81–90 of 152 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> true for literally anything Pedantic: no. It’s true for everything that is safe or beneficial to consume. There is no “right amount” of lead or plutonium in your diet.
Even more pedantic: The right amount is 0. I did include that case in my answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The human body is poor at processing cellulose. You need a lot of plants to equal the nutrients from meat. You can do it, but a cheeseburger, a multivitamin, adequate sun, and good exercise is also a healthy lifestyle.
it seems weird that you would talk about supposed shortfalls of plant nutrition and then in the next sentence talk about cheeseburgers (who considers these healthy?) and multivitamins (which are not considered a substitute for proper nutrition[1][2]) 1. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-preventi... 2. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/do-multivitamins-work
The custom of serving them with french fried potatoes and a milkshake or cola gives them a bit of guilt by association, but meat, some cheese, some vegetables, and a serving of bread? Don't see an issue at all.
I think the reason why academia is trying so hard to demonize meat is because they have pushed grains so hard for so many decades and now the truth about grains and blood sugar is coming out...which makes them look bad
an excessive consuption of refined grains is bad, eating the right amount of whole grains is solely beneficial
Anyway, any food high in choline will elevate TMAO.
As an undergrad I was briefly involved in an effort to develop an inhibitor of the bacterial enzymes that degrade choline.
Aren't most studies contradictory ? For one study claiming A you can find another claiming the opposite. In the 80s/90s there was this constant fear about cholesterol and eggs (perhaps promoted by the cereals lobby?) : did people's habits change? If yes, it was probably because of the monopoly of TV as the main source of "information". Nowadays with internet, every one follows his own little bubble of information.
Yup, according to studies, everything we eat both causes and prevents cancer[1]. AFAICT it's almost impossible to conduct convincing nutrition science. Even if the signs of the effect in observational studies are all in the same direction (usually they're not, see the reference), you still can't rule out many confounding effects. To demonstrate causality, you'd need to force a large number of people on specific diets…
1. Avoid processed Foods, Learn to cook your own meals
2. Eat a variety of foods
3. Control your portions (especially carbs)
4. Drink more water
Everything else is mostly irrelevant to the normal person. Are eggs good or bad, is Red meat worse than Chicken, etc etc... Who Cares. Eat it all in moderation, while mixing in fruits and veggies all in proper portion
I think it was Food Theory Channel or somewhere that had a video on the amount of influence various industries have had over the "recommendation" by "nutrition science" experts and / or the government, the end result is most "nutrition science" is really marketing not science
Aren't most studies contradictory ? For one study claiming A you can find another claiming the opposite. In the 80s/90s there was this constant fear about cholesterol and eggs (perhaps promoted by the cereals lobby?) : did people's habits change? If yes, it was probably because of the monopoly of TV as the main source of "information". Nowadays with internet, every one follows his own little bubble of information.
Yup, according to studies, everything we eat both causes and prevents cancer[1]. AFAICT it's almost impossible to conduct convincing nutrition science. Even if the signs of the effect in observational studies are all in the same direction (usually they're not, see the reference), you still can't rule out many confounding effects. To demonstrate causality, you'd need to force a large number of people on specific diets…
Maybe someone can find it, but even with all that rigor, it was somewhat inconclusive.
This may be only tangentially relevant, but the author is known to be a pro-meat lobbyist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Teicholz ).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
an excessive consuption of refined grains is bad, eating the right amount of whole grains is solely beneficial
You may be right, you may be wrong but with respect, if you can't supply references to peer-reviewed studies to support your contentious assertion then why should anyone believe you?
You can't be wrong if you say that eating excessive amounts of X is dangerous, but eating the right amount of X is optimally beneficial. You can be completely vacuous, but not wrong.
This may be only tangentially relevant, but the author is known to be a pro-meat lobbyist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Teicholz ).