NattyOrNot's Board

(02-17-2020, 02:14 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]Ahh, my  morning laugh from undertaker. If it is not too personal, are you male or female?

Man. Why does it matter? Do you need to adjust your ad personams to my sex?

(02-17-2020, 02:14 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]If a man eats meat but not soy, is it toxic masculinity? If a woman eats meat but not soy, is it toxic femininity?

You missed the point as usual.

If anyone eats meat, but not soy, because, let's say, doesn't like the taste, but they are informed about the health outcomes, then fine (not getting into moral side of things). If a man eats meat, but not soy, because of the fear that soy will turn him into female, then you can call it toxic masculinity An irrational fear of losing masculine traits and stupid decisions that follow make it a toxic masculinity.

(02-17-2020, 02:14 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]If people are concerned with cow farts, are they not also concerned with humans eating beans and farting?

That escalated quickly and you lost me.

(02-17-2020, 02:14 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]Meat is cleared for consumption, including a review of the data from the Framingham heart study:

So you lied that Framingham study showed what you claimed. Ergh, Grinch you poor sap.

(02-17-2020, 02:14 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]"Eligible studies that followed patients for 2 to 34 years revealed low- to very-low-certainty evidence that dietary patterns lower in red and processed meat intake result in very small or possibly small decreases in all-cause mortality, cancer mortality and incidence, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and type 2 diabetes. For all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality and incidence of some types of cancer, the total sample included more than 400 000 patients; for other outcomes, total samples included 4000 to more than 300 000 patients."

Conclusion: Eat your bacon and eggs for breakfast every day. The traditional English diet proves to be best. Steak and kidney pie, eat up.

So you chose to cite a study with low to very low certainty evidence, lol.

In reality every line of evidence there is points to meat being unhealthy compared to plant sources of protein.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2540540

"Replacing animal protein of various origins with plant protein was associated with lower mortality. In particular, the HRs for all-cause mortality were 0.66 (95% CI, 0.59-0.75) when 3% of energy from plant protein was substituted for an equivalent amount of protein from processed red meat, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.92) from unprocessed red meat, and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75-0.88) from egg."

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/47/5/1603/4924399

"The HRs for cardiovascular mortality were 1.61 [98.75% confidence interval (CI), 1.12 2.32; P-trend < 0.001] for the ‘Meat’ protein factor and 0.60 (98.75% CI, 0.42 0.86; P-trend < 0.001) for the ‘Nuts & Seeds’ protein factor (highest vs lowest quintile of factor scores)."

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2748453

"Isocaloric substitution of 3% energy from plant protein for red meat protein was associated with lower total (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55-0.80), cancer-related (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45-0.82), and CVD-related (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86) mortality; substitution for processed meat protein was associated with lower total (HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.38-0.75) and cancer-related (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.30-0.85) mortality."

Not only we have observational studies that confirm that, but also we know mechanisms which explain why meat is worse than plant protein. We can do this all day. Your claims have no grounds.

Fuck all faggots.

Poor undertaker, aww, really, I never meant to make you cry.
"So you chose to cite a study with low to very low certainty evidence, lol." - no, you are delusional. The result of the massive study, 400,000 people, peer reviewed, said:


"Eligible studies that followed patients for 2 to 34 years revealed low- to very-low-certainty evidence that dietary patterns lower in red and processed meat intake result in very small or possibly small decreases in all-cause mortality, cancer mortality and incidence, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and type 2 diabetes. For all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality and incidence of some types of cancer, the total sample included more than 400,000 patients; for other outcomes, total samples included 4000 to more than 300,000 patients."

This says, there is only very low evidence that red and processed meat increase health problems, and there is a small chance it increases health outcomes. The Framingham heart study data was included in this review. That is what the data says. So I am talking to a female teenager?

"So you chose to cite a study with low to very low certainty evidence, lol." This study concluded there is only a very low certainty that meat was found to be harmful, after reviewing all the qualified studies that could be found. In other word, we have been lied to for decades. Data in previous studies never found meat consumption to be harmful enough to recommend not eating meat, but that was falsely reported to be the case. "Very low certainty of evidence" was what was these researchers found in PREVIOUS studies, in other words, studies you would cite.

---

 Top 7 Testosterone Killers In Your Home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9NGMHOkpQ

This doctor says eating soy kills testosterone. A soyboy can eat soy to shrink his balls.

Soy is very goitrogenic (interferes with the thyroid). Eating soy leads to weight gain.

(02-18-2020, 01:26 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]Poor undertaker, aww, really, I never meant to make you cry.

(02-18-2020, 01:26 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]"So you chose to cite a study with low to very low certainty evidence, lol." - no, you are delusional. The  result of the massive study, 400,000 people, peer reviewed, said:


"Eligible studies that followed patients for 2 to 34 years revealed low- to very-low-certainty evidence that dietary patterns lower in red and processed meat intake result in very small or possibly small decreases in all-cause mortality, cancer mortality and incidence, cardiovascular mortality, nonfatal coronary heart disease, fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, and type 2 diabetes. For all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality and incidence of some types of cancer, the total sample included more than 400,000 patients; for other outcomes, total samples included 4000 to more than 300,000 patients."

This says, there is only very low evidence that red and processed meat  increase health problems, and there is a small chance it increases health outcomes. The Framingham heart study data was  included in this review. That is what the data says. So I am talking to a female teenager?

"So you chose to cite a study with low to very low certainty evidence, lol."  This study concluded there is only a very low certainty that meat was found to be harmful, after reviewing all the qualified studies that could be found. In other word, we have been lied to for decades. Data in previous studies never found meat consumption to be harmful enough to recommend not eating meat, but that was falsely reported to be the case. "Very low certainty of evidence" was what was these researchers found in PREVIOUS studies, in other words, studies you would cite.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You mix certainty of evidence in the formal sense with the colloquial sense. You may have a low certainty that the measured outcome is extreme (let's say big differences between groups but high p-value) and vice versa. Here they admitted that the strength of their evidence for whatever they claim is poor.

It doesn't mean that are no better, more definitive studies (not observational). But you won't cite them because you know very well how stupid your claims are

Oh dude, it's pure comedy reading your posts where you cite studies that fire back at you

(02-18-2020, 01:26 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ] Top 7 Testosterone Killers In Your Home
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9NGMHOkpQ

This doctor says eating soy kills testosterone. A soyboy can eat soy to shrink his balls.

Soy is very goitrogenic (interferes with the thyroid). Eating soy leads to weight gain.

Yeah, yeah, refer to YouTube gurus. What else can you do?

You are a complete idi*t.
Even the NY Times can have a rational discussion regarding this massive meta study. The data came from the studies you would cite dumba*s.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

Troll. Stop following me.

---

"You have no idea what you are talking about. You mix certainty of evidence in the formal sense with the colloquial sense. You may have a low certainty that the measured outcome is extreme (let's say big differences between groups but high p-value) and vice versa. Here they admitted that the strength of their evidence for whatever they claim is poor."
CONCLUSION - THE STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE THAT EATING MEAT IS HARMFUL IS VERY LOW, OR EVEN NONEXISTENT.
MANY PREVIOUS STUDIES WERE SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS, MOSTLY USING DATA FROM EARLIER STUDIES THAT CLAIMED EATING MEAT IS HARMFUL.
"It doesn't mean that are no better, more definitive studies (not observational). But you won't cite them because you know very well how stupid your claims are"
ALMOST ALL STUDIES REGARDING DIET ARE OBSERVATIONAL, INCLUDING THE ONES THAT CLAIM EATING MEAT IS HARMFUL. BECAUSE PEOPLE CANNOT BE LOCKED UP FOR YEARS, TO CONTROL WHAT THEY EAT. THIS STUDY DID NOT GENERATE NEW DATA, IT USED EXISTING PUBLISHED RESEARCH FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF SOURCES. THIS WAS AN INTERNATIONAL TEAM OF RESEARCHERS. THIS IS THE LARGEST DIET STUDY TO DATE.

(02-19-2020, 05:28 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]You are a complete idi*t.

At least I don't link YouTube videos as evidence or studies that contradict my claims. Insult me as much as you want, you are still wrong and unable to even grasp what a proper evidence is.

(02-19-2020, 05:28 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]Troll. Stop following me.

I can't, your posts are too funny and too painful not to comment on them at the same time

(02-19-2020, 05:28 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]CONCLUSION - THE STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE THAT EATING MEAT IS HARMFUL IS VERY LOW, OR EVEN NONEXISTENT.
MANY PREVIOUS STUDIES WERE SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS, MOSTLY USING DATA FROM EARLIER STUDIES THAT CLAIMED EATING MEAT IS HARMFUL.

Chill a little bit, dude. Stress is not good for either.
They said that it's low or very low due to the nature of the study and the magnitude of the measured effects. Cohorts by definition are uncertain evidence if they don't show an extraordinary magnitude of effect.

Now that said and the funniest part is that the study found statistically significant lower risk of all-cause death, death related to CVD, non-fatal stroke and type 2 diabetes, death from some type of cancers and cancer overall.

Again dude, you cited a study that found out that eating meat makes you die quicker

(02-19-2020, 05:28 PM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]ALMOST ALL STUDIES REGARDING DIET ARE OBSERVATIONAL, INCLUDING THE ONES THAT CLAIM EATING MEAT IS HARMFUL. BECAUSE PEOPLE CANNOT BE LOCKED UP FOR YEARS, TO CONTROL WHAT THEY EAT. THIS STUDY DID NOT GENERATE NEW DATA, IT USED EXISTING PUBLISHED RESEARCH FROM A WIDE VARIETY OF SOURCES. THIS WAS AN INTERNATIONAL TEAM OF RESEARCHERS. THIS IS THE LARGEST DIET STUDY TO DATE.

You don't have to scream, ffs.
Almost all doesn't mean all of them. Some have better design, gather more accurate info on foods subjects eat or pools subjects that are more reliable than most of the population (like health professionals, one of my previous citations). Sometimes when you mix all studies together, good and bad, the outcome seems less trustworthy since badly designed studies bring the quality of evidence down. Even taking all of this into consideration, the study you cited showed that eating meat is significantly worse

I repeat, why don't you cite some randomized controlled trials, hm? Because you know very well that they point in the direction of meat harming people's health.

So, wrapping this a little bit:

- you can't prove that any eating pattern is better when it comes to free test, and if you care for totat test then vegan > omni > lacto-ovo is the proper order;
- you claim that soy is estrogenic or lowers test, but studies show no such effects;
- to show that eating meat is okay you cite the meta-study of not-always-great quality observational studies that overall demonstrate that eating meat is bad for you anyway.

You are a funny guy, Grinch.

The study:
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752327/patterns-red-processed-meat-consumption-risk-cardiometabolic-cancer-outcomes-systematic
"Patterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies" (2019)

The NY Times discussion of the study (2019):
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

Nothing you are babbling about matches the NY Times article. Anyone can compare your comments to what is in the article - but that is between you and your psychiatrist. Do you even know what a meta-analysis is?
Either you are mentally ill, or you are a troll; or both. Making false claims that seem to only delight you. Then you giggle to yourself - making "jokes" that are only funny to you, just like the Joker. Living in your own dream world.

(02-20-2020, 12:34 AM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]Nothing you are babbling about matches the NY Times article. Anyone can compare your comments to what is in the article - but that is between you and your psychiatrist.

Grinch poor sap, just open the study and read Table 1 and Table 2. You don't need NY Times to read it for you. There you have exactly what I said. And yes, anyone can fact-check

(02-20-2020, 12:34 AM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]Either you are mentally ill, or you are a troll; or both.   Making false claims that seem to only delight you. Then you giggle to yourself - making "jokes" that are only funny to you, just like the Joker.  Living in your own dream world.

That's just ridiculous. You don't even read what you link, do you lying bastard? Just stop embarrassing yourself.

(02-20-2020, 12:34 AM)Grinch Wrote: [ -> ]The study:
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752327/patterns-red-processed-meat-consumption-risk-cardiometabolic-cancer-outcomes-systematic
"Patterns of Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk for Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cohort Studies"  (2019)

The NY Times discussion of the study (2019):
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html

Nothing you are babbling about matches the NY Times article. Anyone can compare your comments to what is in the article - but that is between you and your psychiatrist. Do you even know what a meta-analysis is?
Either you are mentally ill, or you are a troll; or both.   Making false claims that seem to only delight you. Then you giggle to yourself - making "jokes" that are only funny to you, just like the Joker.  Living in your own dream world.

You open up a long story friend,

Thing is, there are many factors that lead to cancer growth, not just meat by itself, and blaming 1 and only food type to causing cancer is ... extreme. First of, you have many possibilities of why cancer grows in the first place.  For example, colon cancer has a correlation to meat consumption. Yes, its true. But that is half the truth, or even 1/3 of it. Why? Because there are many factors to consider, like what type of meat does this person eat? what kind of lifestyle?

Meat has the tendency to draw a lot of energy for it to get digested. It also causes oxidative stress. This makes your body less capable to fight of free radicals. However, this is why you need antioxidants.  If you never consumed antioxidants, you would rapidly develop cancer. Also , you need to take into consideration the whole lifestyle of most meat eaters. They rarely eat veggies/fruits. They consume a lot of alcohol, and are most likely sedentary. But lets stick to the first part, the little consumption of veggies/fruits. In our digestive tract, we possess dozens of bacteria. These bacteria have a symbiosis type relationship with our body. They are responsible for producing vitamin K, digesting soluble fiber and producing serotonin/dopamine.

The digestion of soluble fiber, makes the bacteria produce short chain fatty acids, as a byproduct of metabolism. These short chain fatty acids are then absorbed by our digestive tract . There are 3 types of short chain fatty acids, but the most important one , is butyric acid . Butyric acid has been found, among the many other health benefits it provides, to work against cancer formation as a whole, but especially in our digestive tract. See where i am going?


Unfortunately, the average joe-meat eater is not bothered to consume large amounts of fiber. He is more concerned to consume sausages, cheese, ham, bacon etc.  While those are not bad food items by themselves, they can become problematic for a person who rarely if ever exercises, consumes a lot of alcohol, and eats very little fiber.

There is no "bad food" by itself. Why? Because food is a form of energy. Nothing more. Energy that is calculated in calories and kilo joules. You cant have "bad energy". However, you can have free radical production as a form of energy due to metabolism of food. This is why, as i said above, you need antioxidants, and fiber.
As a closing point, id like to say that if a bad food existed, it would have been removed way longer before you would even know it can cause trouble. All food items are constantly being tested to see their effects on the body, what kind of preservatives to use, etc... So no, just because you site certain studies claiming that meat is causing cancer, doesent mean that meat does DIRECTLY cause cancer. Its a combination of many, many , many factors.

p.s I am a food scientist, and my thesis was in fiber and its effect on the human body

Hi Khrazz,
Thank-you for your very informative post. I certainly agree with eating a correct amount of fiber. Fruits and vegetables certainly are beneficial. I have read synthetic vitamin E is not beneficial, and people need to obtain E from natural sources, good ones being seeds and nuts. Sunflower seeds, tree nuts, and peanut butter are good choices. The US food plate is a good diet.
Gut health is important, limiting alcohol, exercising, are good points you make.