The best thing all Vegans can do is instead of telling people (that really don't listen) to stop eat meat, is to tell farmers to stop feeding their cows with corn or soy. Instead of driving around in a tractor all day, they will get som time off (while their cows still eats the grass and grows).
It's a win-win situation. At the same time you can tell them to be nice to those cows.
@narkfly Since the evidence shows that neither the lipid-hypothesis (again, see Chris Masterjohns excellent review with dozens of citations) nor the diet-heart hypothesis are true - this leave your arguments based on that old hypothesis lacking.
Although there IS evidence for both hypotheses, it is scant and far out-weighed by the evidence against them.
"It requires willful ignorance of the fact that saturated fat does not increase total cholesterol or LDL in humans, in the long term. It requires a simplistic view of blood lipids that ignores the potentially harmful effects of replacing animal fats with carbohydrate or industrial seed oils. Worst of all, it requires selective citation of the literature on diet modification trials."
Again, he has excellent citations for all his arguments.
@narkfly Many of your arguments start with the basic idea that the diet-heart hypothesis is true. Here's what Stephen Guyenet has to say, and cites studies, sources, literature, etc., for his argument:
"The diet-heart hypothesis, the idea that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol raise blood cholesterol and thus increase heart attack risk, is a half-century embarrassment to the international scientific community..."
@narkfly - also for reasons I don't believe 80/10/10 is healthy: 1. is the lack of studies indicaing same, 2. is the great deal of nutritional information showing the importance of dietary fat in the human diet.
Even the Kitavans, who many raw-foodists and low-fat advocates use as an example of low-fat/high-carb successes eat 21% of their calories from fat - more than 2x the amount 80/10/10 recommends. And the majority of their fat is SATURATED. In fact, Kitavans eat more SFA than Americans.
@narkfly Some of the BEST articles on the flawed lipid and diet-heart hypotheses (showing studies, citations, etc.) are available at Stephen Guyenet's site: wholehealthsource.blogspot.com
Just search "Dietary Fat" to find dozens of articles, references, studies - all the evidence any intelligent person needs - to see that saturated fat and meats ARE healthy.
@LCHFinCanada I'm sorry to say that I don't think you will get in an educated discussion with narkfly. Unfortunately YouTube is a horrible platform to do so. Maybe a video debate would suffice then all of the users with actual knowledge could step up to the plate and discuss it with u. I would be interested as to what actual sources you use on a day to day basis and would appreciate it if you could share them. All I get is pro Vegan sources and would like the differing opinion.
For you and your kids and their future health, please listen to Robert H Lustig's speech about sugar. Search for "Sugar the bitter truth".
This is important wheather you eat meat or not. It can also help us to change what people are trying to sell us. Our money can go to those who sell shit or those who's trying to give us good nutrient food.
... again, I'm waiting for your overwhelming scientific evidence, not your OPINIONS on pain and exploitation.
You claim meat is unhealthy and 80/10/10 is healthy. But show no evidence whatsoever. Or bad science which is refuted by anyone with a brain. If you still believe what Barnard, Esselstyn, Ornish, Campbell etc. say even when they're obviously using bad science, you are not as open-minded as you claim.
@LCHFinCanada "again, I'm waiting for your overwhelming scientific evidence, not your OPINIONS on pain and exploitation." This demand for evidence is ironic, as you claimed to be a cardiologist many times and never provide evidence to back it up.
However, we do not need opinions and arguments that animals are suffering a great deal under the barbaric dictatorship of man; we can see if for ourselves. Watch Earthlings and see the truth of how you and most Westerners live: watch?v=FHA4HNbmDLg
Why has this video got so many dislikes? Fuck your egos. Stop identifying with your diet. This is far bigger than "DURRR DURRR vegetarians are wrong meat eating is right". This is about saving the mother-fucking-planet!
@Kayyris Have you read her book? A large portion of it is trying to dismiss vegans. I've read it, it's nonsense. Also, this book is popular because she's saying, "We can still abuse animals. It's good for you." People love hearing a message that they can continue to do something that they enjoy. Like smokers liked to hear people dismissing smoking as bad for your health 50 years ago. Consuming animals exploits them and causes them pain and suffering. FACT!
@marcluc1988 You and it seems a lot of other people need to focus on the bigger picture here. Agriculture.
I had no idea that they destroy all the natural bacteria during the process of preparing land for agricultural process. So what because the bacteria is a single cell organism it's ok to do that?
We were once a single cell organism and through billions of years of meme trending and genetic predisposition it has engineered this being to tell you to go fuck yourself
@LCHFinCanada Maybe you think the definitions of pain and exploitation are opinions as well. With a mindset like that, it's not hard to see why you have the approach to "research" that you do. :)
@narkfly "...you think the definitions of pain and exploitation are opinions as well..."
Animal activists always bring up the "pain", "exploitation", "torture", "rape" arguments that are extremely opinionated and really only apply to factory farming.
Not all of us participate in factory farming - but you don't seem to see that. There are very humane ways to take an animals life, and something you've raised as livestock for thousands of years is no more "exploited" than a carrot is.
@LCHFinCanada People who love to argue about how their diet doesn't inflict "that much" pain on the animals they are eating have missed the fundamental fact that you've taken something that doesn't belong to you. This is same reason it is unacceptable to take the life of a human child, the life of a slave - that life and the potential it holds is not yours and therefore isn't yours to give or take. None of these - the child, the slave, the animal - freely give you their life. It is stolen.
@LCHFinCanada As I said, the ethical debate is separate from the health debate. I jumped in on your thread like you jumped in on mine with @Smoroga. If you can honestly justify condoning slaughter by asserting that pain is an opinion, then there is nothing to be said to you. Similarly, claiming that a clear and coherent philosophical argument is simply an "opinion" isn't any kind of refutation, more the philosophical equivalent of throwing in the towel - but maybe you don't like philosophy.
@Kayyris If her book were about saving the planet, she wouldn't fill it with completely incorrect information about the vegetarian diet and call it "The Vegetarian Myth", she'd call it "How to Save the Mother-Licking Planet". :)
there is therapy called The Gerson Therapy that cures cancer and other chronic diseases with a vegan diet (there are other factors too that help)....so i just dont know
@wormmy1 True. It's so annoying when dieticians and nutritionists of all people confuse the health beneficial CLA's in animal products with man-made hydrogenated oils.
@checkingavailabilify I encountered one a few months ago who said saturated omega 3 was worse than plant omega 3. He or she claimed to be in training to be a naturopath. How scary!
@wormmy1 There is no such thing as saturated omega-3. There are long chained (EPA/DHA) from animals and short chained (ALNA) from vegetables (correct me if I'm wrong).
Humans are not so good to convert ALNA to EPA/DHA which is the type we need in our brains. Only a few percent (3-10) can be converted.
@Smoroga I know. We were talking about the ratio of O3 to 06 in grass-fed beef. The naturopath-in-training kept calling it "saturated" Omega 3. That's why I said, "how scary."
@wormmy1 Lmao. We should put this into a video called "shit militant vegans say", as well as things like "do you know how much LDL-cholesterol is there in meat?" and "I love people so much, and I wish you all get heart disease and die."
@90Rush Does everyone know that LDL have a bad and a good guy. Natural fats raises the good LDL that float around in your arteries.
Eating food that raises your blood sugar levels will increase the bad guy, the small annoying LDL that instead of floating around often get stuck in the endotelian cells.
So..It's not meat, not natural fat (we used to say artery clogging fat). It's the modern sugar consumption that give you heart disease. Sugar is the thing in food that has increased, not fat.
@Smoroga The thing is, not only do they believe all LDL to be bad, some vegans actually believe that the cholesterol you eat from meat is already packed in LDL lipo-protein packets and sent directly to your blood stream. That is as ridiculous as the saturated omega-3 stuff.
@Smoroga There are three types of cholesterol: LDL, HDL and VLDL. VLDL and LDL are the baddies that promote cholesterol deposits in the arteries. High levels of HDL indicate that cholesterol is being carried safely back to the liver. I'm assuming that you've just mis-labelled the 'good' and 'bad' forms of cholesterol.
Saturated fats are the facts to reduce. These are mainly found in animal fats.
@marcluc1988 "...There are three types of cholesterol: LDL, HDL and VLDL..."
W R O N G.
None of those are cholesterol. They're lipoproteins. I'm not sure you're actually informed enough to talk about cholesterol, since you don't even know what it is.
@90Rush "And, how did reducing saturated fat work out for Amerian's health in the past 50 years" They haven't reduced it, right? Americans eat more animals and animal products, loaded with sat/fat and LDL than they ever did. Americans eat 15 billion animals per year and it is on pace to double in 15 years.
Now if you are talking about the label gimmicks in western processed, non-animal food, that is a different story, as they have replaced veggie fat with sugar in many cases. Still unhealthy!
@marcluc1988 Search for: Sugar the bitter truth on youtube and you'll find Robert H Lustigs 1,5 hour speech. About 30 minutes into the speech he talkes about this important issue and at 36 minutes he tell you about those two LDL. Modern measurement are calling this the APO- quote (apolipoprotein). A LCHF diet raises HDL and lower triclycerides. It also lower tha bad LDL. Please feel free to listen to the whole speech. It's interesting.
@marcluc1988 Search for: Sugar the bitter truth on youtube and you'll find Robert H Lustigs 1,5 hour speech. About 30 minutes into the speech he talkes about this important issue and at 36 minutes he tell you about those two LDL. Modern measurement are calling this the APO- quote (apolipoprotein). A LCHF diet raises HDL and lower triclycerides. It also lower tha bad LDL. Please feel free to listen to the whole speech. It's interesting.
Bottom Line folks: narkfly is a vegan troll. He is using lies, old hypotheses (never proven and, in-fact, disproven repeatedly) and misinformation to try to convince you of something that's just not true.
He's yet to show any evidence or proof, or debunk any of the experts. The lipid hypothesis is disproven, saturated-fats are healthy, and refined/processed carbs/sugars are what we must avoid for health - NOT meat.
@LCHFinCanada Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Ancel Keys, who have killed most people?
Who's Ancel Keys could be the most common answer. He's the guy who told the whole world that natural animal fats (often 50% or more saturated) will kill you in an heartattack by only using data that fit into his hypothesis. Removing data that didn't fit. Out with the natural and in with industrial fats, different types of sugar (in everything) and a lot of medicines for the symptoms (like Insulin and statins)
@Smoroga "...Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Ancel Keys, who have killed most people? Who's Ancel Keys could be the most common answer..."
Well .... that's a bit speculative. I prefer not to do that.
That being said, Keys did us no favors - however the REAL villians were those that pushed this crazy experiment on the people - Senator George McGovern and his group, who in the absence of evidence AND against the advice of medical experts, conducted a huge experiment...
@LCHFinCanada To answer your accusation, I posted my original response to the misinformation in the video. I have since responded to the points that @Smoroga has directed to me, and many of my points you expressed contention over were in the context of our dialogue. While I agree that refined carbs are the first thing to remove to make steps toward optimal health, I obviously disagree about where to go next. Dispite your tone, I'll adress each of your points, even the flagged ones.
@narkfly "...While I agree that refined carbs are the first thing to remove to make steps toward optimal health, I obviously disagree about where to go next... "
Well, you can disagree - but it would make you incorrect according to the bulk of the science.
"...Dispite your tone, I'll adress each of your points..."
I think you mean "despite" - and if I offend you I do apologize - but you are coming across as a vegan troll, and have posted obvious untruths and serious misinformation.
@LCHFinCanada Just so you know, when I address your points, I'm going to ignore anything that seems childish, like pointing out a single typo out of a long thread of comments, name-calling, or empty blanket assertions without evidence or substance to back them up. It's ironic that you call me a troll, yet have repeated yourself enough to have your posts flagged. I'm going to refrain from accusing you of intentional deception and assume any mistakes in your info are legitimate ignorance.
@LCHFinCanada So what you're saying is that you are assuming your comments weren't flagged because you have disrespected the public forum by repeating the same points ad nauseum and by insulting my motivations, my intelligence, and my character for apparently no reason... but because "vegan trolls" are complicit in a YouTube-wide conspiracy to cover up "the truth". Got it.
@LCHFinCanada If you're paying any attention at all, you'll notice that plenty of your comments that have been flagged as spam don't actually contain anything but assertions (with no evidence) or repetitions of the same points you've already made. I'm reading your flagged comments, but I agree with whoever is flagging them - they meet the defenition of spam: not substantial or meaningful, someone talking just to talk.
@narkfly "...or empty blanket assertions without evidence or substance to back them up..."
Oh I'd love to know what those are... Then again, since you believe the lipid hypothesis is correct, even though it's never been proven after 50 years and literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TRYING ... You probably don't really care to research the truth.
@LCHFinCanada In order to satisfy your curiosity, I will indulge you this once. You have unwittingly demonstrated exactly the type of baseless blanket assertion I was referring to:
"You probably don't really care to research the truth."
While I will address the sentiment behind this particular assertion in my general critique, I will not give attention to this meaningless diatribe in the remainder of my detailed responses.
@LCHFinCanada Also, I'm making the assumption that @CanadaHC and @AlbertaBeefy are your accounts, as their usernames and the style and tone of their responses match yours. As such, I will seek to answer any arguments in which you repeat yourself or that are repeated between these accounts by replying to the most coherent, on-topic, unflagged, and ad hominem free version of the argument. If they are not your accounts, you guys should be friends. :)
@LCHFinCanada Are you worried I won't get around to you? Don't worry. :) If you're worried that I might be a vegan troll, you should find it encouraging that I don't sit around and blindly fire off responses on YouTube with no thought behind my comments. (and I'm not pointing any fingers) I will start with your points that are the easiest and simplest to refute - those that from your comments it's clear that you haven't done your homework, even though this is what you accuse me of.
@LCHFinCanada Second general critique: you have implied in many places that I'm misinformed because my sources of information are flawed and that I am therefore unintelligent because I lack the ability to critically analyze the "wrong" information and the inclination to seek out the "right" information. Yet, at the same time, you have also in many places implied that I somehow know and understand "the truth", but instead purposefully only dole out false conclusions and faulty science.
@LCHFinCanada So rather than trying to simultaneously assign mutually exclusive attributes to my "vegan troll" mindset, I'll save you the trouble. Just drop all the nonsensical ad hominem. If a point I make is faulty, your refutation can stand on its own merits without trying to convince the audience what my motivations are. This is pandering, and it's unnecessary in the kind of intelligent debate you claim to be seeking.
@narkfly "...If a point I make is faulty, your refutation can stand on its own merits..."
OK, let's do that - if you do the same. BUT I'm asking you to use SCIENCE not opinions.
I can't refute your OPINION because it's not something that one can claim as "fact" ... you can have the opinion that killing an animal is wrong... that's your opinion.
But when you claim something is factual with no evidence supporting that claim, that's where I cry foul.
@LCHFinCanada You're drawing a distinction between arguments based on science you reject versus science you accept. I'll cover this more fully in my next general critique, but the point I was making is about civility and staying on topic. It may keep your posts from getting flagged, it's a lot less annoying to me not to have to wade through ad hominem to get to your points, and it really doesn't have a place in an intelligent discussion, which is what you said you want.
@LCHFinCanada In other words, instead of assuming I don't have anything to back up my point, ask me for it and wait to hear what it is. If you never hear it, then you get to say I didn't have anything. Until then, stop yammering that I don't have anything. You have made many points by saying things like "all the science proves" and "all the studies show", and I intend to ask you for your sources. I'm not asserting that you don't have any. It's simply rude. Cool it with the troll crap.
@narkfly "...If you never hear it, then you get to say I didn't have anything..."
Well it's been three days now and I've never heard it.
How is asking for it, not getting it, and asking for it again "Yammering" ?
You keep saying you'll provide it yet you don't.
"...and I intend to ask you for your sources..." You mean the sources I've already cited? I can cite more if you need. I'm waiting for you to cite ONE study showing 80/10/10 healthy.
@narkfly "...you have implied in many places that I'm misinformed because my sources of information are flawed..."
Well yes, if you use arguments like "we're frugivores" you're obviously misinformed. If you think we're frugivores, when we're obviously not, why would anyone believe you are informed on anything?
@narkfly "...at the same time, you have also in many places implied that I somehow know and understand "the truth", but instead purposefully only dole out false conclusions and faulty science..."
Nope, I said you're using lies, misinformation, dogma, etc. to make your point instead of science. I never claimed anything else. Except that you were a troll - which I still believe you are since you have no science to back you up.
The LCHF that we eat, with fat fish, real fats and food loaded with nutrients are healty for our brains. 500 grams of vegetables grown in sunlight only contains 20 grams of carbs. The one in Sweden holding memory records are eating LCHF
@Smoroga What I've seen of research comparing HCLF with LCHF is that cognitive function with regard to information processing speed is improved to a greater degree with HCLF than it is with LCHF. This, along with blatantly clear comparative anatomy studies showing humans as frugivores and the symptoms of constipation, body odor, bad breath, and irritability that LCHF practitioners endure but HCLF practitioners don't all make a pretty clear case for me. If the gods tell you different, go for it.
@narkfly "...comparing HCLF with LCHF is that cognitive function with regard to information processing speed is improved to a greater degree with HCLF than it is with LCHF..."
This is true in some people ONLY during until keto-adaptation. There have been NO real studies long-term.
"...along with blatantly clear comparative anatomy studies showing humans as frugivores ...
OMG are you for real? You completely ignore science and spout THIS line of crap? Who are you, durianrider?
@narkfly "along with blatantly clear comparative anatomy studies showing humans as frugivores "
This is so retarded it's not funny. Frugivores? Please explain how all biologists, zoologists, anthropologists, etc. are WRONG in classifying us as omnivores.
Heck, even chimps are well-known omnivores, not frugivores, who hunt, kill and EAT lots of animals...
You're full of misinformation, lies, dogma and propaganda. What you don't have is a shred of truth.
@narkfly For how long have those tests been going on and are you 100% sure that they're High Fat and not just Low Carb (can also mean high protein)? It can take some time to change fuel from sugar to fat. People who suddenly lower their carb intake can feel that there is no fuel for some days. This is my 7:th year on Low Carb High Fat (started 2006 just after Swedish MD Annika Dahlqvist in Sweden came up with this LCHF abbreviation at the end of 2005) and I have no problem.
@Smoroga As I said, you can do HCLF and LCHF - you will see benefits on both; you just can't do HCHF. Since you didn't actually read any info from the reviews you cited to me before, I encourage you to read this study yourself to answer your questions about it; they found better cognition on HCLF:
Halyburton AK, et al. Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007; 86: 580–587.
@narkfly "...Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance..."
There are HUGE problems with this study if using it to say LCHF causes cognitive impairment...
The FIRST problem is LCHF should not be used as a calorie-deficit diet - if you ARE, you should strive for at most, 500kcal a day deficit... These obese people were put on 30% deficit, which is HUGE.
Second, it was only 8 weeks... some people aren't keto-adapted yet ...
@narkfly "...I encourage you to read this study yourself to answer your questions about it; they found better cognition on HCLF..."
In addition to the short-term of the study AND the huge caloric deficit of 30% being problems... you failed to mention that the LCHF group lost much more weight, and BOTH groups improved in cognitive performance, though the LCHF group marginally less... As said though, the calorie-deficit or lack of ketoadaptation can account for that.
@narkfly In sweden a lot of people ate HCLF for years trying to loose weight and feel better. They never did. These are the same people, and there are 100 thousands of them that frequently letting us know how they feel now. LCHF has a revolution right now and it started by the people getting rid of modern diseases, not by reading studys at the first place. What we feel inside can't be wrong. People eating LCHF are nearly 100% healthy 365 days a year. Never tired, no flu, no nothing! As It should
@Smoroga Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you have seen such a strong improvement and that your diet is working so well for you, I really am. Humans can obviously thrive on both LCHF and HCLF. I'm of the opinion that HCLF is a better long-term scenario, but the jury of public opinion is out at this point, with research supporting both sides being thrown around all over the board. I'm trying to make what I consider the best decisions for myself and the planet and encouraging others to do the same.
@narkfly High carb sound like the agriculture way and High Fat like the hunter and gatherer. In sweden our traditional diet was salmon, seal, eggs, moose, caribo and berrys. By looking at the bones from people in Ajvide who eat this type of food, they had no "lack of nutrient" diseases as they've found later. If you can keep your teeth healthy not brushing them, then your diet is the right one. Something tells me that High Carb is not the best for your teeth?
@Smoroga The prime Paleo example of a "healthy" civilization on high fat, low carb is the Eskimo, who it has been shown suffered from atherosclerosis, cancer, and osteoporosis. So on a very low carb diet (when zero refined carbs were available), these people suffered from the degenerative diseases that LCHF practitioners blame on refined carbs, not dietary fat. As for teeth on high carb, look at any HCLF veg*ans or fruitarians - they have the healthiest, whitest teeth on the planet.
@narkfly "...prime Paleo example of a "healthy" civilization on high fat, low carb is the Eskimo..."
This is completely untrue. The paleo movement recommends far-more fresh veggies and fruit than the Inuit ever consumed. More untruths from you, I see.
"...who it has been shown suffered from atherosclerosis, cancer, and osteoporosis..."
Again, misinformation. Modern Inuit, yes. There is no record of ancient/traditional Inuit having any of those diseases that impact their life.
@LCHFinCanada Maybe you haven't read Loren Cordain's book. He gives the same reason you do that pre-refined-carb Eskimo were "completely healthy" and modern Eskimo are more prone to suffer the "diseases of agriculture". Even though Cordain grants that they had atherosclerosis (and I have no idea if you believe ASVD leads to CVD or not), he doesn't acknowledge their osteoporosis. And the Greenland mummies have confirmed that they also developed cancer, but it is clear that you are unaware.
@narkfly "...Even though Cordain grants that they had atherosclerosis (and I have no idea if you believe ASVD leads to CVD or not)..."
There have been a few mummies found with signs of atherosclerosis, yes. However only a few which is not conclusive.
That being said, the traditional Inuit dieters as well as Masai (traditional) both have atherosclerosis but larger vessels - presumably due to diet/lifestyle - that protects from it.
@LCHFinCanada Since you dismiss the HCLF vegans with perfect teeth, maybe you have a bias as well. You can obviously undertake any diet of exclusion incorrectly. I'm not arguing that - vegans can mess up their teeth just like meat eaters can. What theories are you talking about? If you need example of my "theory" of healthy teeth, then I take it you haven't familiarized yourself with Michael Arnstein and Mimi Kirk. Why is it my job to do your own homework of disproving your biases?
@narkfly On traditionally living Inuits "One of these physicians was captain George B. Leavitt. He actively searched for cancer among the traditionally-living Inuit from 1885 to 1907. Along with his staff, he claims to have performed tens of thousands of examinations. He did not find a single case of cancer."
@narkfly And about atherosclerosis and osteoporosis. You have to find a study from before 1920 or only on 100% traditionally living Inuits?
The Massai people do really well on 62 % energy from fat (and a normal part Saturated). Cowmilk, Sheep, goats, blood, herbs, fruits and berrys. Why are they not suffering from atherosclerosis?
@Smoroga "You have to find a study from before 1920" Actually the China Study showed tons of evidence that meat and dairy cause boat loads of disease. But here we go scientist shopping, right? All we have to ask is: why does the country that produces, promotes, and consumes, more dairy than any other nation, have the highest rights of bone cancer and osteoporosis than any other nation? Be your own experiment, find out for yourself.
@Smoroga Many of us cling to an idea I call "smoking gun science," wherein we trust that there are scores of scientists who are working day and night to keep us safe finding the smoking gun of ill health and will tell us on TV tomorrow. We think that in absence of this smoking gun, this solitary culprit that harms our health, we can eat anything we want and not suffer consequences.
@Smoroga As for the Massai people, have you really looked into their lives? What you find may be disturbing. First they have the lowest life expectancy of any people on Earth, according to the World Health Organization. Be careful who you blindly quote to support your bad living, as they may be equally as blind....
@FathomlessJoy What bad living? If I'm the healthiest guy I'n my hometown at my age, I'll not callit bad living. Everyone who eat natural food will have better health than if you eat crap. There's nothing in the original Massai diet that is bad for them. Now they're also eating sugar (in their tea), corn and wheat. It might be bad for them as it is for the rest of the world.
@FathomlessJoy What bad living? If I'm the healthiest guy I'n my hometown at my age, I'll not callit bad living. Everyone who eat natural food will have better health than if you eat crap. There's nothing in the original Massai diet that is bad for them. Now they're also eating sugar (in their tea), corn and wheat. It might be bad for them as it is for the rest of the world.
@Smoroga The atherosclerosis isn't really debated, even by LCHF proponents - everyone understands they had atherosclerosis well before 1920. This isn't convincing for LCHF proponents who don't believe ASVD is an indicator for CVD. The osteoporosis and cancer are evidence from the Greenland mummies (again, well before 1920) so you don't even need to worry about studies. If traditional Inuit diets prevent the "diseases of civilization", we wouldn't see any cases of these diseases, but we do.
@narkfly One more important thing. If you're in a study you might be prepared and devoted to follow an High Carb diet. In real life I think people following a High fat diet more easy (from what they're telling us). If you eat LCHF you're bloodsugar is stable and you have an optimal fatburning %. If there's no food at the table you can easily wait 2 or 3 hours. For me it's easy not to eat for 12 hours (anything). When I eat more high carb food I was hungry a lot more and a lot earlier. Real life!
@narkfly "...I'm of the opinion that HCLF is a better long-term scenario, but the jury of public opinion is out at this point, with research supporting both sides being thrown around all over the board..."
There is NO RESEARCH supporting HCLF being healthier in any way than LCHF. You've not shown any and I've never found any - and I research for a living...
All you present so far is misinformation, misrepresentation, and outright lies.
@LCHFinCanada I have mentioned diet and nutrition experts who collectively have decades of research showing HCLF to be healthy, but you dismissed their research - not because of flaws in their science that you mention, but because of how they associate. I gave a study comparing HCLF with LCHF which you dismissed as being too short-term of a study and say you would need to see a longer-term study. There is research, you're dismissing it, but somehow that's my fault. Not quite.
@LCHFinCanada Since I have publicly acknowledged that my "gold standard" for HCLF is 80/10/10, the study doesn't meet my definition of HCLF either. What it does provide is comparative ratios and their results. This is the closest I've found so far; If you have anything better to offer with results for either side, I'm all ears. The information I've read on ketosis is that the body usually adapts within a period of 2-4 weeks. So twice that is still an unfair period. I don't see why.
@LCHFinCanada This is exactly the content of natural foods: 80% carb, 10% fat, 10% protein, right doctor? In fact 80 carb is the bare minimum and 10/10 of protein/fat is maximum. We have to get into processed foods, oils, and of course rotting animals bodies before we see this ratio radically perverted, right?
Now you claim to be a cardiologist, can you please show us evidence? Doctors Esselstyn, Campbell, Graham, McDougall, et al are all are up front about their names and qualifications.
@FathomlessJoy 10% of your energy from Protein? I's that really enough to build and repair every organ, muscle and tissue in your body? In sweden during the 6 months long winther, I would love to see you digging in the deep snow to find a fully nutrient diet of 80,10,10. This means that you'll have to dig and eat all day watching the seals on the rock and the salmons swimming up the river.
@narkfly "...The information I've read on ketosis is that the body usually adapts within a period of 2-4 weeks. So twice that is still an unfair period. I don't see why..."
Yes, MOST people adapt in 2 to 4 weeks. I was about three weeks myself.
As for why - because these weren't metabolic ward studies, so they relied on people being honest and not cheating on their diets. That's why. Many, many people who "try" low-carb do not successfully get into ketosis due to cheating...
@LCHFinCanada You're pointing out the LCHF participants could have cheated. Following your logic the HCLF participants could have cheated as well, and yet scored better results than the LCHF group. You may as well point out that those scoring the tests could have been some of the undercover "vegan trolls" you love to talk about. While it doesn't test anyone's preferred ratios, isn't on the scale of a population study, and isn't 2 years or longer, it does suggest *some* difference in results.
@narkfly "...I have mentioned diet and nutrition experts who collectively have decades of research showing HCLF to be healthy..."
No, you listed a bunch of KNOWN animal-activists who hide behind the PCRM so they don't get their medical licenses revoked.
The PCRM releases statements, not their doctors, so they can't be charged.
The AMA has REPEATEDLY censured the PCRM for masquerading as a physicians group, when it's an animal-activist group, and for dangerous recommendations.
@narkfly "...I have mentioned diet and nutrition experts who collectively have decades of research showing HCLF to be healthy..."
All the "experts" you mentioned are animal-activists, who have a clear agenda. Heck, the PCRM isn't even mostly physicians (only 5-7% of their membership is...) and they're PETA-FUNDED.
So yeah, I dismissed THOSE particular experts as biased, yes. Also, I can discredit ANY of their claims if you'd like to get into each of them individually...
@narkfly ... Let's start with Barnard who claims a vegan diet reverses diabetes...
He's NEVER even controlled diabetes in either study he did (getting average A1c's to under 7.0%) let alone reversed them to normal ranges (which are 4.6% to 5.4%) and his control group was the high-refined-carb ADA diet pushed by big-pharmaceutical companies.
When you compare his diet to LCHF, it fails miserably as LCHF is vastly superior for glycemic control and heart health in every study done.
@narkfly Oh, and Ornish used really bad imaging to verify his claims - imaging that can easily show huge differences if a person simply is angled slightly differently...
Oh, and it's proven that statins alone can cause the SAME AMOUNT OF REVERSAL as Esselstyn's diet-intervention claimed...
None of these doctors have reputable studies that prove ANYTHING except that refined/processed carbs/sugars and refined/processed oils are bad for us.
@narkfly ... I'd love to keep refuting all your "experts" but I keep watching for updates from you scientifically proving your ignorant claims correct...
... and I don't see anything from you yet except more dogma and outlandish claims that I'm rejecting things unscientifically...
@narkfly "...There is research, you're dismissing it, but somehow that's my fault..."
I've explained WHY I've dismissed the research - NONE of what you've provided is proof of anything. Only the truly ignorant and/or those who WANT to believe would believe your claims when shown that 'evidence'.
Please post counter-points to my claims refuting them if you can. With so many confounding variables, or in some cases outright bad science, nobody in their right mind can call these proof.
@LCHFinCanada So you claim to be a medical researcher, but you ask for "proof". If you had any legitimate scientific background, you'd know that scientists don't search for "proof" as objectively there is no such thing; they find supporting evidence. What qualifies as proof for one person may be a completely different metric than what qualifies as proof for someone else. A supported proposal stands until it is falsified. Anyone with even the most limited scientific background knows this.
@narkfly "...you'd know that scientists don't search for "proof" as objectively there is no such thing..."
Sure there is... in the face of overwhelming evidence that a hypothesis is correct, and with NO evidence of it being incorrect, a hypothesis can be considered proven.
What I'm looking for is what YOU believe is 'proof' that you claim to have - that overwhelming evidence that makes you claim meat is bad - when it simply isn't there...
@LCHFinCanada Exactly: scientists don't search for "proof". They build evidence in tests designed to falsify a hypothesis. If the evidence supports the hypothesis rather than refute it, it continues to stand... basically until everyone gives up conceiving new ways to falsify a hypothesis as all tests have supported it. Even then, it is not scientifically considered "proven", it's considered accepted. Logically, the possibility remains a falsifiable test has yet to be conceived.
@narkfly You are SO right! This is why it is crucial we see this for ourselves, not rely on authorities, whether politicians, priests, profiteers or the scientists they all employ. Most folks, not just about eating aniaml flesh but about most things in life, rely on what others say, most often ignoring what's here to see with our own eyes. The fact is scientists will never prove any of this, each person must see for themselves it is wrong to rape and torture animals and eat their rotting bodies.
@LCHFinCanada So general critique: first off, you're completely conflating points I'm making with arguments I've never brought up. I haven't said anywhere that "meat is bad" or "meat is unhealthy". You've done such a good job of quoting me so far, do me a favor and show me where I've said that - thanks. Here's what I have said: I think LCHF and HCLF are both healthier than SAD as HCHF is unhealthy. One of the two macronutrients must dominate. There isn't much meaningful research comparing them.
@narkfly I believe that 811 / HCLF is healthier, and I will be more than happy to give you my reasons for believing this. Please don't put words in my mouth, though. I'm sure it's possible to eat some meat and maintain an 80/10/10 macronutrient ratio. You have surmised that I'm vegan, but I'm not injecting an ethical discussion into the arena of a health debate. What I have (minimally) said in this thread with regard to ethics has been to debunk BS arguments against veg*anism, not argue for it.
@narkfly "...I believe that 811 / HCLF is healthier, and I will be more than happy to give you my reasons for believing this..."
I don't want to see your opinions... I want to see the science. You said it's truly healthier than a healthy diet that includes meat. I claim it's not. Heck, as far as I know there's been NO scientific studies done on the 80/10/10 diet at all...
@LCHFinCanada Okay, I was perfectly clear that the conversation @Smoroga and I were having was about HCLF vs LCHF, and I even explicitly said that one could probably eat meat and maintain an 80/10/10 ratio. The Ornish diet is HCLF and includes fish. Some raw vegans eat LCHF (vegans don't eat meat, in case you didn't know). This is the conflation I was describing, but perhaps it's because you're not reading my full comment before responding, which some would call trollish.
@narkfly "...I even explicitly said that one could probably eat meat and maintain an 80/10/10 ratio..."
Sure, but I'm telling you 80/10/10 isn't healthy, and there's no evidence it is. Look at what happens to testosterone levels in men when you reduce dietary fat intake that low... it's simply unhealthy and not recommended by ANY medical practitioner.
@Smoroga "...are you 100% sure that they're High Fat and not just Low Carb ..."
Exactly, narkfly is rarely using true LCHF studies and still can't argue his case without using untruthful statements.
Also, most low-carb diets being tested AREN'T 1) truly low-carb or 2) LCHF.
Many researchers consider Low-Carb to be 30-50% of the calories from carbohydrate... and even then they often have huge amounts of refined carbs allowed...
@narkfly After 2 years with a lot of butter and eggs I had the lowest total cholesterol in my hometown with 3,9. I beleive more in God than the lipid or cholesterol hypotetis. Cholesterol is there to help us and not a poison.
Some people say you´ll get one kg beans..and one kg meat for that. No..
A cow will constantly naturally fertilize the soil. A cow will give you insestines full of nutrients, fats for energy and blood. It will give you leather for clothes. The bones can be brought back to the soil for calsium. A cow can feed a calf wich no bean can. A cow can if it has no calf give us milk everyday (butter, cream and cheese). A cow can live in harmony with birds and other animals, herbs as a living nature.
I appreciate Lierre's viewpoints on the torture of cattle and the abuse of perfectly good land to feed those poor beasts, and the FACT that there is a detrimental corn industry poisoning the animals and the people that eat them... but what I want to know is WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR CLEAN, and I mean CLEAN, MEAT FROM?!
Corn is farmed to create a staggering amount of high fructose corn syrup, used in all fast food, supermarket soft-drinks, any cheap food that you can buy probably has corn syrup in it, because it is addictive, and it is a poison that will make you sick. It supports the monopoly of genetically engineered corn and medication/treatments for diabetes.
@DemstarAus It is metabolised not like a sugar, but like a fat. It cannot be converted into glucose (brain fuel) and only as a fat. It is stressful on the system, and interferes with our 'I'll stop eating now because I'm full' response'. Eating a high sugar, low nutrient diet feeds you fat, and because the body cannot metabolise the fructose into glucose for the brain, it is constantly in a state of starvation, which drives you to eat more and more and more.
Protein Problem?! Spirulina contains protein that is up to 70% absorbable and digestible in our systems. Seafood and fish is on average 16% absorbable, poultry and white meat is on average 15%, red meat between 13-14% absorbable protein. Living on mainly grain IS NOT a suitable vegan diet, and that is the misconception. A healthy vegan uses supplements wisely, eats a large variety of super nutrient food like sprouts and wheat grasses, and lots of nuts, seeds, fruits and veggies.
@DemstarAus The difference between sugar in fruit and sugar in processed foods is that it is accompanied by a large amount of fibre - when god (if you believe in such) created the poison, he packaged it with the antidote. Another large problem with eating animal flesh these days is that they absorb a large amount of the pollution from the water, medication and water we give them/they live in. Plants are the same, and many people are turning to growing in protected greenhouses/covered gardens.
@DemstarAus Another problem, I don't disagree with the fact that meat is denser in nutrients, and it makes sense that fat cells store nutrients, in a perfect system, that's how it's meant to be - to keep you through a food-short winter. Nowadays, fat in animals stores great levels of poison from both diet, medication and pollution. There is also a larger percentage of stress hormones present in animal meat and fat, as they aren't hunted like we used to hunt them, they are kept horribly.
Meat eaters are deficient in the same things as vegetarians - while it is true that vegetarians are more deficient in those nutrients, meat eaters are still deficient, which means that every diet shares the same deficiencies. It takes land to grow and keep cattle, and it takes as much land again to grow the grain to keep cattle, in addition to land that is already being used to feed humans. If we were to phase out cattle ag-land, how much people-food could we grow? 6kg of grain for 1kg of beef.
Narkfly and the rest of the world. It's not the fat that will give you an heartattack, It's the sugar.
You can eat Low Carb High Fat as a Vegan! If will give you a more stable blood glucose level which will keep you away from the cookie. A log of vegan recepies is sweet things. But you won't find any of those in LCHF. Search for Vegan + LCHF
@Smoroga LCHF vegan and HCLF vegan both result in healthy blood sugar levels, but both are not sustainable or healthy. LCHF leads to depression, sleep disorder, strong mood swings, etc. Look at LCHF vegans long-term: these are the vegans who fall off the wagon and say veganism didn't work for them. A lot of raw vegans fall into this category, getting 60% or more calories from fat. HCLF vegan is sustainable long-term, with better sleep, better mood, better overall health.
@narkfly "...LCHF vegan and HCLF vegan both result in healthy blood sugar levels..."
In the case of diabetics this is completely untrue, especially the HCLF vegan diets recommended by the likes of Neal Barnard, etc.
Barnard's own studies showed that after a full 74 weeks he didn't even CONTROL one single case of diabetes, and only had lower blood glucose than the high-carb (refined carbs, even) control group he tested against...
Lies, dogma and propaganda. Please try to use science.
1 kg grassfed meat takes no more energy to produce than 1 kg beans (with meat you also get fat, liver, milk (butter), leather and blood). Those beans give you 67 calories/hg and the beef 165 cals. This means it takes 2,5 times more energy to procuce 100 cal beans than 100 cal beef. If we look at the nutrients the beef wins easy. You get a living nature, clothes, use less oil, groundwater up, more fish in the sea and more and better food by letting a cow eat grass. What else do you need?
As a vegan, I was already fully aware that eating meat was by no means unhealthy. But I'd rather be a vegan and have lower CO2 emissions and consume less fossil fuels through my food. I'd rather be a vegan than still promote the unsustainable meat and dairy industry. If you want to keep your CO2 emissions as low as possible, either go out and become a caveman or join or tribe and catch your own meat, or BE VEGAN
Argentina, with higher beef consumption, has lower rates of colon cancer than the US, even though vegans want us to believe beef causes colon cancer.
As mentioned earlier, Mormons have lower rates of colon cancer than vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists - proven now in multiple studies, though BOTH eliminate caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and live healthy lives - the Mormons eat moderate amounts of meat.
Healthy meat eating = lower cancer folks. Truth is > propaganda.
There's lots of misinformation in regards to meat and cancer, etc.
Colon cancer was tied to beef in an erroneous interpretation of the National Cancer Institute Japanese-Hawaiian study which actually showed macaroni, green beans and peas to have higher risk associated with colon cancer than beef or lamb.
Yup, green beans and peas are associated more with cancer than beef or lamb. LOL.
@narkfly what about the DOZENS of reputable studies which show low-carb diets (specifically eliminating refined/processed carbs/sugars) that INCREASE saturated fat intake are vastly superior to low-fat or vegan diets for weight-loss, diabetes management, cholesterol ratios, triglyceride levels, etc.?
The lipid hypothesis was only EVER a hypothesis, never proven, often debunked by the very studies TRYING to prove it.
@CanadaHC If there are any studies showing LCHF meat-eating diets eliminating refined/processed carbs as more healthy than HCLF vegan diets that also eliminate refined/processed carbs, I would love to see them to be as informed as possible. I'm presently not aware of any. :)
@narkfly The lipid hypothesis - the proposal of an association between blood cholesterol levels and atherosclerosis - has been widely accepted as scientific fact by the medical community; it is understood that plasma levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides correlate with ASVD, CVD, and CHD. If there is any research that has successfully disproved the lipid hypothesis, I would again be most interested to learn of it. Gravity and evolution are only theories, after all. :)
@narkfly I think for myself. Thanks:) So could you. The first thing about the lipid hypothesis is that dietary fat raises LDL and a high LDL give you heart disease. This is not correct. Here's the new thing.
Dietary fat increase the good HDL part, and it also increase the non harmful large type of LDL. You might get a higher total cholesterol but it wont kill you. Fast carbs will instead raise the small dense type of LDL that will stuck in your endotelian cell and give you CVD.
@Smoroga The lipid hypothesis proposes an association between blood cholesterol levels and atherosclerosis. You reject the hypothesis by restating it - detailing which specific types of blood cholesterol are associated with CVD - supporting the association. There have been many different studies to explore the association, showing reducing dietary fat, saturated fat, trans fats, total c
The best thing all Vegans can do is instead of telling people (that really don't listen) to stop eat meat, is to tell farmers to stop feeding their cows with corn or soy. Instead of driving around in a tractor all day, they will get som time off (while their cows still eats the grass and grows).
It's a win-win situation. At the same time you can tell them to be nice to those cows.
Smoroga 3 hours ago
@narkfly Since the evidence shows that neither the lipid-hypothesis (again, see Chris Masterjohns excellent review with dozens of citations) nor the diet-heart hypothesis are true - this leave your arguments based on that old hypothesis lacking.
Although there IS evidence for both hypotheses, it is scant and far out-weighed by the evidence against them.
LCHFinCanada 23 hours ago
...continued from below:
"It requires willful ignorance of the fact that saturated fat does not increase total cholesterol or LDL in humans, in the long term. It requires a simplistic view of blood lipids that ignores the potentially harmful effects of replacing animal fats with carbohydrate or industrial seed oils. Worst of all, it requires selective citation of the literature on diet modification trials."
Again, he has excellent citations for all his arguments.
LCHFinCanada 23 hours ago
@narkfly Many of your arguments start with the basic idea that the diet-heart hypothesis is true. Here's what Stephen Guyenet has to say, and cites studies, sources, literature, etc., for his argument:
"The diet-heart hypothesis, the idea that dietary saturated fat and cholesterol raise blood cholesterol and thus increase heart attack risk, is a half-century embarrassment to the international scientific community..."
(continued...)
LCHFinCanada 23 hours ago
@narkfly - also for reasons I don't believe 80/10/10 is healthy: 1. is the lack of studies indicaing same, 2. is the great deal of nutritional information showing the importance of dietary fat in the human diet.
Even the Kitavans, who many raw-foodists and low-fat advocates use as an example of low-fat/high-carb successes eat 21% of their calories from fat - more than 2x the amount 80/10/10 recommends. And the majority of their fat is SATURATED. In fact, Kitavans eat more SFA than Americans.
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly Some of the BEST articles on the flawed lipid and diet-heart hypotheses (showing studies, citations, etc.) are available at Stephen Guyenet's site: wholehealthsource.blogspot.com
Just search "Dietary Fat" to find dozens of articles, references, studies - all the evidence any intelligent person needs - to see that saturated fat and meats ARE healthy.
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
Her strand of hair sticking up is bugging me.
LiveLaughEatNutella 1 day ago
@LCHFinCanada I'm sorry to say that I don't think you will get in an educated discussion with narkfly. Unfortunately YouTube is a horrible platform to do so. Maybe a video debate would suffice then all of the users with actual knowledge could step up to the plate and discuss it with u. I would be interested as to what actual sources you use on a day to day basis and would appreciate it if you could share them. All I get is pro Vegan sources and would like the differing opinion.
ChicCynic 2 days ago
For you and your kids and their future health, please listen to Robert H Lustig's speech about sugar. Search for "Sugar the bitter truth".
This is important wheather you eat meat or not. It can also help us to change what people are trying to sell us. Our money can go to those who sell shit or those who's trying to give us good nutrient food.
Smoroga 2 days ago 3
... again, I'm waiting for your overwhelming scientific evidence, not your OPINIONS on pain and exploitation.
You claim meat is unhealthy and 80/10/10 is healthy. But show no evidence whatsoever. Or bad science which is refuted by anyone with a brain. If you still believe what Barnard, Esselstyn, Ornish, Campbell etc. say even when they're obviously using bad science, you are not as open-minded as you claim.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada "again, I'm waiting for your overwhelming scientific evidence, not your OPINIONS on pain and exploitation." This demand for evidence is ironic, as you claimed to be a cardiologist many times and never provide evidence to back it up.
However, we do not need opinions and arguments that animals are suffering a great deal under the barbaric dictatorship of man; we can see if for ourselves. Watch Earthlings and see the truth of how you and most Westerners live: watch?v=FHA4HNbmDLg
FathomlessJoy 2 days ago
this video is amazing
thank you very much
yg8ugu1 2 days ago
Why has this video got so many dislikes? Fuck your egos. Stop identifying with your diet. This is far bigger than "DURRR DURRR vegetarians are wrong meat eating is right". This is about saving the mother-fucking-planet!
Kayyris 2 days ago 2
@Kayyris Have you read her book? A large portion of it is trying to dismiss vegans. I've read it, it's nonsense. Also, this book is popular because she's saying, "We can still abuse animals. It's good for you." People love hearing a message that they can continue to do something that they enjoy. Like smokers liked to hear people dismissing smoking as bad for your health 50 years ago. Consuming animals exploits them and causes them pain and suffering. FACT!
marcluc1988 2 days ago
@marcluc1988 You and it seems a lot of other people need to focus on the bigger picture here. Agriculture.
I had no idea that they destroy all the natural bacteria during the process of preparing land for agricultural process. So what because the bacteria is a single cell organism it's ok to do that?
We were once a single cell organism and through billions of years of meme trending and genetic predisposition it has engineered this being to tell you to go fuck yourself
Kayyris 2 days ago
@marcluc1988 "...Consuming animals exploits them and causes them pain and suffering. FACT!..."
Nope, opinion.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Maybe you think the definitions of pain and exploitation are opinions as well. With a mindset like that, it's not hard to see why you have the approach to "research" that you do. :)
narkfly 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...you think the definitions of pain and exploitation are opinions as well..."
Animal activists always bring up the "pain", "exploitation", "torture", "rape" arguments that are extremely opinionated and really only apply to factory farming.
Not all of us participate in factory farming - but you don't seem to see that. There are very humane ways to take an animals life, and something you've raised as livestock for thousands of years is no more "exploited" than a carrot is.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada People who love to argue about how their diet doesn't inflict "that much" pain on the animals they are eating have missed the fundamental fact that you've taken something that doesn't belong to you. This is same reason it is unacceptable to take the life of a human child, the life of a slave - that life and the potential it holds is not yours and therefore isn't yours to give or take. None of these - the child, the slave, the animal - freely give you their life. It is stolen.
narkfly 1 day ago
@narkfly "...None of these - the child, the slave, the animal - freely give you their life. It is stolen..."
How does this opinion of yours refute the science I'm arguing, that meat is - in fact - healthy?
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
@LCHFinCanada As I said, the ethical debate is separate from the health debate. I jumped in on your thread like you jumped in on mine with @Smoroga. If you can honestly justify condoning slaughter by asserting that pain is an opinion, then there is nothing to be said to you. Similarly, claiming that a clear and coherent philosophical argument is simply an "opinion" isn't any kind of refutation, more the philosophical equivalent of throwing in the towel - but maybe you don't like philosophy.
narkfly 1 day ago
@Kayyris If her book were about saving the planet, she wouldn't fill it with completely incorrect information about the vegetarian diet and call it "The Vegetarian Myth", she'd call it "How to Save the Mother-Licking Planet". :)
narkfly 2 days ago
there is therapy called The Gerson Therapy that cures cancer and other chronic diseases with a vegan diet (there are other factors too that help)....so i just dont know
bridget783 3 days ago
meat and dairy just tastes disgusting to me... same with eggs and fish... I only eat what tastes good and i am quite healthy...
I eat a lot of hemp protein... a lot of vegetarians are to jacked up on soy...
SuperMatthewspencer 3 days ago
Is this something to read for you?
In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee
w w w(dot)nutritionjrnl(dot)com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fulltext
Smoroga 4 days ago
CLA is a natural trans fat found in animal fats and is healthful. It's not your margarine.
wormmy1 4 days ago
Comment removed
wormmy1 4 days ago
@wormmy1 True. It's so annoying when dieticians and nutritionists of all people confuse the health beneficial CLA's in animal products with man-made hydrogenated oils.
checkingavailabilify 4 days ago
@checkingavailabilify I encountered one a few months ago who said saturated omega 3 was worse than plant omega 3. He or she claimed to be in training to be a naturopath. How scary!
wormmy1 4 days ago
@wormmy1 There is no such thing as saturated omega-3. There are long chained (EPA/DHA) from animals and short chained (ALNA) from vegetables (correct me if I'm wrong).
Humans are not so good to convert ALNA to EPA/DHA which is the type we need in our brains. Only a few percent (3-10) can be converted.
Smoroga 4 days ago
@Smoroga I know. We were talking about the ratio of O3 to 06 in grass-fed beef. The naturopath-in-training kept calling it "saturated" Omega 3. That's why I said, "how scary."
wormmy1 3 days ago
@wormmy1 Lmao. We should put this into a video called "shit militant vegans say", as well as things like "do you know how much LDL-cholesterol is there in meat?" and "I love people so much, and I wish you all get heart disease and die."
90Rush 3 days ago
@90Rush Does everyone know that LDL have a bad and a good guy. Natural fats raises the good LDL that float around in your arteries.
Eating food that raises your blood sugar levels will increase the bad guy, the small annoying LDL that instead of floating around often get stuck in the endotelian cells.
So..It's not meat, not natural fat (we used to say artery clogging fat). It's the modern sugar consumption that give you heart disease. Sugar is the thing in food that has increased, not fat.
Smoroga 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Smoroga The thing is, not only do they believe all LDL to be bad, some vegans actually believe that the cholesterol you eat from meat is already packed in LDL lipo-protein packets and sent directly to your blood stream. That is as ridiculous as the saturated omega-3 stuff.
90Rush 2 days ago
@Smoroga There are three types of cholesterol: LDL, HDL and VLDL. VLDL and LDL are the baddies that promote cholesterol deposits in the arteries. High levels of HDL indicate that cholesterol is being carried safely back to the liver. I'm assuming that you've just mis-labelled the 'good' and 'bad' forms of cholesterol.
Saturated fats are the facts to reduce. These are mainly found in animal fats.
marcluc1988 2 days ago
@marcluc1988 "...There are three types of cholesterol: LDL, HDL and VLDL..."
W R O N G.
None of those are cholesterol. They're lipoproteins. I'm not sure you're actually informed enough to talk about cholesterol, since you don't even know what it is.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marcluc1988 And, how did reducing saturated fat work out for Amerian's health in the past 50 years?
90Rush 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@90Rush "And, how did reducing saturated fat work out for Amerian's health in the past 50 years" They haven't reduced it, right? Americans eat more animals and animal products, loaded with sat/fat and LDL than they ever did. Americans eat 15 billion animals per year and it is on pace to double in 15 years.
Now if you are talking about the label gimmicks in western processed, non-animal food, that is a different story, as they have replaced veggie fat with sugar in many cases. Still unhealthy!
FathomlessJoy 2 days ago
@marcluc1988 Search for: Sugar the bitter truth on youtube and you'll find Robert H Lustigs 1,5 hour speech. About 30 minutes into the speech he talkes about this important issue and at 36 minutes he tell you about those two LDL. Modern measurement are calling this the APO- quote (apolipoprotein). A LCHF diet raises HDL and lower triclycerides. It also lower tha bad LDL. Please feel free to listen to the whole speech. It's interesting.
Smoroga 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@marcluc1988 Search for: Sugar the bitter truth on youtube and you'll find Robert H Lustigs 1,5 hour speech. About 30 minutes into the speech he talkes about this important issue and at 36 minutes he tell you about those two LDL. Modern measurement are calling this the APO- quote (apolipoprotein). A LCHF diet raises HDL and lower triclycerides. It also lower tha bad LDL. Please feel free to listen to the whole speech. It's interesting.
Smoroga 2 days ago
Bottom Line folks: narkfly is a vegan troll. He is using lies, old hypotheses (never proven and, in-fact, disproven repeatedly) and misinformation to try to convince you of something that's just not true.
He's yet to show any evidence or proof, or debunk any of the experts. The lipid hypothesis is disproven, saturated-fats are healthy, and refined/processed carbs/sugars are what we must avoid for health - NOT meat.
That is the scientifically-proven medical fact.
LCHFinCanada 4 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Ancel Keys, who have killed most people?
Who's Ancel Keys could be the most common answer. He's the guy who told the whole world that natural animal fats (often 50% or more saturated) will kill you in an heartattack by only using data that fit into his hypothesis. Removing data that didn't fit. Out with the natural and in with industrial fats, different types of sugar (in everything) and a lot of medicines for the symptoms (like Insulin and statins)
Smoroga 4 days ago
@Smoroga "...Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Ancel Keys, who have killed most people? Who's Ancel Keys could be the most common answer..."
Well .... that's a bit speculative. I prefer not to do that.
That being said, Keys did us no favors - however the REAL villians were those that pushed this crazy experiment on the people - Senator George McGovern and his group, who in the absence of evidence AND against the advice of medical experts, conducted a huge experiment...
LCHFinCanada 4 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Yes. You´re right.
Smoroga 3 days ago
@LCHFinCanada I know we're on the same "human" side here. But my comment should relate to your comment:-)
Smoroga 4 days ago
Comment removed
Smoroga 4 days ago
@LCHFinCanada To answer your accusation, I posted my original response to the misinformation in the video. I have since responded to the points that @Smoroga has directed to me, and many of my points you expressed contention over were in the context of our dialogue. While I agree that refined carbs are the first thing to remove to make steps toward optimal health, I obviously disagree about where to go next. Dispite your tone, I'll adress each of your points, even the flagged ones.
narkfly 3 days ago
@narkfly "...While I agree that refined carbs are the first thing to remove to make steps toward optimal health, I obviously disagree about where to go next... "
Well, you can disagree - but it would make you incorrect according to the bulk of the science.
"...Dispite your tone, I'll adress each of your points..."
I think you mean "despite" - and if I offend you I do apologize - but you are coming across as a vegan troll, and have posted obvious untruths and serious misinformation.
LCHFinCanada 3 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Just so you know, when I address your points, I'm going to ignore anything that seems childish, like pointing out a single typo out of a long thread of comments, name-calling, or empty blanket assertions without evidence or substance to back them up. It's ironic that you call me a troll, yet have repeated yourself enough to have your posts flagged. I'm going to refrain from accusing you of intentional deception and assume any mistakes in your info are legitimate ignorance.
narkfly 3 days ago
@narkfly posts get flagged as spam by vegan trolls trying to obfuscate the truth ...
It happens all the time. You post anything TRUE and FACTUAL and they don't want it to be seen...
LCHFinCanada 3 days ago
@LCHFinCanada So what you're saying is that you are assuming your comments weren't flagged because you have disrespected the public forum by repeating the same points ad nauseum and by insulting my motivations, my intelligence, and my character for apparently no reason... but because "vegan trolls" are complicit in a YouTube-wide conspiracy to cover up "the truth". Got it.
narkfly 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...you are assuming your comments weren't flagged because you have disrespected the public forum..."
Nice try. When somebody flags a comment that contains scientific evidence that refutes a vegan myth, that's hardly a conspiracy THEORY, is it?
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada If you're paying any attention at all, you'll notice that plenty of your comments that have been flagged as spam don't actually contain anything but assertions (with no evidence) or repetitions of the same points you've already made. I'm reading your flagged comments, but I agree with whoever is flagging them - they meet the defenition of spam: not substantial or meaningful, someone talking just to talk.
narkfly 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...or empty blanket assertions without evidence or substance to back them up..."
Oh I'd love to know what those are... Then again, since you believe the lipid hypothesis is correct, even though it's never been proven after 50 years and literally HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TRYING ... You probably don't really care to research the truth.
LCHFinCanada 3 days ago
@LCHFinCanada In order to satisfy your curiosity, I will indulge you this once. You have unwittingly demonstrated exactly the type of baseless blanket assertion I was referring to:
"You probably don't really care to research the truth."
While I will address the sentiment behind this particular assertion in my general critique, I will not give attention to this meaningless diatribe in the remainder of my detailed responses.
narkfly 1 day ago
@LCHFinCanada Also, I'm making the assumption that @CanadaHC and @AlbertaBeefy are your accounts, as their usernames and the style and tone of their responses match yours. As such, I will seek to answer any arguments in which you repeat yourself or that are repeated between these accounts by replying to the most coherent, on-topic, unflagged, and ad hominem free version of the argument. If they are not your accounts, you guys should be friends. :)
narkfly 3 days ago
@narkfly "...Also, I'm making the assumption that @CanadaHC and @AlbertaBeefy are your accounts..."
Well, you'd be incorrect there.
Full disclosure though, Albertabeefy IS a friend of mine. I have NO idea who CanadaHC is.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@narkfly "...Just so you know, when I address your points..."
And when will that be, exactly? You've had over a full day and can't address them but can address others??
Perhaps it's because you can't refute them. At least not with science...
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Are you worried I won't get around to you? Don't worry. :) If you're worried that I might be a vegan troll, you should find it encouraging that I don't sit around and blindly fire off responses on YouTube with no thought behind my comments. (and I'm not pointing any fingers) I will start with your points that are the easiest and simplest to refute - those that from your comments it's clear that you haven't done your homework, even though this is what you accuse me of.
narkfly 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...I will start with your points that are the easiest and simplest to refute"
... whenever you're ready... I'll brace for a wave of more misinformation, old hypotheses, etc.
"...those that from your comments it's clear that you haven't done your homework..."
ROFLMAO. I'm a medical researcher... I at least understand how to read a study, unlike most of the vegan trolls on here...
I'm happy to engage in an intelligent debate, but this time, use science instead of dogma.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Second general critique: you have implied in many places that I'm misinformed because my sources of information are flawed and that I am therefore unintelligent because I lack the ability to critically analyze the "wrong" information and the inclination to seek out the "right" information. Yet, at the same time, you have also in many places implied that I somehow know and understand "the truth", but instead purposefully only dole out false conclusions and faulty science.
narkfly 1 day ago
@LCHFinCanada So rather than trying to simultaneously assign mutually exclusive attributes to my "vegan troll" mindset, I'll save you the trouble. Just drop all the nonsensical ad hominem. If a point I make is faulty, your refutation can stand on its own merits without trying to convince the audience what my motivations are. This is pandering, and it's unnecessary in the kind of intelligent debate you claim to be seeking.
narkfly 1 day ago
@narkfly "...If a point I make is faulty, your refutation can stand on its own merits..."
OK, let's do that - if you do the same. BUT I'm asking you to use SCIENCE not opinions.
I can't refute your OPINION because it's not something that one can claim as "fact" ... you can have the opinion that killing an animal is wrong... that's your opinion.
But when you claim something is factual with no evidence supporting that claim, that's where I cry foul.
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
@LCHFinCanada You're drawing a distinction between arguments based on science you reject versus science you accept. I'll cover this more fully in my next general critique, but the point I was making is about civility and staying on topic. It may keep your posts from getting flagged, it's a lot less annoying to me not to have to wade through ad hominem to get to your points, and it really doesn't have a place in an intelligent discussion, which is what you said you want.
narkfly 1 day ago
@LCHFinCanada In other words, instead of assuming I don't have anything to back up my point, ask me for it and wait to hear what it is. If you never hear it, then you get to say I didn't have anything. Until then, stop yammering that I don't have anything. You have made many points by saying things like "all the science proves" and "all the studies show", and I intend to ask you for your sources. I'm not asserting that you don't have any. It's simply rude. Cool it with the troll crap.
narkfly 1 day ago
@narkfly "...If you never hear it, then you get to say I didn't have anything..."
Well it's been three days now and I've never heard it.
How is asking for it, not getting it, and asking for it again "Yammering" ?
You keep saying you'll provide it yet you don't.
"...and I intend to ask you for your sources..." You mean the sources I've already cited? I can cite more if you need. I'm waiting for you to cite ONE study showing 80/10/10 healthy.
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...You're drawing a distinction between arguments based on science you reject versus science you accept..."
No, i'm not. You've yet provided NO science backing up your 80/10/10 claims as healthy. NONE. Where is it?
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
@narkfly "...you have implied in many places that I'm misinformed because my sources of information are flawed..."
Well yes, if you use arguments like "we're frugivores" you're obviously misinformed. If you think we're frugivores, when we're obviously not, why would anyone believe you are informed on anything?
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
@narkfly "...at the same time, you have also in many places implied that I somehow know and understand "the truth", but instead purposefully only dole out false conclusions and faulty science..."
Nope, I said you're using lies, misinformation, dogma, etc. to make your point instead of science. I never claimed anything else. Except that you were a troll - which I still believe you are since you have no science to back you up.
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
The LCHF that we eat, with fat fish, real fats and food loaded with nutrients are healty for our brains. 500 grams of vegetables grown in sunlight only contains 20 grams of carbs. The one in Sweden holding memory records are eating LCHF
Smoroga 4 days ago
@Smoroga What I've seen of research comparing HCLF with LCHF is that cognitive function with regard to information processing speed is improved to a greater degree with HCLF than it is with LCHF. This, along with blatantly clear comparative anatomy studies showing humans as frugivores and the symptoms of constipation, body odor, bad breath, and irritability that LCHF practitioners endure but HCLF practitioners don't all make a pretty clear case for me. If the gods tell you different, go for it.
narkfly 4 days ago
@narkfly "...comparing HCLF with LCHF is that cognitive function with regard to information processing speed is improved to a greater degree with HCLF than it is with LCHF..."
This is true in some people ONLY during until keto-adaptation. There have been NO real studies long-term.
"...along with blatantly clear comparative anatomy studies showing humans as frugivores ...
OMG are you for real? You completely ignore science and spout THIS line of crap? Who are you, durianrider?
AlbertaBeefy 4 days ago
@narkfly "along with blatantly clear comparative anatomy studies showing humans as frugivores "
This is so retarded it's not funny. Frugivores? Please explain how all biologists, zoologists, anthropologists, etc. are WRONG in classifying us as omnivores.
Heck, even chimps are well-known omnivores, not frugivores, who hunt, kill and EAT lots of animals...
You're full of misinformation, lies, dogma and propaganda. What you don't have is a shred of truth.
AlbertaBeefy 4 days ago
@narkfly For how long have those tests been going on and are you 100% sure that they're High Fat and not just Low Carb (can also mean high protein)? It can take some time to change fuel from sugar to fat. People who suddenly lower their carb intake can feel that there is no fuel for some days. This is my 7:th year on Low Carb High Fat (started 2006 just after Swedish MD Annika Dahlqvist in Sweden came up with this LCHF abbreviation at the end of 2005) and I have no problem.
Smoroga 4 days ago
@Smoroga As I said, you can do HCLF and LCHF - you will see benefits on both; you just can't do HCHF. Since you didn't actually read any info from the reviews you cited to me before, I encourage you to read this study yourself to answer your questions about it; they found better cognition on HCLF:
Halyburton AK, et al. Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007; 86: 580–587.
narkfly 3 days ago
@narkfly "...Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance..."
There are HUGE problems with this study if using it to say LCHF causes cognitive impairment...
The FIRST problem is LCHF should not be used as a calorie-deficit diet - if you ARE, you should strive for at most, 500kcal a day deficit... These obese people were put on 30% deficit, which is HUGE.
Second, it was only 8 weeks... some people aren't keto-adapted yet ...
LCHFinCanada 3 days ago
@narkfly "...I encourage you to read this study yourself to answer your questions about it; they found better cognition on HCLF..."
In addition to the short-term of the study AND the huge caloric deficit of 30% being problems... you failed to mention that the LCHF group lost much more weight, and BOTH groups improved in cognitive performance, though the LCHF group marginally less... As said though, the calorie-deficit or lack of ketoadaptation can account for that.
LCHFinCanada 3 days ago
@narkfly In sweden a lot of people ate HCLF for years trying to loose weight and feel better. They never did. These are the same people, and there are 100 thousands of them that frequently letting us know how they feel now. LCHF has a revolution right now and it started by the people getting rid of modern diseases, not by reading studys at the first place. What we feel inside can't be wrong. People eating LCHF are nearly 100% healthy 365 days a year. Never tired, no flu, no nothing! As It should
Smoroga 3 days ago
@Smoroga Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you have seen such a strong improvement and that your diet is working so well for you, I really am. Humans can obviously thrive on both LCHF and HCLF. I'm of the opinion that HCLF is a better long-term scenario, but the jury of public opinion is out at this point, with research supporting both sides being thrown around all over the board. I'm trying to make what I consider the best decisions for myself and the planet and encouraging others to do the same.
narkfly 3 days ago
@narkfly High carb sound like the agriculture way and High Fat like the hunter and gatherer. In sweden our traditional diet was salmon, seal, eggs, moose, caribo and berrys. By looking at the bones from people in Ajvide who eat this type of food, they had no "lack of nutrient" diseases as they've found later. If you can keep your teeth healthy not brushing them, then your diet is the right one. Something tells me that High Carb is not the best for your teeth?
Smoroga 3 days ago
@Smoroga The prime Paleo example of a "healthy" civilization on high fat, low carb is the Eskimo, who it has been shown suffered from atherosclerosis, cancer, and osteoporosis. So on a very low carb diet (when zero refined carbs were available), these people suffered from the degenerative diseases that LCHF practitioners blame on refined carbs, not dietary fat. As for teeth on high carb, look at any HCLF veg*ans or fruitarians - they have the healthiest, whitest teeth on the planet.
narkfly 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...prime Paleo example of a "healthy" civilization on high fat, low carb is the Eskimo..."
This is completely untrue. The paleo movement recommends far-more fresh veggies and fruit than the Inuit ever consumed. More untruths from you, I see.
"...who it has been shown suffered from atherosclerosis, cancer, and osteoporosis..."
Again, misinformation. Modern Inuit, yes. There is no record of ancient/traditional Inuit having any of those diseases that impact their life.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Maybe you haven't read Loren Cordain's book. He gives the same reason you do that pre-refined-carb Eskimo were "completely healthy" and modern Eskimo are more prone to suffer the "diseases of agriculture". Even though Cordain grants that they had atherosclerosis (and I have no idea if you believe ASVD leads to CVD or not), he doesn't acknowledge their osteoporosis. And the Greenland mummies have confirmed that they also developed cancer, but it is clear that you are unaware.
narkfly 2 days ago
@narkfly "...Even though Cordain grants that they had atherosclerosis (and I have no idea if you believe ASVD leads to CVD or not)..."
There have been a few mummies found with signs of atherosclerosis, yes. However only a few which is not conclusive.
That being said, the traditional Inuit dieters as well as Masai (traditional) both have atherosclerosis but larger vessels - presumably due to diet/lifestyle - that protects from it.
Atherosclerosis doesn't necessarily mean CVD, no.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@narkfly "...As for teeth on high carb, look at any HCLF veg*ans or fruitarians..."
Yes, look especially at all the fruitarians complaining of cavities, teeth rotting, etc. and getting NO help from the fruitarian forums, etc.
You're obviously completely biased. BTW, please show some science that proves your theories. So far you've not done so.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Since you dismiss the HCLF vegans with perfect teeth, maybe you have a bias as well. You can obviously undertake any diet of exclusion incorrectly. I'm not arguing that - vegans can mess up their teeth just like meat eaters can. What theories are you talking about? If you need example of my "theory" of healthy teeth, then I take it you haven't familiarized yourself with Michael Arnstein and Mimi Kirk. Why is it my job to do your own homework of disproving your biases?
narkfly 2 days ago
@narkfly On traditionally living Inuits "One of these physicians was captain George B. Leavitt. He actively searched for cancer among the traditionally-living Inuit from 1885 to 1907. Along with his staff, he claims to have performed tens of thousands of examinations. He did not find a single case of cancer."
Smoroga 2 days ago
@narkfly And about atherosclerosis and osteoporosis. You have to find a study from before 1920 or only on 100% traditionally living Inuits?
The Massai people do really well on 62 % energy from fat (and a normal part Saturated). Cowmilk, Sheep, goats, blood, herbs, fruits and berrys. Why are they not suffering from atherosclerosis?
Smoroga 2 days ago
@Smoroga "You have to find a study from before 1920" Actually the China Study showed tons of evidence that meat and dairy cause boat loads of disease. But here we go scientist shopping, right? All we have to ask is: why does the country that produces, promotes, and consumes, more dairy than any other nation, have the highest rights of bone cancer and osteoporosis than any other nation? Be your own experiment, find out for yourself.
FathomlessJoy 2 days ago
@Smoroga Many of us cling to an idea I call "smoking gun science," wherein we trust that there are scores of scientists who are working day and night to keep us safe finding the smoking gun of ill health and will tell us on TV tomorrow. We think that in absence of this smoking gun, this solitary culprit that harms our health, we can eat anything we want and not suffer consequences.
FathomlessJoy 2 days ago
@Smoroga As for the Massai people, have you really looked into their lives? What you find may be disturbing. First they have the lowest life expectancy of any people on Earth, according to the World Health Organization. Be careful who you blindly quote to support your bad living, as they may be equally as blind....
FathomlessJoy 2 days ago
@FathomlessJoy What bad living? If I'm the healthiest guy I'n my hometown at my age, I'll not callit bad living. Everyone who eat natural food will have better health than if you eat crap. There's nothing in the original Massai diet that is bad for them. Now they're also eating sugar (in their tea), corn and wheat. It might be bad for them as it is for the rest of the world.
Smoroga 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FathomlessJoy What bad living? If I'm the healthiest guy I'n my hometown at my age, I'll not callit bad living. Everyone who eat natural food will have better health than if you eat crap. There's nothing in the original Massai diet that is bad for them. Now they're also eating sugar (in their tea), corn and wheat. It might be bad for them as it is for the rest of the world.
Smoroga 10 hours ago
@Smoroga The atherosclerosis isn't really debated, even by LCHF proponents - everyone understands they had atherosclerosis well before 1920. This isn't convincing for LCHF proponents who don't believe ASVD is an indicator for CVD. The osteoporosis and cancer are evidence from the Greenland mummies (again, well before 1920) so you don't even need to worry about studies. If traditional Inuit diets prevent the "diseases of civilization", we wouldn't see any cases of these diseases, but we do.
narkfly 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...If traditional Inuit diets prevent the "diseases of civilization", we wouldn't see any cases of these diseases..."
Again, you're not looking at all the facts. Check out what Stephen Guyenet has to say, complete with relevant citations, etc.
wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/07/cancer-among-inuit.html
How do you refute any of that? Also of note - Again, you're not citing ANY of your sources for your scientific claims.
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
@narkfly One more important thing. If you're in a study you might be prepared and devoted to follow an High Carb diet. In real life I think people following a High fat diet more easy (from what they're telling us). If you eat LCHF you're bloodsugar is stable and you have an optimal fatburning %. If there's no food at the table you can easily wait 2 or 3 hours. For me it's easy not to eat for 12 hours (anything). When I eat more high carb food I was hungry a lot more and a lot earlier. Real life!
Smoroga 3 days ago
@narkfly "...I'm of the opinion that HCLF is a better long-term scenario, but the jury of public opinion is out at this point, with research supporting both sides being thrown around all over the board..."
There is NO RESEARCH supporting HCLF being healthier in any way than LCHF. You've not shown any and I've never found any - and I research for a living...
All you present so far is misinformation, misrepresentation, and outright lies.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada I have mentioned diet and nutrition experts who collectively have decades of research showing HCLF to be healthy, but you dismissed their research - not because of flaws in their science that you mention, but because of how they associate. I gave a study comparing HCLF with LCHF which you dismissed as being too short-term of a study and say you would need to see a longer-term study. There is research, you're dismissing it, but somehow that's my fault. Not quite.
narkfly 2 days ago
@narkfly "...I gave a study comparing HCLF with LCHF which you dismissed as being too short-term of a study..."
The reasons for dismissing this study were entirely valid. You claim it was representative of LCHF lifestyle, but wasn't as it was:
1) a 30% caloric-deficit diet (which is huge and unnecessarily-so for LCHF dieters), and;
2) tests done after 8 weeks, when some people might not yet be keto-adapted.
As such, the study was not proof of your claim.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Since I have publicly acknowledged that my "gold standard" for HCLF is 80/10/10, the study doesn't meet my definition of HCLF either. What it does provide is comparative ratios and their results. This is the closest I've found so far; If you have anything better to offer with results for either side, I'm all ears. The information I've read on ketosis is that the body usually adapts within a period of 2-4 weeks. So twice that is still an unfair period. I don't see why.
narkfly 2 days ago
@narkfly "...Since I have publicly acknowledged that my "gold standard" for HCLF is 80/10/10..."
and where are your scientific studies showing 80/10/10 to be even remotely healthy?
I've never seen ONE.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada This is exactly the content of natural foods: 80% carb, 10% fat, 10% protein, right doctor? In fact 80 carb is the bare minimum and 10/10 of protein/fat is maximum. We have to get into processed foods, oils, and of course rotting animals bodies before we see this ratio radically perverted, right?
Now you claim to be a cardiologist, can you please show us evidence? Doctors Esselstyn, Campbell, Graham, McDougall, et al are all are up front about their names and qualifications.
FathomlessJoy 2 days ago
@FathomlessJoy 10% of your energy from Protein? I's that really enough to build and repair every organ, muscle and tissue in your body? In sweden during the 6 months long winther, I would love to see you digging in the deep snow to find a fully nutrient diet of 80,10,10. This means that you'll have to dig and eat all day watching the seals on the rock and the salmons swimming up the river.
Smoroga 10 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...The information I've read on ketosis is that the body usually adapts within a period of 2-4 weeks. So twice that is still an unfair period. I don't see why..."
Yes, MOST people adapt in 2 to 4 weeks. I was about three weeks myself.
As for why - because these weren't metabolic ward studies, so they relied on people being honest and not cheating on their diets. That's why. Many, many people who "try" low-carb do not successfully get into ketosis due to cheating...
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada You're pointing out the LCHF participants could have cheated. Following your logic the HCLF participants could have cheated as well, and yet scored better results than the LCHF group. You may as well point out that those scoring the tests could have been some of the undercover "vegan trolls" you love to talk about. While it doesn't test anyone's preferred ratios, isn't on the scale of a population study, and isn't 2 years or longer, it does suggest *some* difference in results.
narkfly 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...You may as well point out that those scoring the tests could have been some of the undercover "vegan trolls" you love to talk about..."
So you can't refute what I say, is what you're saying.
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...I have mentioned diet and nutrition experts who collectively have decades of research showing HCLF to be healthy..."
No, you listed a bunch of KNOWN animal-activists who hide behind the PCRM so they don't get their medical licenses revoked.
The PCRM releases statements, not their doctors, so they can't be charged.
The AMA has REPEATEDLY censured the PCRM for masquerading as a physicians group, when it's an animal-activist group, and for dangerous recommendations.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...I have mentioned diet and nutrition experts who collectively have decades of research showing HCLF to be healthy..."
All the "experts" you mentioned are animal-activists, who have a clear agenda. Heck, the PCRM isn't even mostly physicians (only 5-7% of their membership is...) and they're PETA-FUNDED.
So yeah, I dismissed THOSE particular experts as biased, yes. Also, I can discredit ANY of their claims if you'd like to get into each of them individually...
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@narkfly ... Let's start with Barnard who claims a vegan diet reverses diabetes...
He's NEVER even controlled diabetes in either study he did (getting average A1c's to under 7.0%) let alone reversed them to normal ranges (which are 4.6% to 5.4%) and his control group was the high-refined-carb ADA diet pushed by big-pharmaceutical companies.
When you compare his diet to LCHF, it fails miserably as LCHF is vastly superior for glycemic control and heart health in every study done.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@narkfly ... or how about Esselstyn, how claims to reverse heart disease in his studies...
1) No control group. There's a major flaw right there.
2) He prescribed STATIN drugs... again, a major flaw...
3) He eliminated not just meat, but all refined/processed carbs/sugars AND refined/processed oils.
4) Modern studies are showing refined/processed carbs/sugars and refined/processed oils are causing heart-disease, not meat...
So yeah, meat is NOT the issue...
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@narkfly ... how about Ornish?
Ornish also eliminated all refined/processed carbs/sugars and refined/oils, but allows fish...
He also required all participants to stop smoking, exercise, get group therapy, etc...
Then claims the issue was meat...
Also, no control groups...
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@narkfly Oh, and Ornish used really bad imaging to verify his claims - imaging that can easily show huge differences if a person simply is angled slightly differently...
Oh, and it's proven that statins alone can cause the SAME AMOUNT OF REVERSAL as Esselstyn's diet-intervention claimed...
None of these doctors have reputable studies that prove ANYTHING except that refined/processed carbs/sugars and refined/processed oils are bad for us.
That's it.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@narkfly ... I'd love to keep refuting all your "experts" but I keep watching for updates from you scientifically proving your ignorant claims correct...
... and I don't see anything from you yet except more dogma and outlandish claims that I'm rejecting things unscientifically...
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@narkfly "...There is research, you're dismissing it, but somehow that's my fault..."
I've explained WHY I've dismissed the research - NONE of what you've provided is proof of anything. Only the truly ignorant and/or those who WANT to believe would believe your claims when shown that 'evidence'.
Please post counter-points to my claims refuting them if you can. With so many confounding variables, or in some cases outright bad science, nobody in their right mind can call these proof.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada So you claim to be a medical researcher, but you ask for "proof". If you had any legitimate scientific background, you'd know that scientists don't search for "proof" as objectively there is no such thing; they find supporting evidence. What qualifies as proof for one person may be a completely different metric than what qualifies as proof for someone else. A supported proposal stands until it is falsified. Anyone with even the most limited scientific background knows this.
narkfly 2 days ago
@narkfly "...you'd know that scientists don't search for "proof" as objectively there is no such thing..."
Sure there is... in the face of overwhelming evidence that a hypothesis is correct, and with NO evidence of it being incorrect, a hypothesis can be considered proven.
What I'm looking for is what YOU believe is 'proof' that you claim to have - that overwhelming evidence that makes you claim meat is bad - when it simply isn't there...
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada Exactly: scientists don't search for "proof". They build evidence in tests designed to falsify a hypothesis. If the evidence supports the hypothesis rather than refute it, it continues to stand... basically until everyone gives up conceiving new ways to falsify a hypothesis as all tests have supported it. Even then, it is not scientifically considered "proven", it's considered accepted. Logically, the possibility remains a falsifiable test has yet to be conceived.
narkfly 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...If the evidence supports the hypothesis rather than refute it, it continues to stand... "
Which is NOT the case with the either the lipid or diet-heart hypotheses, as the studies have shown.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615352
cholesterol-and-health(dot)com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html
wholehealthsource.blogspot(dot)com/2009/07/diet-heart-hypothesis-stuck-at-starting.html
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14998608
Studies as well as articles with sources.
LCHFinCanada 2 days ago
@narkfly You are SO right! This is why it is crucial we see this for ourselves, not rely on authorities, whether politicians, priests, profiteers or the scientists they all employ. Most folks, not just about eating aniaml flesh but about most things in life, rely on what others say, most often ignoring what's here to see with our own eyes. The fact is scientists will never prove any of this, each person must see for themselves it is wrong to rape and torture animals and eat their rotting bodies.
FathomlessJoy 2 days ago
@LCHFinCanada So general critique: first off, you're completely conflating points I'm making with arguments I've never brought up. I haven't said anywhere that "meat is bad" or "meat is unhealthy". You've done such a good job of quoting me so far, do me a favor and show me where I've said that - thanks. Here's what I have said: I think LCHF and HCLF are both healthier than SAD as HCHF is unhealthy. One of the two macronutrients must dominate. There isn't much meaningful research comparing them.
narkfly 1 day ago
@narkfly I believe that 811 / HCLF is healthier, and I will be more than happy to give you my reasons for believing this. Please don't put words in my mouth, though. I'm sure it's possible to eat some meat and maintain an 80/10/10 macronutrient ratio. You have surmised that I'm vegan, but I'm not injecting an ethical discussion into the arena of a health debate. What I have (minimally) said in this thread with regard to ethics has been to debunk BS arguments against veg*anism, not argue for it.
narkfly 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@narkfly "...I believe that 811 / HCLF is healthier, and I will be more than happy to give you my reasons for believing this..."
I don't want to see your opinions... I want to see the science. You said it's truly healthier than a healthy diet that includes meat. I claim it's not. Heck, as far as I know there's been NO scientific studies done on the 80/10/10 diet at all...
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
@narkfly "...I haven't said anywhere that "meat is bad" or "meat is unhealthy"..."
You're making the claim that 80/10/10 is healthier than ingesting meat. I'm still waiting for any science on that.
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
@LCHFinCanada Okay, I was perfectly clear that the conversation @Smoroga and I were having was about HCLF vs LCHF, and I even explicitly said that one could probably eat meat and maintain an 80/10/10 ratio. The Ornish diet is HCLF and includes fish. Some raw vegans eat LCHF (vegans don't eat meat, in case you didn't know). This is the conflation I was describing, but perhaps it's because you're not reading my full comment before responding, which some would call trollish.
narkfly 1 day ago
@narkfly "...I even explicitly said that one could probably eat meat and maintain an 80/10/10 ratio..."
Sure, but I'm telling you 80/10/10 isn't healthy, and there's no evidence it is. Look at what happens to testosterone levels in men when you reduce dietary fat intake that low... it's simply unhealthy and not recommended by ANY medical practitioner.
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
@narkfly "...I haven't said anywhere that "meat is bad" or "meat is unhealthy". .."
Heck, I'm waiting for ANY science that shows 80/10/10 is healthy. Do you have ANY studies to back up that claim?
LCHFinCanada 1 day ago
@Smoroga "...are you 100% sure that they're High Fat and not just Low Carb ..."
Exactly, narkfly is rarely using true LCHF studies and still can't argue his case without using untruthful statements.
Also, most low-carb diets being tested AREN'T 1) truly low-carb or 2) LCHF.
Many researchers consider Low-Carb to be 30-50% of the calories from carbohydrate... and even then they often have huge amounts of refined carbs allowed...
True low-carb is often ketogenic.
LCHFinCanada 3 days ago
@narkfly After 2 years with a lot of butter and eggs I had the lowest total cholesterol in my hometown with 3,9. I beleive more in God than the lipid or cholesterol hypotetis. Cholesterol is there to help us and not a poison.
Smoroga 4 days ago
@Smoroga You believe in God. Oh. Okay. So, you're obviously a very rational person who uses evidence a lot in important areas of your life.
marcluc1988 2 days ago
Some people say you´ll get one kg beans..and one kg meat for that. No..
A cow will constantly naturally fertilize the soil. A cow will give you insestines full of nutrients, fats for energy and blood. It will give you leather for clothes. The bones can be brought back to the soil for calsium. A cow can feed a calf wich no bean can. A cow can if it has no calf give us milk everyday (butter, cream and cheese). A cow can live in harmony with birds and other animals, herbs as a living nature.
Smoroga 5 days ago
I appreciate Lierre's viewpoints on the torture of cattle and the abuse of perfectly good land to feed those poor beasts, and the FACT that there is a detrimental corn industry poisoning the animals and the people that eat them... but what I want to know is WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR CLEAN, and I mean CLEAN, MEAT FROM?!
DemstarAus 5 days ago
Corn is farmed to create a staggering amount of high fructose corn syrup, used in all fast food, supermarket soft-drinks, any cheap food that you can buy probably has corn syrup in it, because it is addictive, and it is a poison that will make you sick. It supports the monopoly of genetically engineered corn and medication/treatments for diabetes.
DemstarAus 5 days ago
@DemstarAus It is metabolised not like a sugar, but like a fat. It cannot be converted into glucose (brain fuel) and only as a fat. It is stressful on the system, and interferes with our 'I'll stop eating now because I'm full' response'. Eating a high sugar, low nutrient diet feeds you fat, and because the body cannot metabolise the fructose into glucose for the brain, it is constantly in a state of starvation, which drives you to eat more and more and more.
DemstarAus 5 days ago
Protein Problem?! Spirulina contains protein that is up to 70% absorbable and digestible in our systems. Seafood and fish is on average 16% absorbable, poultry and white meat is on average 15%, red meat between 13-14% absorbable protein. Living on mainly grain IS NOT a suitable vegan diet, and that is the misconception. A healthy vegan uses supplements wisely, eats a large variety of super nutrient food like sprouts and wheat grasses, and lots of nuts, seeds, fruits and veggies.
DemstarAus 5 days ago
@DemstarAus The difference between sugar in fruit and sugar in processed foods is that it is accompanied by a large amount of fibre - when god (if you believe in such) created the poison, he packaged it with the antidote. Another large problem with eating animal flesh these days is that they absorb a large amount of the pollution from the water, medication and water we give them/they live in. Plants are the same, and many people are turning to growing in protected greenhouses/covered gardens.
DemstarAus 5 days ago
@DemstarAus Another problem, I don't disagree with the fact that meat is denser in nutrients, and it makes sense that fat cells store nutrients, in a perfect system, that's how it's meant to be - to keep you through a food-short winter. Nowadays, fat in animals stores great levels of poison from both diet, medication and pollution. There is also a larger percentage of stress hormones present in animal meat and fat, as they aren't hunted like we used to hunt them, they are kept horribly.
DemstarAus 5 days ago
Meat eaters are deficient in the same things as vegetarians - while it is true that vegetarians are more deficient in those nutrients, meat eaters are still deficient, which means that every diet shares the same deficiencies. It takes land to grow and keep cattle, and it takes as much land again to grow the grain to keep cattle, in addition to land that is already being used to feed humans. If we were to phase out cattle ag-land, how much people-food could we grow? 6kg of grain for 1kg of beef.
DemstarAus 5 days ago
Narkfly and the rest of the world. It's not the fat that will give you an heartattack, It's the sugar.
You can eat Low Carb High Fat as a Vegan! If will give you a more stable blood glucose level which will keep you away from the cookie. A log of vegan recepies is sweet things. But you won't find any of those in LCHF. Search for Vegan + LCHF
Smoroga 5 days ago
@Smoroga LCHF vegan and HCLF vegan both result in healthy blood sugar levels, but both are not sustainable or healthy. LCHF leads to depression, sleep disorder, strong mood swings, etc. Look at LCHF vegans long-term: these are the vegans who fall off the wagon and say veganism didn't work for them. A lot of raw vegans fall into this category, getting 60% or more calories from fat. HCLF vegan is sustainable long-term, with better sleep, better mood, better overall health.
narkfly 5 days ago
@narkfly "...LCHF leads to depression, sleep disorder, strong mood swings, etc. Look at LCHF vegans long-term..."
How can you be a true LCHF vegan? No animal products yet staying under 100g-150g of carb a day would be a starvation diet...
I can't see ANY LCHF diet working that didn't include animal products, at least eggs/dairy if not milk...
CanadaHC 4 days ago
@narkfly "...LCHF vegan and HCLF vegan both result in healthy blood sugar levels..."
In the case of diabetics this is completely untrue, especially the HCLF vegan diets recommended by the likes of Neal Barnard, etc.
Barnard's own studies showed that after a full 74 weeks he didn't even CONTROL one single case of diabetes, and only had lower blood glucose than the high-carb (refined carbs, even) control group he tested against...
Lies, dogma and propaganda. Please try to use science.
LCHFinCanada 4 days ago
well she looks very healthy...
bgbropro 5 days ago
Thank god, some one is fnally telling the truth
hazubekishi 5 days ago
1 kg grassfed meat takes no more energy to produce than 1 kg beans (with meat you also get fat, liver, milk (butter), leather and blood). Those beans give you 67 calories/hg and the beef 165 cals. This means it takes 2,5 times more energy to procuce 100 cal beans than 100 cal beef. If we look at the nutrients the beef wins easy. You get a living nature, clothes, use less oil, groundwater up, more fish in the sea and more and better food by letting a cow eat grass. What else do you need?
Smoroga 6 days ago
Comment removed
Smoroga 6 days ago
As a vegan, I was already fully aware that eating meat was by no means unhealthy. But I'd rather be a vegan and have lower CO2 emissions and consume less fossil fuels through my food. I'd rather be a vegan than still promote the unsustainable meat and dairy industry. If you want to keep your CO2 emissions as low as possible, either go out and become a caveman or join or tribe and catch your own meat, or BE VEGAN
missmusica21 1 week ago
@missmusica21 Please watch the interview again. What you're writing is exactly what Lierre tell you about, but with a more natural way than your way.
Smoroga 1 week ago
... or this one:
Argentina, with higher beef consumption, has lower rates of colon cancer than the US, even though vegans want us to believe beef causes colon cancer.
As mentioned earlier, Mormons have lower rates of colon cancer than vegetarian Seventh Day Adventists - proven now in multiple studies, though BOTH eliminate caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, and live healthy lives - the Mormons eat moderate amounts of meat.
Healthy meat eating = lower cancer folks. Truth is > propaganda.
CanadaHC 1 week ago 7
@CanadaHC You actually have some sense in you. I thank you!
44studawg 6 days ago in playlist Liked videos
There's lots of misinformation in regards to meat and cancer, etc.
Colon cancer was tied to beef in an erroneous interpretation of the National Cancer Institute Japanese-Hawaiian study which actually showed macaroni, green beans and peas to have higher risk associated with colon cancer than beef or lamb.
Yup, green beans and peas are associated more with cancer than beef or lamb. LOL.
CanadaHC 1 week ago 7
@narkfly what about the DOZENS of reputable studies which show low-carb diets (specifically eliminating refined/processed carbs/sugars) that INCREASE saturated fat intake are vastly superior to low-fat or vegan diets for weight-loss, diabetes management, cholesterol ratios, triglyceride levels, etc.?
The lipid hypothesis was only EVER a hypothesis, never proven, often debunked by the very studies TRYING to prove it.
It's time you stopped living in the past.
CanadaHC 1 week ago 4
@CanadaHC dietdoctor(dot)com/weight-loss-time-to-stop-denying-the-science
And no, it's not a website selling anything. It's a swedish MD's blog.
The science is clear - there is NO science showing vegetarianism/veganism is more healthy than a healthy diet that includes meat.
Eliminating refined/processed carbs/sugars, refined oils and processed meats/foods is the answer. Eat lots of organic veggies, moderate fruit, healthy nuts, natural oils/fats AND organic (grass-fed, etc) meat.
CanadaHC 1 week ago 4
@CanadaHC If there are any studies showing LCHF meat-eating diets eliminating refined/processed carbs as more healthy than HCLF vegan diets that also eliminate refined/processed carbs, I would love to see them to be as informed as possible. I'm presently not aware of any. :)
narkfly 5 days ago
@narkfly The lipid hypothesis - the proposal of an association between blood cholesterol levels and atherosclerosis - has been widely accepted as scientific fact by the medical community; it is understood that plasma levels of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides correlate with ASVD, CVD, and CHD. If there is any research that has successfully disproved the lipid hypothesis, I would again be most interested to learn of it. Gravity and evolution are only theories, after all. :)
narkfly 5 days ago
@narkfly I think for myself. Thanks:) So could you. The first thing about the lipid hypothesis is that dietary fat raises LDL and a high LDL give you heart disease. This is not correct. Here's the new thing.
Dietary fat increase the good HDL part, and it also increase the non harmful large type of LDL. You might get a higher total cholesterol but it wont kill you. Fast carbs will instead raise the small dense type of LDL that will stuck in your endotelian cell and give you CVD.
Smoroga 5 days ago
@Smoroga The lipid hypothesis proposes an association between blood cholesterol levels and atherosclerosis. You reject the hypothesis by restating it - detailing which specific types of blood cholesterol are associated with CVD - supporting the association. There have been many different studies to explore the association, showing reducing dietary fat, saturated fat, trans fats, total c