can replicate it and see its actually tangible

 

[Zeekie]

Do you need me to walk you through how to create a formally valid and logically sound argument? I'm happy to do so if you actually interact with it and follow the parameters I give you, otherwise this argument is circular as fuck and you're just failing to provide sufficient evidence for a single claim you have made.

Invoking formal validity does not absolve you from having to substantiate your own (positive) claims. You keep saying that a cross-sectional study isn't enough evidence, and nobody's saying it is. That’s a straw man, and you to know it. HOWEVER, a cross-sectional study is relevant when it's not one, but many and if you want I could keep citing more of them from independent researchers, with different population sizes or done more recently, and even if I couldn't, I'm not just working off cross-sectional studies (I actually provided like 2 systematic reviews and meta-analyses), but I'm also working off the most recent statements by medical institutions and professionals, if you're trying to argue that none of that is compounding evidence you're brain dead.

 

[llane9]

You're claiming deficiencies are rare, RDIs are arbitrary, and hormone modulation through diet is ineffective, ALL POSITIVE CLAIMS, and you’ve provided exactly zero data to back them. Meanwhile, you’ve dismissed my evidence because it's not a meta-analysis, while failing to produce a single systematic review of your own. Are you like mentally fucked? If you're truly "agnostic", you would be asking question and not making definitive conclusions and then demanding the impossible burden of proof only from the other side. You're intellectually a COWARD, shame on you, bro.

Again, funny how it's "low quality" when it challenges your ideas, cross-sectional data are literally the backbone of public health, in case you fucking forgot (or decided to conveniently ignore) meta-analyses are built on those studies. So provide meta-analysis and systematic reviews of your own to support your position (that nutrient deficiencies are clincally irrelevant, that RDIs are junk, and that endogenous testosterone isn't significantly affected by barely meeting RDIs), allow me to remind you, so far you have done NONE OF THAT, while giving plenty of positive statements.

This isn't even what I'm claiming, you're once again just straw manning the fuck out of me. My claim is that if you're living in the west you likely won't ever have to worry about "hormone modulation" through diet because your diet is already meeting basic nutritional adequacies evident by the fact there is no decent data stating otherwise, what is so difficult to comprehend.

 

[llane9]

Invoking formal validity does not absolve you from having to substantiate your own (positive) claims. You keep saying that a cross-sectional study isn't enough evidence, and nobody's saying it is. That’s a straw man, and you to know it. HOWEVER, a cross-sectional study is relevant when it's not one, but many and if you want I could keep citing more of them from independent researchers, with different population sizes or done more recently, and even if I couldn't, I'm not just working off cross-sectional studies (I actually provided like 2 systematic reviews and meta-analyses), but I'm also working off the most recent statements by medical institutions and professionals, if you're trying to argue that none of that is compounding evidence you're brain dead.

You literally are, you have literally said that is like multiple times now, lets hop on vc right now brother, what is your discord? Yeah I agree, that's where meta analysis come into play and they interpret other research as well, this isn't just a handful of studies like your implying it is by the way.

 

[llane9]

But yeah give me your discord let's talk about this on vc, this is too much to write and you're just appealing to gpt quite obviously

 

[Zeekie]

Again, funny how it's "low quality" when it challenges your ideas, cross-sectional data are literally the backbone of public health

Do you want to hop on VC right now and debate this, I guarantee you if I asked you on the fly what a cross sectional study is you wouldn't even be able to answer it. A single cross sectional study means LITERALLY nothing, meta analysis interpret countless of these and pool it into when study, again retard that's when it's useful, when we can replicate it and see its actually tangible

No one said a single cross-sectional study ‘proves’ a theory. That’s your straw man (again). The studies I shared were shared as part of a trend in data, which you continue to ignore. You keep demanding meta-analyses, but meta-analyses are built from these exact studies, WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE TOO. Disqualifying the data before it reaches meta-analysis is lazy, if your standard is “doesn't count unless it's a meta-analysis,” then you’ve effectively disqualified 95% of emerging science from conversation.

Also, I don't need to jump on Discord to expose the fact that your entire argument rests on contradicting yourself and calling people slurs when you feel cornered.

But hey, let's ignore all of that, again, let's do something more fun, GIVE ME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITIVE (and non-agnostic) STATEMENTS, if mine doesn't cut it, then surely yours does.

 

[llane9]

No one said a single cross-sectional study ‘proves’ a theory. That’s your straw man (again). The studies I shared were shared as part of a trend in data, which you continue to ignore. You keep demanding meta-analyses, but meta-analyses are built from these exact studies, WHICH YOU CONTINUE TO IGNORE TOO. Disqualifying the data before it reaches meta-analysis is lazy, if your standard is “doesn't count unless it's a meta-analysis,” then you’ve effectively disqualified 95% of emerging science from conversation.

Also, I don't need to jump on Discord to expose the fact that your entire argument rests on contradicting yourself and calling people slurs when you feel cornered.

But hey, let's ignore none of that, again, let's do something more fun, GIVE ME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITIVE (and non-agnostic) STATEMENTS, if mine doesn't cut it, then surely yours does.

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?

 

[llane9]

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 !!!