None of you goyslop addicted copers can debunk carnivore. [ MEGATHREAD ]

[Deleted member 208062]

no one has proof in science, what science works by is evidence and i provided evidence.

u dont even know what science works by, science doesnt claim to provide proof

theres a difference between the entire mechanism being not known and there being a plausible mechanistic causal evidence which i did provide and also provided studies for it

i also provided miltiple examples from history where plausible mechanistic evidence and significant positive correlation later lead into full discovery

Obviously since im refuting your arguments lol

View attachment 4088651

Here you go, the only study that was done on mice but this time on humans.

Obviously, im not dumb enough to sabotage myself

Regardless why do u even need a private discord debate when u are over here not being able to answer a single one of the point lol

Adress all my points in my thread or don't bother. Dogshit study, heme is an essential nutrient, not raw meat, not healthy meat, modern diet. Besides, processed meat has added nitrites and cooking makes meat carciogenic, water. It absoloutely matters here if the meat is raw and unprocessed.

https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/364784856/Update_on_nitrite_as_food_additive_-_health_aspects_18_8_2023.pdf

Distribution of Seven N-Nitrosamines in Food - PMC

N-nitrosamines, which are classified as carcinogens by IARC and US EPA, can be easily found in various foods. They are reaction products between nitrogen oxide and secondary amines, but can also be generated during fermentation. Ever since the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Deleted member 208062]

I'm serious because I'm sincere in providing the truth to the public.

If you jester, that's on you, I only care about the truth and you care about winning.

I don't jester. There is clearly no point in arguing now. If you really want to settle this, let's make a live debate. We clearly aren't going anywhere with this.

I'm serious because I'm sincere in providing the truth to the public.

If you jester, that's on you, I only care about the truth and you care about winning.

Unfortunately you've been losing both

There is no argument lol, your arguments would have to refute mine before even considering, advocating for 90% carnivore yet doesn't even know MeR and has failed to address all the points

You claiming I lose doesn't make it true. I think you "lost". I also said I just did not know the abbreviation, as I am not a native English speaker. That does not win you this argument.

 

[Ogionth]

Adress all my points in my thread or don't bother. Dogshit study, heme is an essential nutrient, not raw meat, not healthy meat, modern diet. Besides, processed meat has added nitrites and cooking makes meat carciogenic, water. It absoloutely matters here if the meat is raw and unprocessed.

https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/364784856/Update_on_nitrite_as_food_additive_-_health_aspects_18_8_2023.pdf

Distribution of Seven N-Nitrosamines in Food - PMC

N-nitrosamines, which are classified as carcinogens by IARC and US EPA, can be easily found in various foods. They are reaction products between nitrogen oxide and secondary amines, but can also be generated during fermentation. Ever since the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

View attachment 4088688

Well, the study never said that meat contained nitrosamines, it said heme iron that later forms n-nitroso compounds in the body lol which is found in all meat lol

Nice try though

And it wasn't because of being cooked, because it mentioned heme iron, not CHA and PAHs lol

 

[Ogionth]

I don't jester. There is clearly no point in arguing now. If you really want to settle this, let's make a live debate. We clearly aren't going anywhere with this.

Lol, had I not been limited by my privacy, i would have destroyed you on there too.

And clearly, your desperate attemps at escaping are failing

You just quoted a study saying meat doesn't have nitrosamines, like no shit?

And.you also repeated the raw meat part, which again has been clarified to you like 10 times

You claiming I lose doesn't make it true. I think you "lost". I also said I just did not know the abbreviation, as I am not a native English speaker. That does not win you this argument.

You neither knew the abbreviation nor any information about it lol.

 

[Deleted member 208062]

Lol, had I not been limited by my privacy, i would have destroyed you on there too.

Sure. "Would, have"

And clearly, your desperate attemps at escaping are failing

You just quoted a study saying meat doesn't have nitrosamines, like no shit?

And.you also repeated the raw meat part, which again has been clarified to you like 10 times

Jfl, it clearly shows processed meat has more. Too many uncontrolled variables. Not raw unprocessed. The study itself says "may increase".
Tell me why we didn't have cancer as carnivores. Plants block n nitros formation, but that doesn't prove heme is harmful at all. Your body handles heme just fine on a raw diet. Short term lab changes on modern diet =/= real world risk on carnivore. You keep bringing up CHA and PAHs, but that's not what I'm referring to. You also admit that you should not cook your meat then. Heme has not been proven to be harmful in real human digestion, nutrition is much more complex and nuanced than you're making it out to be.

You neither knew the abbreviation nor any information about it lol.

I replied to that already. You are legit naming things like "MeR" as an argument. That's not a valid argument. You need to elaborate on that.

Your mental gymnastics are hilarious, but there is still no proof that the natural human diet is inferior to your toxic (veggies) "balanced" diet that is missing nutrients. Explain why stable isotope studies show humans were carnivore for almost all history. They should have all died to cancer right? Or at least have more cancer than humans after the agricultural revolution.

 

[Deleted member 208062]

Still didn't address my thread. Only correlation studies. Admitted, there is no proof.

 

[Ogionth]

Still didn't address my thread. Only correlation studies. Admitted, there is no proof.

Lol, you even tried a statement from a study out of context making it mean something else and didn't even admit it was wrong.

"proof" science doesn't operate on proof mate, 10th time now

 

[Ogionth]

Sure. "Would, have"

obviously, look at you crumbling


> processed bro
> clarifies that heme iron exists in meat whether or not
> cooked bro
> it's independent of the carcinogens from cooking
> heme iron doesnt have proof
>.provide proof
> has no cause
> provide plausible mechanistic cause
> is rat study
> provides human study
> "quotes a random point from a study thinking it supports him"
> refuted

> goes back to point 1

Jfl, it clearly shows processed meat has more. Too many uncontrolled variables. Not raw unprocessed. The study itself says "may increase".

blud whether processed or not, cooked or not, they all have heme iron.

Tell me why we didn't have cancer as carnivores.

they did

Plants block n nitros formation, but that doesn't prove heme is harmful at all.

they dont have heme iron bud but thats besides the point

Your body handles heme just fine on a raw diet. Short term lab changes on modern diet =/= real world risk on carnivore. You keep bringing up CHA and PAHs, but that's not what I'm referring to. You also admit that you should not cook your meat then. Heme has not been proven to be harmful in real human digestion, nutrition is much more complex and nuanced than you're making it out to be.

lol plants dont have non heme iron which is why it was lower.

and the study is about heme iron anyway so stop deflecting.

i do not agree that we shouldnt cook the meat because the harms is not better than the benefits

but regardless the study was on heme iron and thats not from cooking so stop repeating it lol

I replied to that already. You are legit naming things like "MeR" as an argument. That's not a valid argument. You need to elaborate on that.

it's an argument if u don't know then it's not my fault, go read on it

Your mental gymnastics are hilarious, but there is still no proof that the natural human diet is inferior to your toxic (veggies) "balanced" diet that is missing nutrients.

Except that isn't not the natural human diet and my diet is not just veggies lol

Explain why stable isotope studies show humans were carnivore for almost all history. They should have all died to cancer right? Or at least have more cancer than humans after the agricultural revolution.

They probably did, stable isotope study only showed the ice age in north america lol, do you even know anything about CO² levels and plants this is embarrassing

 

[Deleted member 208062]

obviously, look at you crumbling


> processed bro
> clarifies that heme iron exists in meat whether or not
> cooked bro
> it's independent of the carcinogens from cooking
> heme iron doesnt have proof
>.provide proof
> has no cause
> provide plausible mechanistic cause
> is rat study
> provides human study
> "quotes a random point from a study thinking it supports him"
> refuted

> goes back to point 1


blud whether processed or not, cooked or not, they all have heme iron.

they did

they dont have heme iron bud but thats besides the point

lol plants dont have non heme iron which is why it was lower.

and the study is about heme iron anyway so stop deflecting.

i do not agree that we shouldnt cook the meat because the harms is not better than the benefits

but regardless the study was on heme iron and thats not from cooking so stop repeating it lol

it's an argument if u don't know then it's not my fault, go read on it

Except that isn't not the natural human diet and my diet is not just veggies lol

They probably did, stable isotope study only showed the ice age in north america lol, do you even know anything about CO² levels and plants this is embarrassing
.

You continue to evade the main arguments. Let me to address your points systematically one final time, holy cortisol spike.
First, your characterization of my arguments as a "cycle" is a misrepresentation to fit your position. I have never deniedthat heme iron is in to meat. It is a natural component. However, the studies you cite conflate processed meats with raw, unprocessed varieties in uncontrolled dietary contexts, and even then, they only suggest a potential increase in risk, not proven causation. Correlation based experiments are of limited relevance. The human correlations you reference stem from individuals on modern, processed diets, not the pure carnivore diet our ancestors ate for over 100.000 years.

You claim ancient carnivores might have suffered from cancer, yet where is the supporting evidence? Stable isotope analyses confirm that humans were carnivorous apex predators, with no indications of widespread cancer in skeletal remains. Keep in mind this trend is observed over many populations.CO2 levels in plants were lower. Now what? That's simply not an argument. Getting back to cancer, cancer rates increased after the agricultural revolution. Maybe account for this without resorting to evading my argument.
Regarding plants role in inhibiting nitrosamine formation, this might occur because they lack heme, not due to any protective mechanism. The human body processes natural heme effectively on a raw carnivore diet. Cooking and processing introduce PAHs and HCAs, which you acknowledge as harmful, yet you maintain that the benefits of cooking outweigh the risks while advocating for it. This position is contradictory.

Also, not every individual requires maximum MUR all the time. Ketosis adaptation (which takes a few weeks to settle in) allows many to perform well without exogenous carbohydrates. You dismiss this as completely unfeasible, despite many reports from carnivore followers of enhanced energy and recovery.

Your assertion that "science operates on evidence rather than proof" is a convenient deflection. Correlation does not establish causation, as seen in smoking lung cancer research, which relied on direct causal mechanisms, not the speculative associations you present for heme. You provided no randomized controlled trials demonstrating that a carnivore diet causes cancer. None exist.
My original thread remains unchallenged. Meat provides all essential nutrients without plant based toxins and aligns with humanity's natural diet history. You have failed to refute this, relying instead on epidemiological correlations and semantic disputes.

 

[Ogionth]

You continue to evade the main arguments. Let me to address your points systematically one final time, holy cortisol spike.

Lol, "one final time" You have already realised how badly you got destroyed the moment you said "I'm just making fun of u why u serious"

First, your characterization of my arguments as a "cycle" is a misrepresentation to fit your position.

it's not a misrepresentation because if you keep repeating it despite refutation then thats insincere, especially since you even tried quoting random things from a study lol that part was kinda funny tho

I have never deniedthat heme iron is in to meat. It is a natural component.

Then your argument doesn't stand lol, whether cooked or not

However, the studies you cite conflate processed meats with raw, unprocessed varieties in uncontrolled dietary contexts, and even then, they only suggest a potential increase in risk, not proven causation.

The mechanistic evidence is of causation lol, plausible causation + high correlation was enough for smoking, asbestos and more in the history and so and on so forth.

Again you're repeating it.

And the STUDY ITSELF DIDNT CORRELATE THE DIET BUT THE HEME IRON ITSELF AND IDK THE FUCK U ARE NOT GETTING IT

Correlation based experiments are of limited relevance.

incorrect, i already showed examples from history + provided mechanistic evidence

The human correlations you reference stem from individuals on modern,

correlation not from a diet, it's the heme iron itself

processed diets, not the pure carnivore diet our ancestors ate for over 100.000 years.

Incorrect

You claim ancient carnivores might have suffered from cancer, yet where is the supporting evidence?

You claimed that they didn't, so wheres the evidence?

My evidence is that heme iron currently causes it so it caused it before too, just the prevalence might have been lower due to lower life expectancy

Stable isotope analyses confirm that humans were carnivorous apex predators, with no indications of widespread cancer in skeletal remains. Keep in mind this trend is observed over many populations.CO2 levels in plants were lower. Now what? That's simply not an argument.

CO2 levels in the "environment" were lower, which means plants were scarce and they had to eat meat to survive

lol you lack basic biological knowlede and it's hilarous

Getting back to cancer, cancer rates increased after the agricultural revolution. Maybe account for this without resorting to evading my argument.

Regarding plants role in inhibiting nitrosamine formation, this might occur because they lack heme, not due to any protective mechanism.

Lol arguing for me

The human body processes natural heme effectively on a raw carnivore diet. Cooking and processing introduce PAHs and HCAs, which you acknowledge as harmful, yet you maintain that the benefits of cooking outweigh the risks while advocating for it. This position is contradictory.

It's not contradictory, do u not understand basic english, I already stated the studies about food bourne diseases

and regardless, these compounds are not related to the studies lol stop talking about it

Also, not every individual requires maximum MUR all the time.

they do for optimum muscle building.

Ketosis adaptation (which takes a few weeks to settle in) allows many to perform well without exogenous carbohydrates.

No it doesn't suffice for max MUR, try again

You dismiss this as completely unfeasible, despite many reports from carnivore followers of enhanced energy and recovery.

saar anecdotes saar

Your assertion that "science operates on evidence rather than proof" is a convenient deflection.

It's not a deflection, it's a fact.

stop using chat got and use your mind

Correlation does not establish causation,

No one said that

as seen in smoking lung cancer research, which relied on direct causal mechanisms, not the speculative associations you present for heme.

They're not speculative, lol

You provided no randomized controlled trials demonstrating that a carnivore diet causes cancer. None exist.

I provided you a ton lol.
Heres one

My original thread remains unchallenged.

Incorrect

with humanity's natural diet history.

Incorrect

You have failed to refute this, relying instead on epidemiological correlations and semantic disputes.

I have provided a ton of studies in the argument, you failed to even answer one, it's over for your thread.

Anyone that reads this, also check how he ran away from the other thread after getting fact checked

 

[karmacitathugmaxx]

bookmarking will read this discourse after i get my microbiome results back

 

[Deleted member 208062]

Lol, "one final time" You have already realised how badly you got destroyed the moment you said "I'm just making fun of u why u serious"

Making fun of me won't help you. Neither will just claiming to "destroy" me, when all you did was attacking heme, an essential nutrient, with correlation studies (more on that later) without addressing my thread. You did not reply to all my points, and that's an objective fact. If not, show me the screenshots of you replying to all my points in my original thread.

it's not a misrepresentation because if you keep repeating it despite refutation then thats insincere, especially since you even tried quoting random things from a study lol that part was kinda funny tho

You have nothing except your correlation studies on heme iron. You didn't reply to my original thread. Look, I have to repeat myself again. And I will keep repeating myself to remind you of my original thread. Also, sou don't seem to understand where I'm heading with the correlation. I will explain this again, as you don't understand. Not like you give a new argument every reply.

I was not quoting "random" stuff. Your own source says, they only found correlation. The fact that you still don't get, that the heme iron itself might not have the same effects in a raw carnivore diet is ridiculous. For example, your own source says calcium is protective against heme iron toxicity. If you consume dairy and organs, you will have plenty. Oxalates in greens for example inhibit calcium absorption, as linked in my original thread. This is proof that you need to account for variables, which this study did not do. The diet absolutely matters. It's insanity to suggest that it doesn't. They also recommended polyphenols, but they have negative effects as well, whereas calcium itself does not have any inherent negative properties.

Incorrect

Incorrect

Not an argument. You can't just say no as an argument.

I provided you a ton lol.
Heres one

View attachment 4088959

I have provided a ton of studies in the argument, you failed to even answer one, it's over for your thread.

Anyone that reads this, also check how he ran away from the other thread after getting fact checked

I answered them. You admitted yourself they aren't proof.

Poorly understood. Your own sources full text. This heme iron correlation vs my entire thread. Keep hanging onto this straw.

Anyone that reads this, also check how he ran away from the other thread after getting fact checked

You said we shouldn't jump from thread to thread yourself, so I tagged you here. All points addressed anyway. You still didn't reply to my original thread a single time.

stop using chat got and use your mind

No one said that

They're not speculative, lol

I'm not using ChatGPT at all.
"They're not speculative"

It's not a deflection, it's a fact.

It's not relevant to disprove my thread. You said it yourself, you can't. You can only find evidence that suggests things. I also linked evidence against plants. Why don't you respond to that?

they do for optimum muscle building.

Which is why I suggested gymcels to eat carbs. People who just work out without caring about putting on mass as fast as possible can try ketosis. I also said "well", not optimal. Still carnivore if you eat mostly meat.

saar anecdotes saar

You are suggesting anecdotal experience is not of value? There are no studies on this, of course I will resort to anecdotal experience. Regardless, you suggested ketosis is not working for 99% of people, even though our ancestors used to run on it as their primary energy source. But of course you have not addressed the randle cycle yet. You probably didn't even watch the video.

and regardless, these compounds are not related to the studies lol stop talking about it

They are related to the argument.
You claim cooked meat is superior, or do you concede that raw meat is superior to cooked, if sourced correctly.

Lol arguing for me

To everyone reading this: Look at this fool. He quoted my post informing him about cancer cases exploding after the agricultural revolution, where we ate less meat than before, and thought it's somehow an argument against carnivore?

CO2 levels in the "environment" were lower, which means plants were scarce and they had to eat meat to survive

lol you lack basic biological knowlede and it's hilarous

So you admit that they ate mostly meat for almost all of history, which proves they thrived on this diet and evolved to eat it??

You claimed that they didn't, so wheres the evidence?

My evidence is that heme iron currently causes it so it caused it before too, just the prevalence might have been lower due to lower life expectancy

It takes one quick google search to see, that cancer was first recorded in ancient egypt. A grain munching agricultural society. Why didn't the carnivores get cancer at all? Even when looking for life expectancy this doesn't add up. Cancer increased in the last century drastically, so meat is not to blame. If you were so scared of cancer, you would avoid all modern chemicals and goy slop, not meat.'m sure you do! Now olease read my thread and watch the video on the randle cycle I provided you with.

Untill you don't reply to my original thread, addressing all points, you have very low credibility.

 

[Ogionth]

Making fun of me won't help you. Neither will just claiming to "destroy" me, when all you did was attacking heme, an essential nutrient, with correlation studies (more on that later) without addressing my thread. You did not reply to all my points, and that's an objective fact. If not, show me the screenshots of you replying to all my points in my original thread.

Plausible mechanistic causal evidence + strong correlation + DOSE dependence = enough of evidence.

You have nothing except your correlation studies on heme iron. You didn't reply to my original thread. Look, I have to repeat myself again. And I will keep repeating myself to remind you of my original thread. Also, sou don't seem to understand where I'm heading with the correlation. I will explain this again, as you don't understand. Not like you give a new argument every reply.

Reply to what lol, you have no argument.

Why would I reply to something that is not even against me and I already replied to the stable isotope, randle cycle and the gluconeogenesis parts.

I was not quoting "random" stuff.

You're not?

then why did you try this quotation despite not knowing what it was?

and after clarification, you didn't even admit your mistake lol.

Your own source says, they only found correlation. The fact that you still don't get, that the heme iron itself might not have the same effects in a raw carnivore diet is ridiculous.

It will, lol.

It's a study on heme iron, not on a cooked carnivore diet.

It's embarrassing how you keep saying this over and over despite getting answered like about what? 6 times or so now?

For example, your own source says calcium is protective against heme iron toxicity. If you consume dairy and organs, you will have plenty. Oxalates in greens for example inhibit calcium absorption, as linked in my original thread. This is proof that you need to account for variables, which this study did not do. The diet absolutely matters. It's insanity to suggest that it doesn't. They also recommended polyphenols, but they have negative effects as well, whereas calcium itself does not have any inherent negative properties.

It doesn't negate the study because study is on heme because the study is already causal and was previously theorized before.

Why? because calcium can't have increased NOC but decreased, so even if anything and even if we suppose that they had alot of calcium that's in my favor strengthening that heme iron causes cancer.

You just provided more evidence, thanks.

Not an argument. You can't just say no as an argument.

Except that you have provided no evidene to begin with.

I answered them. You admitted yourself they aren't proof.

"the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained."

read it again, "evidence"

science doesn't operate on proof dumbass

View attachment 4089270
Poorly understood. Your own sources full text. This heme iron correlation vs my entire thread. Keep hanging onto this straw.

You said we shouldn't jump from thread to thread yourself, so I tagged you here. All points addressed anyway. You still didn't reply to my original thread a single time.

Except that you shouldn't have jumped to this thread writing 10 replies in the first place when I had spent 10 mins replying to you there.

So they must see your destruction, here and there both.

I don't need to reply to your original thread lol, I already replied to the stable isotope, randle cycle and gluconeogenesis, the ones that were related to my argument.

I'm not using ChatGPT at all.
"They're not speculative"
View attachment 4089270

Yes, you clearly are lol, you just adjust the words a bit, any person with even a slight bit of intelligence can look through it.

Literal evidence from an actual clinical trial which is the one of higher form of evidence is not speculative bud

It's not relevant to disprove my thread. You said it yourself, you can't. You can only find evidence that suggests things. I also linked evidence against plants. Why don't you respond to that?

Which is why I suggested gymcels to eat carbs. People who just work out without caring about putting on mass as fast as possible can try ketosis. I also said "well", not optimal. Still carnivore if you eat mostly meat.

You are suggesting anecdotal experience is not of value? There are no studies on this, of course I will resort to anecdotal experience. Regardless,

Obviously lol, dude just provided anecdotal evidence in a scientific debate.

you suggested ketosis is not working for 99% of people,

Obviously because without carbs, you won't get max MUR so stating it was uselss and even experimenting with it.

even though our ancestors used to run on it as their primary energy source.

No evidence.

But of course you have not addressed the randle cycle yet. You probably didn't even watch the video.

The randle cycle doesn't suffice for max MUR because fat oxidation is slower than glucose about the randle cyycle.

They are related to the argument.
You claim cooked meat is superior, or do you concede that raw meat is superior to cooked, if sourced correctly.

"Sourced correctly" - describes an inimitable futuristic environment with complete control of pathogens that's not possible even in the most developed countries.

So you're basically telling people to get these diseases btw.

+ Whether cooked or not, it still will cause cancer.

AND IF YOUR ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER WAS "OUR HUMAN NATURAL DIET HAS BEEN" THEN WHY ARE YOU SETTING such an impossible futuristic clean environment lol? they didnt have that in the past so your argument is redundant.

Try again

To everyone reading this: Look at this fool. He quoted my post informing him about cancer cases exploding after the agricultural revolution, where we ate less meat than before, and thought it's somehow an argument against carnivore?

Obviously, you fucking low iq retard

because heme iron is not about the cooked meat or raw meat, or more meat or lesss meat

well in fact, more meat = more heme iron

and we all saw what happened in this study when heme iron dosage was increased

So you admit that they ate mostly meat for almost all of history, which proves they thrived on this diet and evolved to eat it??

Since when was Ice Age in North America all of history? lol cmon dont embarrass yourself retard

It takes one quick google search to see,

Keep chat gpting and google searching mate

that cancer was first recorded in ancient egypt. A grain munching agricultural society. Why didn't the carnivores get cancer at all? Even when looking for life expectancy this doesn't add up. Cancer increased in the last century drastically, so meat is not to blame. If you were so scared of cancer, you would avoid all modern chemicals and goy slop, not meat.'m sure you do!

Except that that just because the cancer incidence increased doesn't mean there aren't other factors that may have affected it and that meat will not cause cancer at all,

which it obviously will,

plausible mechnistic causal evidence + strong positive correlation + dose dependence = evidence

Now olease read my thread and watch the video on the randle cycle I provided you with.

I already told you that randle cycle, fat oxidation does not suffice for max MUR lol.

Untill you don't reply to my original thread, addressing all points, you have very low credibility.

I already replied to whatever was relevant to my argument and you still haven't admitted any of the things you did wrong and the hilarious cycle that you did was so funny


> processed bro
> clarifies that heme iron exists in meat whether or not
> cooked bro
> it's independent of the carcinogens from cooking
> heme iron doesnt have proof
>.provide proof
> has no cause
> provide plausible mechanistic cause
> is rat study
> provides human study
> "quotes a random point from a study thinking it supports him"
> refuted

> goes back to point 1
> refuted
> point one

 

[Ogionth]

"Sourced correctly" - describes an inimitable futuristic environment with complete control of pathogens that's not possible even in the most developed countries.

So you're basically telling people to get these diseases btw.
View attachment 4090640
View attachment 4090642

View attachment 4090638

+ Whether cooked or not, it still will cause cancer.

AND IF YOUR ARGUMENT OVER AND OVER WAS "OUR HUMAN NATURAL DIET HAS BEEN" THEN WHY ARE YOU SETTING such an impossible futuristic clean environment lol? they didnt have that in the past so your argument is redundant.

Try

which isn't present anywhere rn* and is close to impossible outside of labs

 

[Deleted member 208062]

Plausible mechanistic causal evidence + strong correlation + DOSE dependence = enough of evidence.

Against cooked meat in a modern diet. You claim the diet doesn't matter, only meat containing heme iron matters, yet your own source claims dietary adjustments can interfere with the allegedly harmful process. So the overall diet clearly matters.

Why would I reply to something that is not even against me and I already replied to the stable isotope, randle cycle and the gluconeogenesis parts.

This is the laziest response yet, congratulations. If you aren't carnivore with some fruit, you obviously promote eating plants and up regulating the randle cycle constantly. Either you reply to all my points, or you can't debunk it. Simple as that. Showing risk of pathogens and an essential nutrient allegedly being toxic is incredibly lazy.
All stable isotope studies show the same thing over all of our human history (before the agricultural revolution). You did not reply to the randle cycle being toxic yet.

You're not?

then why did you try this quotation despite not knowing what it was?

View attachment 4090590

and after clarification, you didn't even admit your mistake lol.

You're wrong. I know this is not the same as heme iron conversion, but it is still relevant to cancer correlation.

It's a study on heme iron, not on a cooked carnivore diet.

It's embarrassing how you keep saying this over and over despite getting answered like about what? 6 times or so now?

It doesn't negate the study because study is on heme because the study is already causal and was previously theorized before.

Why? because calcium can't have increased NOC but decreased, so even if anything and even if we suppose that they had alot of calcium that's in my favor strengthening that heme iron causes cancer.

Heme iron is an essential nutrient and there is no proof it causes cancer on a correct diet. It might increase risk on a processed diet, acting like the diet does not matter when your own source says it doesn't seem honest. "All variables don't matter, bro essential nutrient = bad". Your own source said the mechanism is poorly understood, while you're trying to frame it as "meat = bad".

Except that you shouldn't have jumped to this thread writing 10 replies in the first place when I had spent 10 mins replying to you there.

So they must see your destruction, here and there both.

I addressed all your points, you ignored my thread. You literally said my thread has no arguments so you don't bother responding.
Wrap it up.

View attachment 4090648

Since when was Ice Age in North America all of history? lol cmon dont embarrass yourself retard

Keep chat gpting and google searching mate

Refuting the fact, cancer was first recorded in Ancient Egypt with "keep google searching mate". Very lazy, I'm still correct. I do not use ChatGPT. All isotope studies confirm this. We lived in an ice age for pretty much all history. You yourself admit humans had to eat meat during the ice age (100.000 years until the agricultural revolution, which led to degeneration and disease).

"Sourced correctly" - describes an inimitable futuristic environment with complete control of pathogens that's not possible even in the most developed countries.

Going to a local farm and getting grass fed meat with minimal medication = futuristic. Got it.
Plenty find reliable sources. None of the raw carnivores ever get sick, I wonder why. I also said if you can't source it correctly you have to cook it. Nobody with a brain is going to get disease.

Why? because calcium can't have increased NOC but decreased, so even if anything and even if we suppose that they had alot of calcium that's in my favor strengthening that heme iron causes cancer.

What are you even saying here? You admit the diet matters. Guess you are vegetarian then, right? Cause else you will die of cancer.

The randle cycle doesn't suffice for max MUR because fat oxidation is slower than glucose about the randle cyycle.

That's why I said in my thread if you care about MUR, you can eat fruits. Not an argument against me. The randle cycle is still bad for you, which you didn't address.

I already replied to whatever was relevant to my argument and you still haven't admitted any of the things you did wrong and the hilarious cycle that you did was so funny

What are you even arguing for? From my perspective, it seems like you don't argue against vegetables, but you argue against meat itself. Doesn't seem like a clear position. I could not find your %iles of meat/veggies/diary/fruits. Could you type it here again to clarify? I will try to find it again, lol.

> processed bro
> clarifies that heme iron exists in meat whether or not
> cooked bro
> it's independent of the carcinogens from cooking
> heme iron doesnt have proof
>.provide proof
> has no cause
> provide plausible mechanistic cause
> is rat study
> provides human study
> "quotes a random point from a study thinking it supports him"
> refuted

> goes back to point 1
> refuted
> point one

Just put "bro" behind my arguments to refute them theory. You also seem to attack heme iron itself again, even though it's an essential nutrient. Jfl at the anti meat brainwash.
No proof it's the same on raw carnivore. Acting like variables don't matter when your own source admits they do.
Yes, I ask for proof? LOL.
Your attempt at acting like you "won" this debate without even replying to my thread, except admitting humans were carnivores during the ice age (proving my point). You also keep bringing up MUR, as if I ever argued against that. I clearly stated you can do it or not, it's your choice.

You didn't refute anything. We just disagree on variables being important here, and you quantify the evidence as more important than me. This is why we keep going in circles. Don't act like you didn't repeat your points over and over again, too. We will just have to agree to disagree. You can declare yourself as the winner in all of your responses, but you're being disingenuous.

Now, if you don't reply to all my points, don't bother replying.

 

[Punjabi Waffen]

You can not debunk carnivore

Spoiler: Thread theme

The vast majority of this forum consists of peptide copers who are also addicted to goyslop, but then seriously suggest the natural human diet is inferior to the unnatural dysgenic modern diet.

Before you bombard me with logical fallacies, read my statement at the bottom. Failing to do so means you concede the argument!

Just think from a logical perspective: Do you really think the diet humans naturally adapted to eat for over 100.000 years is unhealthier than the modern diet causing malocclusion, narrow palates, crooked teeth and many more health problems?

The last ice age was about 110.000-10.000 years ago. 99% of plants you consume would not have been available at this time. Keep in mind most plants we consume don't exist in nature. Research supporting this:

Spoiler: Stable isotope study

https://www.reuters.com/science/mammoths-topped-menu-north-american-ice-age-people-2024-12-04/

Chapter 1:
Micro nutrients, fiber, and dangers of consuming plants.

Spoiler: Chapter 1

Meat has every single essential nutrient, without any anti nutrients or poisonous plant chemicals. Plants use these anti nutrientsto defend them selves from being eaten. Humans are not adapted to eat plants. Fiber is useless, it can't be digested by the human body and leads to constipation and bloat.

"But it's good to treat constipation!"

Yet this actual scientific study isolating variables found the exact opposite:

Spoiler

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

"In our recent study, patients who followed a diet with no or less dietary fiber intake showed a significant improvement, not just in their constipation, but also in their bloatedness. Patients who completely stopped consuming dietary fiber no longer suffered from abdominal bloatedness and pain"

"But plants are healthy and not poisonous, what are you talking about? They are full of essential vitamins! "
"But healthy antioxidants bro! "

Goitrogens in broccoli can negatively impact brain development:

Spoiler

Role of goitrogens in iodine deficiency disorders & brain development - PubMed

Although iodine deficiency has primarily been implicated in the causation of goitre, the significant role played by food goitrogens in the etiology of iodine deficiency disorder (IDD) is being increasingly recognized. Impaired brain development is the major cause of concern in IDD. Detailed...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Lectins inhibit nutrient absorption, thus leading to nutrient deficiencies:

Spoiler

Lectins • The Nutrition Source

Lectins, or hemagglutinins, are an “anti-nutrient” that have received much attention due to popular media and fad diet books citing lectins as a major cause

nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu

Lectins in plants may contribute to autoimmune diseases:

Spoiler

From inflammation to immune regulation: The dual nature of dietary lectins in health and disease

Beans, vegetables, fruits, and mushrooms offer a delightful array of fragrances and an abundance of nutrients, including essential vitamins, minerals,…

www.sciencedirect.com

Trypsin inhibitors in soybeans and legumes can reduce protein digestibility by up to 50% and protein quality by up to 100%:

Spoiler

Impact of antinutritional factors in food proteins on the digestibility of protein and the bioavailability of amino acids and on protein quality - PubMed

Dietary antinutritional factors have been reported to adversely affect the digestibility of protein, bioavailability of amino acids and protein quality of foods. Published data on these negative effects of major dietary antinutritional factors are summarized in this manuscript. Digestibility and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Estrogenic activity of your "healthy" antioxidants:

Spoiler

Risks and safety of polyphenol consumption - PubMed

This article gives an overview of the potential hazards of polyphenol consumption, as reported during the round-table discussion at the 1st International Conference on Polyphenols and Health, held in Vichy, France, November 2003. Adverse effects of polyphenols have been evaluated primarily in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

80% of kidney stones are caused by oxalates:

Spoiler

Strategies for preventing calcium oxalate stones - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

75% of calcium in spinach is not bioavailable due to oxalates:

Spoiler

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12810415//

Conversion of beta-carotene to vitamin A is inefficient:

Spoiler

The challenge to reach nutritional adequacy for vitamin A: β-carotene bioavailability and conversion—evidence in humans

β-Carotene is an important dietary source of vitamin A for humans. However, the bioavailability and vitamin A equivalency of β-carotene are highly var…

www.sciencedirect.com

ALA (Plant-Based Omega-3) conversion to DHA is below 5%:

Spoiler

Efficiency of conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to long chain n-3 fatty acids in man - PubMed

Alpha-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) is the major n-3 (omega 3) fatty acid in the human diet. It is derived mainly from terrestrial plant consumption and it has long been thought that its major biochemical role is as the principal precursor for long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, of which...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Plant proteins have lower bioavailability and contain anti-nutrients that hinder nutrient absorption:

Spoiler

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Plants are missing 15 micro nutrients that are all found in meat. Some plants can contain insufficient trace amounts of a few of these nutrients, often due to bacteria or similar sources. But generally, they lack these 15 essential micro nutrients in sufficient quantities needed for optimal health and development.

Chapter 2: Gluconeogenesis, the natural energy source

Spoiler: Chapter 2

Watch this video on the Randle cycle, no need to type it out and make this thread longer than it already is. He explains it well:

Basically: Your body creates enough carbs to thrive on its own trough gluconeogenesis. Humans have lived on gluconeogenesis for decamillennia. Gymcels read the statement below.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randle_cycle

Eating the natural carnivore diet will prevent cancer and diabetes, as your blood glucose level won't be chronically elevated:

Spoiler

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28096127/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8434558/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6355252/

"But I go to the gym, I need carbs!"

You don't need to do 5 sets of 20 of squats, just do low volume high intensity. If you still feel the need for carbs after fixing your sleep schedule and a few weeks of ketosis, go ahead and eat some fruit for carbs. You don't need to do everything perfect or 100% similar to our ancestors. My point is, that even imitating the most natural diet as close as possible for your life circumstances is superior to goyslop.

Common logical fallacies: "Raw meat won't ascend you!" — Yes, it won't. It's still the healthiest "diet". I never claimed it would magically triple your PSL.
"Bro listens to Goatis, what a retard!" — I don't. Goatis did not invent the natural human diet. I disagree with a lot of stuff he says.

Go after the logical reasoning and actual arguments if you disagree. Trying to use ad hominem or a straw man won't work here. Be better. Let's see how many "people" still bring make use of these.

Of course, there is much more to this, but I think this is a great start.

​

Jfl at those who think primal diet is retarded

 

[Deleted member 208062]

Jfl at those who think primal diet is retarded

Look at this guy arguing recently with me. He admits we were carnivores for most of our history

 

[Ogionth]

Against cooked meat in a modern diet. You claim the diet doesn't matter, only meat containing heme iron matters, yet your own source claims dietary adjustments can interfere with the allegedly harmful process. So the overall diet clearly matters.

No it doesn't because in the separate study and the original one they did the study for heme iron specifically through supplementation and dosage increasing thus it doesn't, retard.

This is the laziest response yet, congratulations. If you aren't carnivore with some fruit, you obviously promote eating plants and up regulating the randle cycle constantly.

No, except that you suggested trying keto which is absolutely useless and will stop you from reaching max MUR

Either you reply to all my points, or you can't debunk it. Simple as that. Showing risk of pathogens and an essential nutrient allegedly being toxic is incredibly lazy.

Lol, I just provided evidence for everything and what points are you even talking about?

All stable isotope studies show the same thing over all of our human history (before the agricultural revolution).

Wrong, the one you said was taken in Ice Age in North America with less than 50% of our CO² levels, which is only 5% of Earth's Place and 5% of Human history and even then it lead to the conclusion that we should eat 90% carnivore because I already explainend the environmental conditions that led to that

You did not reply to the randle cycle being toxic yet.

What do even u mean by this?

You're wrong. I know this is not the same as heme iron conversion, but it is still relevant to cancer correlation.

No it's not lol, why would you bring up a random quotation trying to pass it as "Oh meat doesn't cause cancer bud" then when you get caught and that heme iron instead works in forming n nitroso not that meat itself contains it, you're trying to bullshit your way out of it?

Heme iron is an essential nutrient and there is no proof it causes cancer on a correct diet. It might increase risk on a processed diet, acting like the diet does not matter when your own source says it doesn't seem honest. "All variables don't matter, bro essential nutrient = bad". Your own source said the mechanism is poorly understood, while you're trying to frame it as "meat = bad".

If you're retarded, that's not my fault.

I addressed all your points, you ignored my thread. You literally said my thread has no arguments so you don't bother responding.

I already replied to the stable isotope, the gluconeogenesis, your keto thing.

And the other things were not against me, however since you're asking me to address some even though they're not against me, we will address two of them.

I'm only doing this because you keep asking it, not because they're against me.

Fiber and Broccoli.

FIBER

My study - MS
‎Your study - YS
‎
‎A. Level of scientific evidence -
‎
‎MS - Meta Analysis (1st and Highest form)
‎YS - Single arm interventional study (4th form)
‎
‎MS - 16 RCTs with 1251 participants
‎YS - Not even 1 RCT, with 16 male and 47 female.

B. Recentness -
‎
‎MS - 2022 Oct
‎YS - 2012 sep

C. Other critcism

‎

Your study was conducted in Singapore and Singaporean diet mainly consists of insoluble fiber.

Since there was no differentiation between soluble and insoluble fibers and we all know soluble fibers are better for constipation,
‎
‎it's more likely that this was an affect from the insoluble fibers adding bulk to the feces than it being that fibers are just in general bad, and that insoluble fibers might cause bloating..
‎
‎So it's not that fiber is bad but that insoluble and soluble fiber in an equal ratio and not in excess amounts or even just soluble fiber, will releive your constipation.
‎
My study -

NOW
BROCCOLI

‎1. In the study you provided, the rats got lower t4 levels when exposed to thiocyanate so the effect on brain was due to the impaired thyroid function, was was on IODINE DEFICIENT rats.
‎
‎2. Your study is preclinical evidence 1995 which means we can find more studies on it, let's see.
‎

(Highest form of evidence in science)

‎ the systemic review that states that without iodine deficiency it wouldnt impair thyroid function and thus lead to normal brain development unless excess, and also heating them could lower the risk even more but not necessary if you're not iodine deficient.
‎
Alr so you can have fun with these two, even though I didn't need to answer but since you asked me nicely, I did answer them.

Refuting the fact, cancer was first recorded in Ancient Egypt with "keep google searching mate". Very lazy, I'm still correct. I do not use ChatGPT. All isotope studies confirm this. We lived in an ice age for pretty much all history. You yourself admit humans had to eat meat during the ice age (100.000 years until the agricultural revolution, which led to degeneration and disease).

Incorrect, 30% of land covered by ice during ice age with only 1% having inhabitants

Dudes just blatantly lying atp

Going to a local farm and getting grass fed meat with minimal medication = futuristic. Got it.
Plenty find reliable sources. None of the raw carnivores ever get sick, I wonder why. I also said if you can't source it correctly you have to cook it. Nobody with a brain is going to get disease.

No, find me a study that says local farm, grass fed had 0% chance of food bourne diseases, I'm waiting.

What are you even saying here? You admit the diet matters. Guess you are vegetarian then, right? Cause else you will die of cancer.

Overall diet would matter in the study had there not been supplementation of heme iron, the heme iron study specifically and dose dependent increase

The fact that such a significant increase was seen despite such particular settings, is enough of evidence.

Are you dumb or trolling? How can't you comprehend this

That's why I said in my thread if you care about MUR, you can eat fruits. Not an argument against me.

No, you said first try KETO

Dont try to change your statements now.

Keto is useless and you recommended it.

The randle cycle is still bad for you, which you didn't address.

Elaborate

What are you even arguing for? From my perspective, it seems like you don't argue against vegetables, but you argue against meat itself. Doesn't seem like a clear position.

I'm arguing against 90% carnivore

I could not find your %iles of meat/veggies/diary/fruits. Could you type it here again to clarify? I will try to find it again, lol.

I already replied to you about this

Just put "bro" behind my arguments to refute them theory. You also seem to attack heme iron itself again, even though it's an essential nutrient. Jfl at the anti meat brainwash.

Obviously, it's important but 90% carnivore is a kill for consuming normal essential heme iron and thats what I'm arguing against

No proof it's the same on raw carnivore. Acting like variables don't matter when your own source admits they do.

Except that the studies specifically conducted on particular circumstances

Yes, I ask for proof? LOL.

Science doesn't operate on proof, do you not know the basic definition?

Your attempt at acting like you "won" this debate without even replying to my thread, except admitting humans were carnivores during the ice age (proving my point).

Ice that covered land during Ice age = 30% land

Out of which only 1% had inhabitants.

You're yet to provide proof that humans ate 90% carnivore for all of history

You also keep bringing up MUR, as if I ever argued against that. I clearly stated you can do it or not, it's your choice.

Obviously you did lol, Keto is against that retard, how is that hard to understand.

 

[Ogionth]

Look at this guy arguing recently with me. He admits we were carnivores for most of our history

View attachment 4091517

No, we didn't.


Isotope studies measure how much protein came from animal sources vs plant source, it doesn't measure total calories so yes most of our protein might have been from animals but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that we didn't eat plants at all because the total calories are unaccounted for and carnivore sources are more available sources of protein than plants.

So no, I didn't agree that we were carnivores.

And this doesn't make it ideal either because they also had an avg life expectancy of 35 jfl

 

[Deleted member 137786]

You can not debunk carnivore

Spoiler: Thread theme

The vast majority of this forum consists of peptide copers who are also addicted to goyslop, but then seriously suggest the natural human diet is inferior to the unnatural dysgenic modern diet.

Before you bombard me with logical fallacies, read my statement at the bottom. Failing to do so means you concede the argument!

Just think from a logical perspective: Do you really think the diet humans naturally adapted to eat for over 100.000 years is unhealthier than the modern diet causing malocclusion, narrow palates, crooked teeth and many more health problems?

The last ice age was about 110.000-10.000 years ago. 99% of plants you consume would not have been available at this time. Keep in mind most plants we consume don't exist in nature. Research supporting this:

Spoiler: Stable isotope study

https://www.reuters.com/science/mammoths-topped-menu-north-american-ice-age-people-2024-12-04/

Chapter 1:
Micro nutrients, fiber, and dangers of consuming plants.

Spoiler: Chapter 1

Meat has every single essential nutrient, without any anti nutrients or poisonous plant chemicals. Plants use these anti nutrientsto defend them selves from being eaten. Humans are not adapted to eat plants. Fiber is useless, it can't be digested by the human body and leads to constipation and bloat.

"But it's good to treat constipation!"

Yet this actual scientific study isolating variables found the exact opposite:

Spoiler

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

"In our recent study, patients who followed a diet with no or less dietary fiber intake showed a significant improvement, not just in their constipation, but also in their bloatedness. Patients who completely stopped consuming dietary fiber no longer suffered from abdominal bloatedness and pain"

"But plants are healthy and not poisonous, what are you talking about? They are full of essential vitamins! "
"But healthy antioxidants bro! "

Goitrogens in broccoli can negatively impact brain development:

Spoiler

Role of goitrogens in iodine deficiency disorders & brain development - PubMed

Although iodine deficiency has primarily been implicated in the causation of goitre, the significant role played by food goitrogens in the etiology of iodine deficiency disorder (IDD) is being increasingly recognized. Impaired brain development is the major cause of concern in IDD. Detailed...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Lectins inhibit nutrient absorption, thus leading to nutrient deficiencies:

Spoiler

Lectins • The Nutrition Source

Lectins, or hemagglutinins, are an “anti-nutrient” that have received much attention due to popular media and fad diet books citing lectins as a major cause

nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu

Lectins in plants may contribute to autoimmune diseases:

Spoiler

From inflammation to immune regulation: The dual nature of dietary lectins in health and disease

Beans, vegetables, fruits, and mushrooms offer a delightful array of fragrances and an abundance of nutrients, including essential vitamins, minerals,…

www.sciencedirect.com

Trypsin inhibitors in soybeans and legumes can reduce protein digestibility by up to 50% and protein quality by up to 100%:

Spoiler

Impact of antinutritional factors in food proteins on the digestibility of protein and the bioavailability of amino acids and on protein quality - PubMed

Dietary antinutritional factors have been reported to adversely affect the digestibility of protein, bioavailability of amino acids and protein quality of foods. Published data on these negative effects of major dietary antinutritional factors are summarized in this manuscript. Digestibility and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Estrogenic activity of your "healthy" antioxidants:

Spoiler

Risks and safety of polyphenol consumption - PubMed

This article gives an overview of the potential hazards of polyphenol consumption, as reported during the round-table discussion at the 1st International Conference on Polyphenols and Health, held in Vichy, France, November 2003. Adverse effects of polyphenols have been evaluated primarily in...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

80% of kidney stones are caused by oxalates:

Spoiler

Strategies for preventing calcium oxalate stones - PMC

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

75% of calcium in spinach is not bioavailable due to oxalates:

Spoiler

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12810415//

Conversion of beta-carotene to vitamin A is inefficient:

Spoiler

The challenge to reach nutritional adequacy for vitamin A: β-carotene bioavailability and conversion—evidence in humans

β-Carotene is an important dietary source of vitamin A for humans. However, the bioavailability and vitamin A equivalency of β-carotene are highly var…

www.sciencedirect.com

ALA (Plant-Based Omega-3) conversion to DHA is below 5%:

Spoiler

Efficiency of conversion of alpha-linolenic acid to long chain n-3 fatty acids in man - PubMed

Alpha-linolenic acid (18:3n-3) is the major n-3 (omega 3) fatty acid in the human diet. It is derived mainly from terrestrial plant consumption and it has long been thought that its major biochemical role is as the principal precursor for long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, of which...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Plant proteins have lower bioavailability and contain anti-nutrients that hinder nutrient absorption:

Spoiler

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Plants are missing 15 micro nutrients that are all found in meat. Some plants can contain insufficient trace amounts of a few of these nutrients, often due to bacteria or similar sources. But generally, they lack these 15 essential micro nutrients in sufficient quantities needed for optimal health and development.

Chapter 2: Gluconeogenesis, the natural energy source

Spoiler: Chapter 2

Watch this video on the Randle cycle, no need to type it out and make this thread longer than it already is. He explains it well:

Basically: Your body creates enough carbs to thrive on its own trough gluconeogenesis. Humans have lived on gluconeogenesis for decamillennia. Gymcels read the statement below.

Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randle_cycle

Eating the natural carnivore diet will prevent cancer and diabetes, as your blood glucose level won't be chronically elevated:

Spoiler

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28096127/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8434558/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6355252/

"But I go to the gym, I need carbs!"

You don't need to do 5 sets of 20 of squats, just do low volume high intensity. If you still feel the need for carbs after fixing your sleep schedule and a few weeks of ketosis, go ahead and eat some fruit for carbs. You don't need to do everything perfect or 100% similar to our ancestors. My point is, that even imitating the most natural diet as close as possible for your life circumstances is superior to goyslop.

Common logical fallacies: "Raw meat won't ascend you!" — Yes, it won't. It's still the healthiest "diet". I never claimed it would magically triple your PSL.
"Bro listens to Goatis, what a retard!" — I don't. Goatis did not invent the natural human diet. I disagree with a lot of stuff he says.

Go after the logical reasoning and actual arguments if you disagree. Trying to use ad hominem or a straw man won't work here. Be better. Let's see how many "people" still bring make use of these.

Of course, there is much more to this, but I think this is a great start.

​

Bro listens to Goatis, what a retard!

 

[Ogionth]

Wrong, the one you said was taken in Ice Age in North America with less than 50% of our CO² levels, which is only 5% of Earth's Place and 5% of Human history and even then it lead to the conclusion that we should eat 90% carnivore because I already explainend the environmental conditions that led to that

didn't lead* (explained in the 2nd reply so dont miss that)

also can u remind where before in a reply TO ME u said that it's okay to cook it sometimes, i mean it's incorrect anyway, no local farm and grass fed will fully save you but let me know where u said that

 

[bourgeoizyzz]

I enjoy shitting without a team of doctors telling to breath and push

carnivore debunked
/thread

 

[Deleted member 208062]

No it doesn't because in the separate study and the original one they did the study for heme iron specifically through supplementation and dosage increasing thus it doesn't, retard.

No, except that you suggested trying keto which is absolutely useless and will stop you from reaching max MUR

Lol, I just provided evidence for everything and what points are you even talking about?

Wrong, the one you said was taken in Ice Age in North America with less than 50% of our CO² levels, which is only 5% of Earth's Place and 5% of Human history and even then it lead to the conclusion that we should eat 90% carnivore because I already explainend the environmental conditions that led to that


What do even u mean by this?

No it's not lol, why would you bring up a random quotation trying to pass it as "Oh meat doesn't cause cancer bud" then when you get caught and that heme iron instead works in forming n nitroso not that meat itself contains it, you're trying to bullshit your way out of it?

View attachment 4091573

If you're retarded, that's not my fault.

I already replied to the stable isotope, the gluconeogenesis, your keto thing.

And the other things were not against me, however since you're asking me to address some even though they're not against me, we will address two of them.

I'm only doing this because you keep asking it, not because they're against me.

Fiber and Broccoli.

FIBER

My study - MS
‎Your study - YS
‎
‎A. Level of scientific evidence -
‎
‎MS - Meta Analysis (1st and Highest form)
‎YS - Single arm interventional study (4th form)
‎
‎MS - 16 RCTs with 1251 participants
‎YS - Not even 1 RCT, with 16 male and 47 female.

B. Recentness -
‎
‎MS - 2022 Oct
‎YS - 2012 sep

C. Other critcism

View attachment 4091594
‎
View attachment 4091590

Your study was conducted in Singapore and Singaporean diet mainly consists of insoluble fiber.

Since there was no differentiation between soluble and insoluble fibers and we all know soluble fibers are better for constipation,
‎
‎it's more likely that this was an affect from the insoluble fibers adding bulk to the feces than it being that fibers are just in general bad, and that insoluble fibers might cause bloating..
‎
‎So it's not that fiber is bad but that insoluble and soluble fiber in an equal ratio and not in excess amounts or even just soluble fiber, will releive your constipation.
‎
My study - View attachment 4091584


NOW
BROCCOLI

‎1. In the study you provided, the rats got lower t4 levels when exposed to thiocyanate so the effect on brain was due to the impaired thyroid function, was was on IODINE DEFICIENT rats.
‎
‎2. Your study is preclinical evidence 1995 which means we can find more studies on it, let's see.
‎
View attachment 4091600

(Highest form of evidence in science)

View attachment 4091601

‎ the systemic review that states that without iodine deficiency it wouldnt impair thyroid function and thus lead to normal brain development unless excess, and also heating them could lower the risk even more but not necessary if you're not iodine deficient.
‎
Alr so you can have fun with these two, even though I didn't need to answer but since you asked me nicely, I did answer them.


Incorrect, 30% of land covered by ice during ice age with only 1% having inhabitants

Dudes just blatantly lying atp

No, find me a study that says local farm, grass fed had 0% chance of food bourne diseases, I'm waiting.

Overall diet would matter in the study had there not been supplementation of heme iron, the heme iron study specifically and dose dependent increase

The fact that such a significant increase was seen despite such particular settings, is enough of evidence.

Are you dumb or trolling? How can't you comprehend this

No, you said first try KETO

Dont try to change your statements now.

Keto is useless and you recommended it.

Elaborate

I'm arguing against 90% carnivore

I already replied to you about this

Obviously, it's important but 90% carnivore is a kill for consuming normal essential heme iron and thats what I'm arguing against

Except that the studies specifically conducted on particular circumstances

Science doesn't operate on proof, do you not know the basic definition?

Ice that covered land during Ice age = 30% land

Out of which only 1% had inhabitants.

You're yet to provide proof that humans ate 90% carnivore for all of history

Obviously you did lol, Keto is against that retard, how is that hard to understand.

That was an excellent argument, like 50/50 imo. First, I checked to see what you recommend. You can't even recommend a rough %age of what we should eat. Also, I was advocating for 70% meat, not 90%. Keto is not useless, watch this video.

Spoiler

How would you reduce the meat intake? Meat has every essential nutrient, amino acids and no anti nutrients. If the heme iron would be so dangerous, why do carnivirous tribes don't get cancer? Regarding the life expectancy: Infant mortality, dangerous hunts, harsh climate etc.

Spoiler

Hunter-gatherers live nearly as long as we do but with limited access to healthcare

Modern healthcare may be helping us live longer, but hunter-gatherers point to a less expensive option.

theconversation.com

You brought up some good points on my studies, especially the Singapore part. I fact-checked it and it seems to be correct.
Still, the heme iron supplementation in a lab is not the same as getting it trough diet. It's physically impossible to explain how the inuit, hazda, etc. don't get cancer nearly as often as the populations on the "balanced" diet.

Can you explain that? Can you explain why these tribes are carnivore and don't deal with health issues related to their diet? If we shouldn't eat primarily meat, what else gets us our nutrients? Why are palates, jaws and faces getting smaller? Why do 50-70% of Americans need braces? Even just 100 years ago meat, often raw was very common. Raw meat dishes are far more common than you think.

Regarding Iodine for example: It's mostly found in eggs, dairy, and seafood..

Regarding Keto, I did not change my statement. Look what I wrote in the green text in chapter 2.

Regarding the ice age, it doesn't matter if only 1/3 of the world was covered in ice. You yourself admitted they had to eat meat mostly. If the isotope studies are wrong, then explain to me what vegetables would you eat. Go outside in a forest, you won't find edible plants. Of course the environment was different back then, but most plants are man made.

Every study requires funding, I operate with limited studies, because nobody does studies on this subject, as no corporation or industry would benefit from people switching to meat from local farmers.

Overall, I must admit this has been the best argument of your so far, even though there were some claims I disagree with. Such as "No, find me a study that says local farm, grass fed had 0% chance of food bourne diseases, I'm waiting." I never claimed it's 0%, but it's nearly 0. A healthy animal, when handled hygienically, can not cause sickness. I don't need to find a study, as no studies are done on this topic, which you know damn well. I could respond: "Find me a study that iodine from broccoli has a 0% risk of impacting your thyroid". You see how comical that is? Come on.

Again, what would you recommend? What do you eat? You attack roughly 70% meat, so I assume you want us to eat less than 50%? Roughly? And more vegetables that lack nutrients?

Too many questions unsolved, I would still prefer to eat mostly meat. Still, oxalates and anti nutrients are a concern.

Let me know what you think.

 

[Deleted member 208062]

didn't lead* (explained in the 2nd reply so dont miss that)

also can u remind where before in a reply TO ME u said that it's okay to cook it sometimes, i mean it's incorrect anyway, no local farm and grass fed will fully save you but let me know where u said that

Why would the reply be to you specifically? I already stated it earlier in this thread, that you don't need to obsess over all the tiny details. Look:

 

[Deleted member 208062]

I enjoy shitting without a team of doctors telling to breath and push

carnivore debunked
/thread

 

[ProBono]

im sheepmaxxing when it comes to stuff i dont have a strong opinion on so im going to follow the goy herd since my health is good

 

[Deleted member 208062]

im sheepmaxxing when it comes to stuff i dont have a strong opinion on so im going to follow the goy herd since my health is good

But drinking blood is badass, nothing ever happens anyway

 

[ProBono]

But drinking blood is badass, nothing ever happens anyway

View attachment 4091786

yo isnt that the guy goatis was full on glazing

 

[Deleted member 208062]

yo isnt that the guy goatis was full on glazing

Yea he is definitely not straight lmao

 

[Ogionth]

That was an excellent argument, like 50/50 imo. First, I checked to see what you recommend. You can't even recommend a rough %age of what we should eat. Also, I was advocating for 70% meat, not 90%. Keto is not useless, watch this video.

Spoiler

I'll watch it later but in no cases Keto will suffice for max MUR so it's not worth trying.

How would you reduce the meat intake? Meat has every essential nutrient, amino acids and no anti nutrients. If the heme iron would be so dangerous, why do carnivirous tribes don't get cancer?

They did get cancer from heme itself but the overall incidence was lower because there are also other factors (radiation etc) that affect cancer.

There's no "would be", we already went through this bud.

Regarding the life expectancy: Infant mortality, dangerous hunts, harsh climate etc.

Spoiler

Hunter-gatherers live nearly as long as we do but with limited access to healthcare

Modern healthcare may be helping us live longer, but hunter-gatherers point to a less expensive option.

theconversation.com

Simple.

1. "Limited access to healthcare" Do you realise that the studies I'm quoting are being used by doctors in real time to give advices to people? and restrict certain food?

You're actually supporting me
So you're saying that the ignorance of these studies did affect their longevity, well thanks

2..Infant morality skewing the average well thats great because infant mortality is because of infectious diseases, food bourne diseases and all those different types of things too malnutrition, parasites and all that

so this strengthens my point

Like obviously they don't have to be inherently weaker than us, and if there are medical healthcare factors then that just supports me

and Hunter gatherers were not carnivores, they were ominvores.

You brought up some good points on my studies, especially the Singapore part. I fact-checked it and it seems to be correct.

Alr let's go past through that

Still, the heme iron supplementation in a lab is not the same as getting it trough diet. It's physically impossible to explain how the inuit, hazda, etc. don't get cancer nearly as often as the populations on the "balanced" diet.

It wasn't just supplementation in a lab, these are human studies and also the other study was from meat itself.

Please cmon don't embarrass yourself why are you repeating this shit lol

The studies are undeniable.

Can you explain that? Can you explain why these tribes are carnivore and don't deal with health issues related to their diet? If we shouldn't eat primarily meat, what else gets us our nutrients? Why are palates, jaws and faces getting smaller? Why do 50-70% of Americans need braces? Even just 100 years ago meat, often raw was very common. Raw meat dishes are far more common than you think.

Already went through all of this, and the hazards of raw meat, especially since you propagate it being good a 100 years ago as if they were "cleanly" sourced like cmon dude.

"Why are our jaws getting smaller" doesn't mean we should eat 90% carnivore lol, there's still other hard foods that you can use without sacrificing your health.

Regarding Iodine for example: It's mostly found in eggs, dairy, and seafood..

You don't need such a high amount of iodine intake to not be considered "iodine deficient", regardless I didn't I couldn't eat carnivore at all, did I? You can still eat it from them even though the soil that has iodine will get it to plants and so on too but that's besides the point you need not alot lol, for adults 150 micrograms per day only

Regarding Keto, I did not change my statement. Look what I wrote in the green text in chapter 2.

You should because Keto will stop u from max MUR so why try it lol unless u are less than 1% of populatjon having perfect physique

Regarding the ice age, it doesn't matter if only 1/3 of the world was covered in ice. You yourself admitted they had to eat meat mostly. If the isotope studies are wrong, then explain to me what vegetables would you eat. Go outside in a forest, you won't find edible plants. Of course the environment was different back then, but most plants are man made.

Manmade doesn't mean they're bad, the phone you're using is manmade too.

The isotope studies are not wrong, they measure protein intake not total calories.

I LITERALLY POINTED THIS OUT AND MADE A 2ND EXPLANATION SO U COULD READ IT BUT U JUST IGNORE IT, WHY?

Every study requires funding, I operate with limited studies, because nobody does studies on this subject, as no corporation or industry would benefit from people switching to meat from local farmers.

So there's no study, then keep quiet and you're wrong.

Local farms and grass fed still have alot of food bourne diseases.

Overall, I must admit this has been the best argument of your so far, even though there were some claims I disagree with. Such as "No, find me a study that says local farm, grass fed had 0% chance of food bourne diseases, I'm waiting." I never claimed it's 0%, but it's nearly 0.

Show one showing that it's nearly 0%, I'm waiting

A healthy animal, when handled hygienically, can not cause sickness.

Not exactly sickness but "food bourne diseases" yes.

Obviously but that has never been possible in history lol, up until now.

Because it still causes cancer, and the point of MeR and other things too.

I don't need to find a study, as no studies are done on this topic, which you know damn well. I could respond: "Find me a study that iodine from broccoli has a 0% risk of impacting your thyroid". You see how comical that is? Come on.

What are you even talking about, these two are not identical, one has a whole meta analysis and systemic review while you're just speculating

Again, what would you recommend? What do you eat? You attack roughly 70% meat, so I assume you want us to eat less than 50%? Roughly? And more vegetables that lack nutrients?

It has to be a different diet in childhood (more protein, both animal+plant), then a different in adulthood 25+, and then different at 60+

Which is why I'm refraining from putting numbers.

Too many questions unsolved, I would still prefer to eat mostly meat. Still, oxalates and anti nutrients are a concern.

Let me know what you think.

I don't know why you keep asking me to defend something I'm not propagating.

But as for the very important part (estrogenic activity) and oxalates, here you go

1. ESTROGENIC ACTIVITY.

Your article -

Point 1. It's the lowest form of evidence as not even a clinical trial took place.

Point 2. 2005 January.

Point 3. At the end, it does say that more studies are required

which usually means a meta analysis (strongest form of evidence)

MY STUDY -

1. Highest form of evidence (meta analysis of 41 studies)

2. 2021 March

3. Since it's a meta analysis, the conclusions are very strong

Concluded - No effect on male hormones.

(Though i dont like soy bcz of its taste)

2. OXALATES

I agree that oxalates can contribute to kidney stone formation and that about 75% of the calcium in spinach isn’t bioavailable because of them and I’m not advocating for a high oxalate intake either.

If you look at the conclusions in your study, it notes that increasing calcium intake can help offset the effects of oxalates and that individual genetics can affect the things of oxalate, so again that supports in my favor that it should not be excess in either situations

The study also mentions that animal protein should be limited, which supports the idea of a balanced diet rather than a predominantly carnivore too so well thanks for providing something in my favor

 

[Ogionth]

Why would the reply be to you specifically? I already stated it earlier in this thread, that you don't need to obsess over all the tiny details. Look:

View attachment 4091765

Because how do you expect me to know everything you have ever written on the forum

OF COURSE IT HAS TO BE ME, LOL you said "you said it earlier" so it's presumed that it should've beeen to me in the argument and also you don't really propagate the idea of cooking properly if you're seeking a practically impossible environment lol because thats not present anywhere rn so you should propagate that we should cook it ALL the time.

It takes nothing to concede blud

 

[Deleted member 208062]

Because how do you expect me to know everything you have ever written on the forum

OF COURSE IT HAS TO BE ME, LOL you said "you said it earlier" so it's presumed that it should've beeen to me in the argument and also you don't really propagate the idea of cooking properly if you're seeking a practically impossible environment lol because thats not present anywhere rn so you should propagate that we should cook it ALL the time.

It takes nothing to concede blud

Well, now you're skewing the point. It was stated in this exact thread, I obviously don't expect you to read everything in this forum.

 

[Ogionth]

Well, now you're skewing the point. It was stated in this exact thread, I obviously don't expect you to read everything in this forum.

Yeah so whenever you talk about it, dont make it seem like I'm at fault by saying "I already said it" and just talk normally by attaching your quotation.

Because even if it was in this thread, this thread conrains so many replies of so many diff ppl most of which are useless, so cant expect me to read it

 

[Deleted member 208062]

Yeah so whenever you talk about it, dont make it seem like I'm at fault by saying "I already said it" and just talk normally by attaching your quotation.

Fair

 

[garoutheincelReturn]

JFL. You can't just claim that exogenous carbohydrates are essential when humans have been using ketosis as their primary energy source for 100.000+ years. I have a section about this in my thread, bow about you address my argument instead of claiming something without any logical reasoning.

You are also implying, that you can't work out in ketosis. You also ignored the gymcel section I made in my thread.

At least read my thread before commenting.

Tell me the essential antioxidants that this diet lacks. Keep in mind running on gluconeogenesis is lower in oxidative stress. Beta-carotene is not an essential nutrient.

Only baseless claims. Tell me how our ancestors survived and reproduced without diabetes, heart disease, cancer and more for 100.000+ years without eating these toxic plants.

simple they moved constantly , they didn't live to 100 + years old and they didnt even have enough calories to induce diabetes LOL carbs have their place in a diet for gymceling the increased igf1 insulin and muscle fullness from the carbs fuel my workouts