Raw meat won't make you chad haha raw meat dumb

[pzkmvp]

could have just written "i am a pussy"

could have just written i dont want to get a job nor do i want to go to college better luck next life faggot

 

[ethnical]

could have just written i dont want to get a job nor do i want to go to college better luck next life faggot

pic was pre puberty btw no pics are uploaded of me online except for that one

 

[John6Enjoyer]

: "He thinks raw meat makes him chad bro, just eat raw meat bro haha I'm so high IQ black pilled bro!"

Most common argument I've seen here, and it's a bad straw man.


Debunk raw meat animal based diet. Plants are shit and not human food. Debunk it. Go argue. You can't.








@asdvek tag some sugar addicts I have some references now for arguing.

They complement each other

Meat gives benefits plants cannot and vice versa

Raw meat diet is a cave man mentality haha

 

[pzkmvp]

pic was pre puberty btw no pics are uploaded of me online except for that one

one reverse search is all it takes

 

[ethnical]

one reverse search is all it takes

True true but it won't matter, pic I sent is before puberty and hair is covering my eye area

 

[IraniancelV2]

Emjoy your parasites bro, and keep arguing with a fucking AI because nobody with a brain will entertain a raw meat diet

Wonder why nobody who eats raw meat actually gets food poisoning or sickness. Nothing ever happens.

AGAIN. You didn't even argue or make any logical points your entire argument is just raw meat is bad without any evidence.

 

[VV62]

Wonder why nobody who eats raw meat actually gets food poisoning or sickness. Nothing ever happens.

AGAIN. You didn't even argue or make any logical points your entire argument is just raw meat is bad without any evidence.

Outbreak with multi-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 linked to carpaccio, Denmark, 2005 - PMC

We report an outbreak with Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 resistant to six different antibiotic classes. The outbreak occurred in Denmark in July/August 2005 and was traced to a single restaurant. In addition to patient interviews, an important tool ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Tradition and Innovation in Raw Meat Products with a Focus on the Steak Tartare Case - PMC

Steak tartare is a ready-to-eat (RTE) meat product, prepared with finely chopped or ground raw beef, with a rich culinary history and increasing consumption trend in the last years. Yet, its microbiological safety and technological challenges remain ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Outbreak of Salmonella Serotype Typhimurium Infection Associated with Eating Raw Ground Beef -- Wisconsin, 1994

 

[IraniancelV2]

Btw the antinutrients you rawtards are so scared of have negligible effects on nutrient absorption+ some of those anti nutrients are actually beneficial

Wrong.

Bioavailability of soluble oxalate from spinach eaten with and without milk products - PubMed

Leafy vegetables such as spinach (Spinacia oleracea) are known to contain moderate amounts of soluble and insoluble oxalates. Frozen commercially available spinach in New Zealand contains 736.6+/-20.4 mg/100g wet matter (WM) soluble oxalate and 220.1+/-96.5mg/100g WM insoluble oxalate. The...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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

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

Protein Nutrition: Understanding Structure, Digestibility, and Bioavailability for Optimal Health - PMC

This review discusses different protein sources and their role in human nutrition, focusing on their structure, digestibility, and bioavailability. Plant-based proteins, such as those found in legumes, nuts, and seeds, may contain anti-nutritional ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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

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

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

Plants: Nutrients and downsides
Meat: More nutrients and no downsides

Who tf told you humans didn’t eat carbs back then. Litteraly lived hundreds of years eating only bread. And fat gain isn’t based off carb intake but caloric intake View attachment 4047091

Wrong. Stable isotope testing from humans throughout all of history before the agricultural revolution reveals humans ate 80-96+% of meat. 100.000 Years btw.. Ice age btw..

After the agricultural revolution when we invented bread and made fruits and plants more eatable our brains shrunk, our jaws decreased in size, we got shorter and disease came. Here is one example : https://www.reuters.com/science/mammoths-topped-menu-north-american-ice-age-people-2024-12-04/

 

[IraniancelV2]

Outbreak with multi-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 linked to carpaccio, Denmark, 2005 - PMC

We report an outbreak with Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 resistant to six different antibiotic classes. The outbreak occurred in Denmark in July/August 2005 and was traced to a single restaurant. In addition to patient interviews, an important tool ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Tradition and Innovation in Raw Meat Products with a Focus on the Steak Tartare Case - PMC

Steak tartare is a ready-to-eat (RTE) meat product, prepared with finely chopped or ground raw beef, with a rich culinary history and increasing consumption trend in the last years. Yet, its microbiological safety and technological challenges remain ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Outbreak of Salmonella Serotype Typhimurium Infection Associated with Eating Raw Ground Beef -- Wisconsin, 1994

I just looked at the first study. There is no mention of how healthy the animals where, how fresh the meat was, if the animals where grain fed, the hygiene environment of the restaurant. Those people had compromised immune systems from modern lifestyle and didn't even eat proper carnivore.

You may stop eating all together, as there are thousands of people getting food poisoning from regular store bought meat or plants. The risk of infection or food poisoning is incredibly low.

 

[IraniancelV2]

They complement each other

Meat gives benefits plants cannot and vice versa

Raw meat diet is a cave man mentality haha

What benefit? Look at these studies I posted. Here is another one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7589136/

Plants also upregulate the randle cycle.

 

[IraniancelV2]

Outbreak with multi-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 linked to carpaccio, Denmark, 2005 - PMC

We report an outbreak with Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 resistant to six different antibiotic classes. The outbreak occurred in Denmark in July/August 2005 and was traced to a single restaurant. In addition to patient interviews, an important tool ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Tradition and Innovation in Raw Meat Products with a Focus on the Steak Tartare Case - PMC

Steak tartare is a ready-to-eat (RTE) meat product, prepared with finely chopped or ground raw beef, with a rich culinary history and increasing consumption trend in the last years. Yet, its microbiological safety and technological challenges remain ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Outbreak of Salmonella Serotype Typhimurium Infection Associated with Eating Raw Ground Beef -- Wisconsin, 1994

Oh also, if you can't source near perfect food: Just cook it a little. There will be nutrient loss but you will be fine. Still 1000x better than seed oil grain sludge diets.

And thank you for being pretty much the only person with actual arguments

 

[John6Enjoyer]

What benefit? Look at these studies I posted. Here is another one: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7589136/

Plants also upregulate the randle cycle.

Plants give a decreased risk of chronic diseases and improved digestive health

Meat is good short-term yes, I can concede that minor, but now I fervently push-back with the major that Plants+meat is necessary long term.

Plants evolved for photosynthesis

Eating them let's us retain those benefits

If u think that red meat is superior to plants therefore plants are unnecessary that's a false binary

Plants and meat are complementary to each other and there's an evolutionary reason why we as humans eat them in conjunction. Nothing about it is nominal.

 

[VV62]

Oh also, if you can't source near perfect food: Just cook it a little. There will be nutrient loss but you will be fine. Still 1000x better than seed oil grain sludge diets.

And thank you for being pretty much the only person with actual arguments

My family usually buys a whole cow from local farmers and has it butchered, which makes it both cheaper and higher quality than the slop you get at the supermarket, so the source is good. I already eat mostly carnivore and plan to cut plants out completely, keeping my diet limited to just meat, nicotine, and caffeine though I can’t cut out nicotine and caffeine unfortunately. I’m mainly doing this for spiritual reasons, but the one thing holding me back from going fully primal is the fact that raw meat can still harbor pathogens like E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Campylobacter, even when it comes from healthy animals or is handled properly.

Review of major meat-borne zoonotic bacterial pathogens - PMC

The importance of meat-borne pathogens to global disease transmission and food safety is significant for public health. These pathogens, which can cause a variety of diseases, include bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. The consumption of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[IraniancelV2]

Plants give a decreased risk of chronic diseases and improved digestive health

Meat is good short-term yes, I can concede that minor, but now I fervently push-back with the major that Plants+meat is necessary long term.

Plants evolved for photosynthesis

Eating them let's us retain those benefits

If u think that red meat is superior to plants therefore plants are unnecessary that's a false binary

Plants and meat are complementary to each other and there's an evolutionary reason why we as humans eat them in conjunction. Nothing about it is nominal.

Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms - PMC

AIM: To investigate the effect of reducing dietary fiber on patients with idiopathic constipation. METHODS: Sixty-three cases of idiopathic constipation presenting between May 2008 and May 2010 were enrolled into the study after colonoscopy excluded ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Stable Isotope testing reveals humans before the agricultural revolution ate almost nothing but meat.

People who report eating more vegetables have slightly lower risk of chronic disease than those who report eating less. That's not science that's just correlation. The people eating less vegetables are usually overweight seed oil slurping junk food addicts, not actual carnivores.

What exactly are the benefits of plants that justify all the downsides (see studies in my post from a few minutes ago).

 

[IraniancelV2]

My family usually buys a whole cow from local farmers and has it butchered, which makes it both cheaper and higher quality than the slop you get at the supermarket, so the source is good. I already eat mostly carnivore and plan to cut plants out completely, keeping my diet limited to just meat, nicotine, and caffeine though I can’t cut out nicotine and caffeine unfortunately. I’m mainly doing this for spiritual reasons, but the one thing holding me back from going fully primal is the fact that raw meat can still harbor pathogens like E. coli, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Campylobacter, even when it comes from healthy animals or is handled properly.

Review of major meat-borne zoonotic bacterial pathogens - PMC

The importance of meat-borne pathogens to global disease transmission and food safety is significant for public health. These pathogens, which can cause a variety of diseases, include bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. The consumption of ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

First of all that's amazing, I'm jealous. I get shitty food mostly.

Secondly, it literally says in your article, that these pathogens come due to unhealthy animals or improper handling. If the animals aren't medicated or vaccinated, and are grass fed, I see no reason as to why you couldn't eat them raw if they practice hygiene.

Nowhere does it specify healthy animals randomly infect you with salmonella. Also, if no seed oils are used and you are healthy, due to your natural human diet, you will be even less likely to get sick.

 

[John6Enjoyer]

Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms - PMC

AIM: To investigate the effect of reducing dietary fiber on patients with idiopathic constipation. METHODS: Sixty-three cases of idiopathic constipation presenting between May 2008 and May 2010 were enrolled into the study after colonoscopy excluded ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Stable Isotope testing reveals humans before the agricultural revolution ate almost nothing but meat.

People who report eating more vegetables have slightly lower risk of chronic disease than those who report eating less. That's not science that's just correlation. The people eating less vegetables are usually overweight seed oil slurping junk food addicts, not actual carnivores.

What exactly are the benefits of plants that justify all the downsides (see studies in my post from a few minutes ago).

Wut? My position is that meat and plants are synergetic. Neither negates the other. Ostensibly, it looks like ur response believes that I'm Positing that solo-plants is a good diet

But since you asked the benefits of plants I'll provide them, albeit, I'll provide the exclusive benefits of plants that you cannot get from meat alone to show exactly how complementary they are

> "It supports your immune system. Plants have essential nutrients that you cannot get from other foods. The vitamins and minerals, phytochemicals and antioxidants in plants help keep your cells healthy and your body in balance so that your immune system can function at its best.

> “Plants give your body what it needs to help fight off infection,” says Andrea Murray, MD Anderson health education specialist. “A plant-based diet strengthens your immune system to protect you against germs and microorganisms.”

Source: https://www.mdanderson.org/publicat...nefits-of-a-plant-based-diet.h20-1592991.html

Patently, this source believes that a plant-alone diet is fine, but that's not why I cited it. It shows the exclusive benefits of plants.

Would you rather choose a diet where you only get one set of benefit of the meat-plant spectrum (meat-based diet), or absorb both benefits as an omnivores? I can invoke natural selection theory to show that as an omnivore in these modern conditions, you are more likely to survive because you have a variegated source of nutrients and it's not just locked off to meat or plants.

 

[IraniancelV2]

Wut? My position is that meat and plants are synergetic. Neither negates the other. Ostensibly, it looks like ur response believes that I'm Positing that solo-plants is a good diet

But since you asked the benefits of plants I'll provide them, albeit, I'll provide the exclusive benefits of plants that you cannot get from meat alone to show exactly how complementary they are

> "It supports your immune system. Plants have essential nutrients that you cannot get from other foods. The vitamins and minerals, phytochemicals and antioxidants in plants help keep your cells healthy and your body in balance so that your immune system can function at its best.

> “Plants give your body what it needs to help fight off infection,” says Andrea Murray, MD Anderson health education specialist. “A plant-based diet strengthens your immune system to protect you against germs and microorganisms.”

Source: https://www.mdanderson.org/publicat...nefits-of-a-plant-based-diet.h20-1592991.html

Patently, this source believes that a plant-alone diet is fine, but that's not why I cited it. It shows the exclusive benefits of plants.

Would you rather choose a diet where you only get one set of benefit of the meat-plant spectrum (meat-based diet), or absorb both benefits as an omnivores? I can invoke natural selection theory to show that as an omnivore in these modern conditions, you are more likely to survive because you have a variegated source of nutrients and it's not just locked off to meat or plants.

You misunderstood me. I am just against eating plants at all, that's why I show you the downsides.

1: There are no essential nutrients in plants. If there where essential nutrients in plants, why did humans survive off of 95+% meat diets? How do carnivorous tribes like inuit and certain african hunter gatherer tribes survive? It's an oxymoron. They have less vitamins and minerals and activate the randle cycle. They cause kidney stones and many nutrients and antioxidants aren't bioavailable. I send studies above.

2: That's just one self proclaimed "health expert" that doesn't give any mechanism of action or studies with controlled variables.

 

[John6Enjoyer]

You misunderstood me. I am just against eating plants at all, that's why I show you the downsides.

1: There are no essential nutrients in plants. If there where essential nutrients in plants, why did humans survive off of 95+% meat diets? How do carnivorous tribes like inuit and certain african hunter gatherer tribes survive? It's an oxymoron. They have less vitamins and minerals and activate the randle cycle. They cause kidney stones and many nutrients and antioxidants aren't bioavailable. I send studies above.

2: That's just one self proclaimed "health expert" that doesn't give any mechanism of action or studies with controlled variables.

There are essentail nutrients in plants. It includes minerals, fiber and phytonutrients. Most meats do not contain vitamin c. It is commonly found in plants. Tribes like the inuit rat seafood which has An abundant amount of vitamin c. And they specifically evolved to live without plants and to adapt to the carnivore diet while eating a smaller amount of plants. So since we don't have their evolutionary benefits , that's a false equivalence on your part.

I also don't see how plants cause the randy cycle. It is more convenient to consume plants, and naturally speaking, you can't consume supplements to provide antioxidants or the nutrients of plants. You have also contradicted yourself by saying plants don't have any Indispensable nutrients and then implying necessary nutrients which can only be received from plants such as antioxidants are reconciled in supplements. Also supplements without professional assistance aren't beneficial long-term.

About the source, you're attacking the wrong part of it. I used it as a way to circumvent the fact that plants do indeed have exclusive nutrients to themselves.

You also committed an illicit transposition fallacy by implying that high oxalate plants cause kidney stones, therefore all plants are high oxalate and cause kidney stones. It is a very conditional thing.

 

[IraniancelV2]

There are essentail nutrients in plants. It includes minerals, fiber and phytonutrients.

But these are not only found in plants. Why would I eat toxic plants instead of meat where the nutrients are bioavailable?!

I also don't see how plants cause the randy cycle. It is more convenient to consume plants, and naturally speaking, you can't consume supplements to provide antioxidants or the nutrients of plants. You have also contradicted yourself by saying plants don't have any Indispensable nutrients and then implying necessary nutrients which can only be received from plants such as antioxidants are reconciled in supplements. Also supplements without professional assistance aren't beneficial long-term.

They lead to glycation as all carbs are converted to sugar in the blood stream. That will start the randle cycle as your body doesn't depend on fat as primary energy source anymore which is also toxic by the way.

You need way less vitamin C as a carnivore due to no carbs by the way. The amount found in meat is enough in that case.

Supplements? I never talked about supplements are you schizophrenic?

The antioxidants aren't actual antioxidants, they just stress your liver which temporarily boosts anti oxidative stress response. The carnivore natural human diet on the other hand lowers oxidative stress because you run on gluconeogenesis and has direct anti oxidants.

About the source, you're attacking the wrong part of it. I used it as a way to circumvent the fact that plants do indeed have exclusive nutrients to themselves.

I'm not, it's literally just an appeal to authority with no logic involved. And no, as you can see plants have no exclusive essential nutrients.

Tribes like the inuit rat seafood which has An abundant amount of vitamin c. And they specifically evolved to live without plants and to adapt to the carnivore diet while eating a smaller amount of plants. So since we don't have their evolutionary benefits , that's a false equivalence on your part.

Then eat seafood too, problem solved? And no, I literally just told you stable isotope testing shows humans ate meat up to 96%+ of their diet for over 100k years as we evolved during an ice age. You are also adapted to eating carnivore.

You also committed an illicit transposition fallacy by implying that high oxalate plants cause kidney stones, therefore all plants are high oxalate and cause kidney stones. It is a very conditional thing.

I didn't, though. I never said all plants have oxalates. But many have which is a reason to avoid them as they accumulate in the kidneys which can be dangerous. I showed loads of studies showing dangers of plants.

 

[John6Enjoyer]

But these are not only found in plants. Why would I eat toxic plants instead of meat where the nutrients are bioavailable?!

They lead to glycation as all carbs are converted to sugar in the blood stream. That will start the randle cycle as your body doesn't depend on fat as primary energy source anymore which is also toxic by the way.

You need way less vitamin C as a carnivore due to no carbs by the way. The amount found in meat is enough in that case.

Supplements? I never talked about supplements are you schizophrenic?

The antioxidants aren't actual antioxidants, they just stress your liver which temporarily boosts anti oxidative stress response. The carnivore natural human diet on the other hand lowers oxidative stress because you run on gluconeogenesis and has direct anti oxidants.

I'm not, it's literally just an appeal to authority with no logic involved. And no, as you can see plants have no exclusive essential nutrients.

Then eat seafood too, problem solved? And no, I literally just told you stable isotope testing shows humans ate meat up to 96%+ of their diet for over 100k years as we evolved during an ice age. You are also adapted to eating carnivore.

I didn't, though. I never said all plants have oxalates. But many have which is a reason to avoid them as they accumulate in the kidneys which can be dangerous. I showed loads of studies showing dangers of plants.

What does bioavailable mean here? I presumed those are supplements so I built from there. I concede the minor that I have strawmanned you, but pushback with the major that even then, you're still implying plants have essential nutrients by using an alternative method to absorb them.

Can you substantiate how natural antioxidants from plants are non-beneficial and a insidious source for antioxidants? That's a lying assumption you haven't proven yet.

I'm not using an appeal to authority. Unless you can disprove the part of the source that I sent, it can't qualify for a fallacy. And even then, i clarified I'm not using them as an appeal to authority. I'm patently showing what people who don't hold to my position say, which is fair sourcing. An appeal to authority is when you quote an authority who's not even experienced there anyway. They're discussing about nutrients there and many other things. I didn't cite an irrelevant source. Also there's logic involved everywhere. Before and after you responded, you have used logic.

Yeah notice how you said about 100,000 years ago and you're not appealing to modern data? There's a reason we humans are omnivores. We see it to be more beneficial because you get benefits from both sides instead of 1 which is what you're entailing. If your position indeed was true, then omnivores (about most humans, probably all), shouldn't be the predominant population but we can see that's not the case. By the way, you have conceded that plants have nutrients. You acknowledged my point about the benefits plants bring to the table, and then you said to eat fish as a solution. That's a subtle concession. Can you also demonstrate how I'm as adapted to the carnivore diet as hunter-gatherers and tribemen?

You haven't really accounted for my position yet. I think that meat and plants are harmonious. It is a well known axiom of truth that meat-eating can absolve the possible defects from oxalates. If your a solo-planter, then yes your argument is intimidating, but I'm not a solo-planter and this is where your anti-plant framework is in peril to fall apart. It's a transposition fallacy because you made a universal statement that plants have oxalates when in reality it's only a particular statement (some plants).

 

[IraniancelV2]

What does bioavailable mean here? I presumed those are supplements so I built from there. I concede the minor that I have strawmanned you, but pushback with the major that even then, you're still implying plants have essential nutrients by using an alternative method to absorb them.

See the studies I sent earlier. Just because a nutrient is in the plant, doesn't mean you absorb it. There is no need for a supplement as meat has every essential nutrients.

Can you substantiate how natural antioxidants from plants are non-beneficial and a insidious source for antioxidants? That's a lying assumption you haven't proven yet.

Because they aren't actual antioxidants. They are harmful plant chemicals that increase antioxidant defenses from the liver. They don't even work as antioxidants. Search it up. Here is one study of estrogenic effects of one "healthy antioxidant" https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...995581513871&usg=AOvVaw1JvMoZIq31DbeS0Oivt6SR
You also don't need them as they aren't essential nutrients and if you're running on ketosis and don't eat carbs you are naturally low in oxidative stress. You somehow ignored the randle cycle or any other study I sent showing how toxic plants are.

I'm not using an appeal to authority. Unless you can disprove the part of the source that I sent, it can't qualify for a fallacy. And even then, i clarified I'm not using them as an appeal to authority. I'm patently showing what people who don't hold to my position say, which is fair sourcing. An appeal to authority is when you quote an authority who's not even experienced there anyway. They're discussing about nutrients there and many other things. I didn't cite an irrelevant source. Also there's logic involved everywhere. Before and after you responded, you have used logic.

Literally textbook appeal to authority. I can be an expert in field A and still be wrong about field A. I need to give proof. "Expert says A but doesn't show proof". There is simply nothing to disprove as it's just a statement without any logical reasoning or scientific data. She just bases her claim on scientific data that was not linked and us nowhere to be found.

Yeah notice how you said about 100,000 years ago and you're not appealing to modern data? There's a reason we humans are omnivores. We see it to be more beneficial because you get benefits from both sides instead of 1 which is what you're entailing. If your position indeed was true, then omnivores (about most humans, probably all), shouldn't be the predominant population but we can see that's not the case. By the way, you have conceded that plants have nutrients. You acknowledged my point about the benefits plants bring to the table, and then you said to eat fish as a solution. That's a subtle concession. Can you also demonstrate how I'm as adapted to the carnivore diet as hunter-gatherers and tribemen?

Are you serious?? I said over 100.000 years up until 10.000 years. And then our brains shrunk, jaws got smaller, height decreased, disease was more common. We evolved to eat meat since 99% of our history, start eating plants and degenerate. That's all you really need to know. And your argument that omnivores wouldn't be the predominant population doesn't make sense. Just because most are doing it doesn't make it right, especially when we see the downsides. And no, I didn't acknowledge any benefits of plants since they don't have any. Yes, they contain nutrients, but so does my shit. Meat contains way more nutrients and doesn't have all the downsides.
And saying you should eat fish isn't conceding anything as fish is meat and lart of carnivore jfl. And if you want me to demonstrate why you're adapted to carnivore: Meat has every nutrients you need. Plants don't. Plants have nothing essential that you can't get somewhere else. Plants have toxins. Plants start the randle cycle. Your ancestors ate up to 95%+ meat for 99% of history. I sent proof earlier.

You haven't really accounted for my position yet. I think that meat and plants are harmonious. It is a well known axiom of truth that meat-eating can absolve the possible defects from oxalates. If your a solo-planter, then yes your argument is intimidating, but I'm not a solo-planter and this is where your anti-plant framework is in peril to fall apart. It's a transposition fallacy because you made a universal statement that plants have oxalates when in reality it's only a particular statement (some plants).

I did. I am just attacking the position of incorporating plants. There are no upsides and only downsides to plants. And since like 10% of people have problems with kidney stones in their life, seems like it is a problem. And why even risk it for virtually no benefit when you could get more nutrition from meat without bloating yourself with fiber whilst up regulating your randle cycle?? Also you ignore these:

Protein Nutrition: Understanding Structure, Digestibility, and Bioavailability for Optimal Health - PMC

This review discusses different protein sources and their role in human nutrition, focusing on their structure, digestibility, and bioavailability. Plant-based proteins, such as those found in legumes, nuts, and seeds, may contain anti-nutritional ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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

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

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

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

 

[John6Enjoyer]

See the studies I sent earlier. Just because a nutrient is in the plant, doesn't mean you absorb it. There is no need for a supplement as meat has every essential nutrients.

Because they aren't actual antioxidants. They are harmful plant chemicals that increase antioxidant defenses from the liver. They don't even work as antioxidants. Search it up. Here is one study of estrogenic effects of one "healthy antioxidant" https://www.google.com/url?q=https:...995581513871&usg=AOvVaw1JvMoZIq31DbeS0Oivt6SR
You also don't need them as they aren't essential nutrients and if you're running on ketosis and don't eat carbs you are naturally low in oxidative stress. You somehow ignored the randle cycle or any other study I sent showing how toxic plants are.

Literally textbook appeal to authority. I can be an expert in field A and still be wrong about field A. I need to give proof. "Expert says A but doesn't show proof". There is simply nothing to disprove as it's just a statement without any logical reasoning or scientific data. She just bases her claim on scientific data that was not linked and us nowhere to be found.

Are you serious?? I said over 100.000 years up until 10.000 years. And then our brains shrunk, jaws got smaller, height decreased, disease was more common. We evolved to eat meat since 99% of our history, start eating plants and degenerate. That's all you really need to know. And your argument that omnivores wouldn't be the predominant population doesn't make sense. Just because most are doing it doesn't make it right, especially when we see the downsides. And no, I didn't acknowledge any benefits of plants since they don't have any. Yes, they contain nutrients, but so does my shit. Meat contains way more nutrients and doesn't have all the downsides.
And saying you should eat fish isn't conceding anything as fish is meat and lart of carnivore jfl. And if you want me to demonstrate why you're adapted to carnivore: Meat has every nutrients you need. Plants don't. Plants have nothing essential that you can't get somewhere else. Plants have toxins. Plants start the randle cycle. Your ancestors ate up to 95%+ meat for 99% of history. I sent proof earlier.

I did. I am just attacking the position of incorporating plants. There are no upsides and only downsides to plants. And since like 10% of people have problems with kidney stones in their life, seems like it is a problem. And why even risk it for virtually no benefit when you could get more nutrition from meat without bloating yourself with fiber whilst up regulating your randle cycle?? Also you ignore these:

Protein Nutrition: Understanding Structure, Digestibility, and Bioavailability for Optimal Health - PMC

This review discusses different protein sources and their role in human nutrition, focusing on their structure, digestibility, and bioavailability. Plant-based proteins, such as those found in legumes, nuts, and seeds, may contain anti-nutritional ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

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

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

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

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

I have not said that because a nutrient is in the plant, you absorb it. That's a strawman of my original position. I'm appealing to evolution. That because plants evolved to produce air in their environments to sustain the ecosystem and themselves, we can retain similar benefits when consuming them, albeit, not identical as implied.

Every food has their upsides and downsides. You're cherry-picking details here and ignoring the fact that even meat-foods like steak when over-consumed can cause heart disease.

I concede the minor that my source was an appeal to authority but even then, and effusively pushback with the major that even if it were, you literally have a cancer research center encouraging eating plant-based diets for their antioxidants. This cannot be drawn off as an appeal to authority because I'm citing a higher gradation of professionality here.

5 benefits of a plant-based diet

No one food can reduce your risk for cancer, but there is an overall diet that can. Learn what it means to eat a plant-based diet and see all the ways it can help your body.

www.mdanderson.org

You seem to be ignoring that the evolutionary theory favors my position. If an omnivore diet was indeed detrimental, they would've gone extinct or at least retained a small population. It's not ad populum, it's an ex evolutione (from evolution) which cannot be flagged as a fallacy because it's an empirically verifiable theory. It's also pretty ironic you said our brains shrunk. Yet, amongst the lineage of the human species, we omnivores exhibit the most intelligent behavior and have created entire civilizations more advanced than your caveman ancestors from 100,000 years ago ever could have and that's not even an exaggeration.

You also keep reiterating that plants don't have any nutrients. That's circular reasoning because you keep bringing up your conclusion even though we haven't reasoned their yet and I haven't accepted that plants have no nutrients.

If you did indeed account for my position, you would know that for any downsides plants bring, meat reconciles it and vice versa.

 

[IraniancelV2]

I have not said that because a nutrient is in the plant, you absorb it. That's a strawman of my original position. I'm appealing to evolution. That because plants evolved to produce air in their environments to sustain the ecosystem and themselves, we can retain similar benefits when consuming them, albeit, not identical as implied..

Yeah I never said you did. I was explaining what I meant by bioavailability. And what the fuck does that mean? What benefits do we get from plants because they produce air to sustain the environment?? What does that have to do with eating them?

.Every food has their upsides and downsides. You're cherry-picking details here and ignoring the fact that even meat-foods like steak when over-consumed can cause heart disease.

Wrong. Humans almost ate nothing except meat before the agricultural revolution, yet heart disease only came up AFTER the agricultural revolution. Meat doesn't cause heart disease. Proof it.

I concede the minor that my source was an appeal to authority but even then, and effusively pushback with the major that even if it were, you literally have a cancer research center encouraging eating plant-based diets for their antioxidants. This cannot be drawn off as an appeal to authority because I'm citing a higher gradation of professionality here.

5 benefits of a plant-based diet

No one food can reduce your risk for cancer, but there is an overall diet that can. Learn what it means to eat a plant-based diet and see all the ways it can help your body.

www.mdanderson.org

It is an appeal to authority. They can't just say "We are a cancer research center so we're correct". Where is the research. Proof it. There is literally no proof meat causes cancer. Again why didn't humans have cancer back when we mostly eat meat? Ever thought about the fact they don't want you to be healthy and because the health industry is huge? And I already told you the plant "antioxidants" aren't useful for humans due to low bioavailability and poor absorption. Meat contains antioxidants. I told you multiple times about ketosis and anti oxidants. I recommend you to search up "randle cycle explained" on youtube.

You seem to be ignoring that the evolutionary theory favors my position. If an omnivore diet was indeed detrimental, they would've gone extinct or at least retained a small population. It's not ad populum, it's an ex evolutione (from evolution) which cannot be flagged as a fallacy because it's an empirically verifiable theory. It's also pretty ironic you said our brains shrunk. Yet, amongst the lineage of the human species, we omnivores exhibit the most intelligent behavior and have created entire civilizations more advanced than your caveman ancestors from 100,000 years ago ever could have and that's not even an exaggeration.

It really doesn't. You're implying that humans would go extinct or reduce population due to poor diet, but settling obviously increases population because you can build cities and lower mortality rates due to bad hunts. We are the most intelligent now because we settled and could invent and research without worrying about starvation.

How can you say evolution supports your view point when the consensus is that we literally degenerated due to the modern diet, and got disease?

That's like saying smoking is making us more intelligent because as soon as we started smoking we advanced rapidly. Correlation =/= causation.

You also keep reiterating that plants don't have any nutrients. That's circular reasoning because you keep bringing up your conclusion even though we haven't reasoned their yet and I haven't accepted that plants have no nutrients.

Because you don't address it. Plants hinder nutrient absorption, impact development and are inherently toxic. They have poison (endocrine disruptors, anti nutrients, acid etc) to defend themselves against predators. They also don't synergize well because it would activate the randle cycle and hinder digestion. Why would I take all these downsides when the only upside are weak antioxidants, (meat contains antioxidants, so do you) that sometimes have bad effects ( see estrogenic effect study earlier) and have poor absorption?

Meat has no antinutrients and indigestible fiber. It does not cause heart disease as there are only correlation studies on people who eat store bought meat and mc donalds wrenched in seed oils. No population eating raw meat from healthy animals has a significant amount of heart disease.

If you did indeed account for my position, you would know that for any downsides plants bring, meat reconciles it and vice versa.

Not really. I still only see upsides vs barely upsides with downsides

 

[John6Enjoyer]

Yeah I never said you did. I was explaining what I meant by bioavailability. And what the fuck does that mean? What benefits do we get from plants because they produce air to sustain the environment?? What does that have to do with eating them?

Wrong. Humans almost ate nothing except meat before the agricultural revolution, yet heart disease only came up AFTER the agricultural revolution. Meat doesn't cause heart disease. Proof it.

It is an appeal to authority. They can't just say "We are a cancer research center so we're correct". Where is the research. Proof it. There is literally no proof meat causes cancer. Again why didn't humans have cancer back when we mostly eat meat? Ever thought about the fact they don't want you to be healthy and because the health industry is huge? And I already told you the plant "antioxidants" aren't useful for humans due to low bioavailability and poor absorption. Meat contains antioxidants. I told you multiple times about ketosis and anti oxidants. I recommend you to search up "randle cycle explained" on youtube.

It really doesn't. You're implying that humans would go extinct or reduce population due to poor diet, but settling obviously increases population because you can build cities and lower mortality rates due to bad hunts. We are the most intelligent now because we settled and could invent and research without worrying about starvation.

How can you say evolution supports your view point when the consensus is that we literally degenerated due to the modern diet, and got disease?

That's like saying smoking is making us more intelligent because as soon as we started smoking we advanced rapidly. Correlation =/= causation.

Because you don't address it. Plants hinder nutrient absorption, impact development and are inherently toxic. They have poison (endocrine disruptors, anti nutrients, acid etc) to defend themselves against predators. They also don't synergize well because it would activate the randle cycle and hinder digestion. Why would I take all these downsides when the only upside are weak antioxidants, (meat contains antioxidants, so do you) that sometimes have bad effects ( see estrogenic effect study earlier) and have poor absorption?

Meat has no antinutrients and indigestible fiber. It does not cause heart disease as there are only correlation studies on people who eat store bought meat and mc donalds wrenched in seed oils. No population eating raw meat from healthy animals has a significant amount of heart disease.

Not really. I still only see upsides vs barely upsides with downsides

Consuming plants can give respiratory benefits such as antioxidants. One of the reasons this happens is because plants absorb release oxygen after absorbing carbon dioxide.

> "Until recently, it was thought that it was mainly the saturated fat in red meat that raised your risk of heart disease, but new research published by the American Heart Association reveals it’s the chemicals produced by our gut bacteria whilst digesting red meat and animal products that significantly raise the risk of heart attack and stroke."
— https://www.victorchang.edu.au/blog/heart-disease-red-meat

It isn't an appeal to authority. No one said that because they're a cancer research center they're automatically correct. If I did say that, then yes it is an appeal to authority, though I didn't.

Anyways here the research you're enquiring about:
> "Phytonutrients are still being studied, but research is starting to show that they may:
● Stimulate your immune system to fight disease
● Reduce inflammation
● Prevent DNA damage and help DNA repair
Reduce cell damage
● Slow cancer cell growth
● Regulate hormones
● Neutralize some toxins and stop them from becoming carcinogens"

Their motivations on this cannot affect the truth value that meat and plants are harmonious, or let alone any truth value.

Also, meat and plants do not contain the same type if antioxidiants. Meat can provide some antioxidants but it's not as good as the amount of antioxidants plants can provide. Plants can provide Vitamin C and E, and phenolic compounds. Meat is a secondary source for antioxidants which means they cannot suffice in the same degree by which plants can. Plants are a primary source, quod erat demonstradum.

I'm not conflating any categories here. If anything, I'm using your own reasoning and showing that even by your own reasoning and standards, your argument that intelligence decreased when stopped eating raw meat doesn't work. So you critiqued yourself, not me.

Well, an event would have to be triggered if the omnivore diet is as detrimental as you're purporting it to be, but you yourself have seen that the population hasn't decreased as a result. Therefore, The omnivore diet cannot be detrimental.

Why would it matter what the consensus says? We evaluate truth by facts and data. Not what people have to say, because truth isn't contingent on opinion. So you committed an appeal to authority fallacy.

Still. Even if I didn't address it (which I did before and said I pushed-back with the fact that's it renowned amongst everyone and their mom that plants have positive antioxidants), it wouldn't help you because I haven't conceded that yet.

Can you show me which plants you are referring to that are poisonous and pernicious as you say? If it's not the entirety of plants as a category, you're committing an illicit transposition fallacy again because you're applying a universal statement in respect to a subset and not a superset.

And like I said, eating meat, especially red meat in large volumes can cause heart disease. I never said that just normally eating meat causes diseases and impairments, and it is also found in processed meats.

 

[IraniancelV2]

Consuming plants can give respiratory benefits such as antioxidants. One of the reasons this happens is because plants absorb release oxygen after absorbing carbon dioxide.

> "Until recently, it was thought that it was mainly the saturated fat in red meat that raised your risk of heart disease, but new research published by the American Heart Association reveals it’s the chemicals produced by our gut bacteria whilst digesting red meat and animal products that significantly raise the risk of heart attack and stroke."
— https://www.victorchang.edu.au/blog/heart-disease-red-meat

It isn't an appeal to authority. No one said that because they're a cancer research center they're automatically correct. If I did say that, then yes it is an appeal to authority, though I didn't.

Anyways here the research you're enquiring about:
> "Phytonutrients are still being studied, but research is starting to show that they may:
● Stimulate your immune system to fight disease
● Reduce inflammation
● Prevent DNA damage and help DNA repair
Reduce cell damage
● Slow cancer cell growth
● Regulate hormones
● Neutralize some toxins and stop them from becoming carcinogens"

Their motivations on this cannot affect the truth value that meat and plants are harmonious, or let alone any truth value.

Also, meat and plants do not contain the same type if antioxidiants. Meat can provide some antioxidants but it's not as good as the amount of antioxidants plants can provide. Plants can provide Vitamin C and E, and phenolic compounds. Meat is a secondary source for antioxidants which means they cannot suffice in the same degree by which plants can. Plants are a primary source, quod erat demonstradum.

I'm not conflating any categories here. If anything, I'm using your own reasoning and showing that even by your own reasoning and standards, your argument that intelligence decreased when stopped eating raw meat doesn't work. So you critiqued yourself, not me.

Well, an event would have to be triggered if the omnivore diet is as detrimental as you're purporting it to be, but you yourself have seen that the population hasn't decreased as a result. Therefore, The omnivore diet cannot be detrimental.

Why would it matter what the consensus says? We evaluate truth by facts and data. Not what people have to say, because truth isn't contingent on opinion. So you committed an appeal to authority fallacy.

Still. Even if I didn't address it (which I did before and said I pushed-back with the fact that's it renowned amongst everyone and their mom that plants have positive antioxidants), it wouldn't help you because I haven't conceded that yet.

Can you show me which plants you are referring to that are poisonous and pernicious as you say? If it's not the entirety of plants as a category, you're committing an illicit transposition fallacy again because you're applying a universal statement in respect to a subset and not a superset.

And like I said, eating meat, especially red meat in large volumes can cause heart disease. I never said that just normally eating meat causes diseases and impairments, and it is also found in processed meats.

Will respond tomorrow as it's 4:30 AM. Good night

 

[John6Enjoyer]

Will respond tomorrow as it's 4:30 AM. Good night

Good night my g

 

[jgrey080]

B- but my goat is edits on TikTok!