Top fake healthy foods that u are prob eating

[ey88]

Vegetables are pro- oxidant for humans, high fibre is bad, low cal doesn’t mean healthy, what micronutrients?

“Scared of oxalates” lol, we can tolerate only 30 mg of oxalates, spinach has 300mg

wrong

 

[Currycelloser]

wrong

Proof?

 

[ey88]

Proof?

provide proof for your bullshit first

 

[jkcwakcjw]

Proof?

liver and lymph system will neutralize it

 

[Currycelloser]

provide proof for your bullshit first

Already did

Read the studies that I cited for fiber and spinach, in this thread

 

[ey88]

Already did

Read the studies that I cited for fiber and spinach, in this thread

idgaf about them

you misinterpreted them and took them out of context and are wrong

 

[Currycelloser]

idgaf about them

you misinterpreted them and took them out of context and are wrong

“Idgaf about studies” no, where did I misinterpreted them?

 

[ey88]

“Idgaf about studies” no, where did I misinterpreted them?

just because eating no fibre doesnt cause constipation in one study doesnt mean its not beneficial

didnt even bother reading the others

 

[Currycelloser]

just because eating no fibre doesnt cause constipation in one study doesnt mean its not beneficial

didnt even bother reading the others

Show me other studies

 

[jkcwakcjw]

wtf i just saw this same thread on org

 

[ey88]

Show me other studies

proving fibre is beneficial? sure

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Increasing dietary fiber intake for type 2 diabetes mellitus management: A systematic review - PMC

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic, non-communicable disease with a substantial global impact, affecting a significant number of individuals. Its etiology is closely tied to imbalanced dietary practices and sedentary lifestyles. Conversely, increasing ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Dietary Fibre Modulates the Gut Microbiota - PMC

Dietary fibre has long been established as a nutritionally important, health-promoting food ingredient. Modern dietary practices have seen a significant reduction in fibre consumption compared with ancestral habits. This is related to the emergence ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Currycelloser]

proving fibre is beneficial? sure

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Increasing dietary fiber intake for type 2 diabetes mellitus management: A systematic review - PMC

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic, non-communicable disease with a substantial global impact, affecting a significant number of individuals. Its etiology is closely tied to imbalanced dietary practices and sedentary lifestyles. Conversely, increasing ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Dietary Fibre Modulates the Gut Microbiota - PMC

Dietary fibre has long been established as a nutritionally important, health-promoting food ingredient. Modern dietary practices have seen a significant reduction in fibre consumption compared with ancestral habits. This is related to the emergence ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The first two studies are in valid:

The first one is an associative study
The second one is even worse, it is an epidemiological study
I will look into the other two studies later and update you

 

[Methodical]

Spinach doesn’t have vitamin a, it has beta carotene which cannot be efficiently converted into vitamin a by most humans, also spinach has non haem iron and vitamin K1 which are both useless

What? The bioavailability of beta-carotene can be improved by cooking (boiling) it. Your conclusion of "it's harder to get the benefits therefore it's worthless" is silly. That's not how you should view food, especially if the conclusion you've come to to believe that is misleading or completely incorrect.

“Scared of oxalates” lol, we can tolerate only 30 mg of oxalates, spinach has 300mg

What?

A lot what you say is somewhat 'technically' true but your conclusion is absolutely ridiculous sometimes and requires us to see humans as fragile creatures when they simply are not. Our digestive systems are one of the best in the animal kingdom.

 

[Currycelloser]

What? The bioavailability of beta-carotene can be improved by cooking (boiling) it. Your conclusion of "it's harder to get the benefits therefore it's worthless" is silly. That's not how you should view food, especially if the conclusion you've come to to believe that is misleading or completely incorrect.


What?

A lot what you say is somewhat 'technically' true but your conclusion is absolutely ridiculous sometimes and requires us to see humans as fragile creatures when they simply are not. Our digestive systems are one of the best in the animal kingdom.

why do you need beta carotene, also it is a pro oxidant for humans too.


You say our digestive systems are best in the world, but many people have got kidney stones due to oxalates present in spinach, so your argument is invalid.

Why You Should Avoid Cucumber, Spinach, Tomatoes, and Coffee When Suffering from Kidney Stones? - Ace Hospital

Kidney stones are a common urological condition that can cause significant pain and discomfort. At Ace Hospital, Pune’s premier urology specialty hospital, we

acehospital.in

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

 

[Currycelloser]

proving fibre is beneficial? sure

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

Increasing dietary fiber intake for type 2 diabetes mellitus management: A systematic review - PMC

Type 2 diabetes is a chronic, non-communicable disease with a substantial global impact, affecting a significant number of individuals. Its etiology is closely tied to imbalanced dietary practices and sedentary lifestyles. Conversely, increasing ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Dietary Fibre Modulates the Gut Microbiota - PMC

Dietary fibre has long been established as a nutritionally important, health-promoting food ingredient. Modern dietary practices have seen a significant reduction in fibre consumption compared with ancestral habits. This is related to the emergence ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

the 3rd study is also an associative study lmao, send me a real cause and effect scientific study not associative and epidemiological bullshit.

but I would say that the 4th study is valid, because if u are eating high carb intake, you do need fibre so that the sugar can goo into ur bloodstream very slowly due to the fibre, fibre is an anti nutrient which won't let you absorb the carbs properly because it will bind to it. You need fibre only when u are taking high carbs, that is why fruit will have both carbs and fibre.

 

[rickgrimes]

Hey buddy I dnr but mirin the effort bud cause I eat veggies

 

[Currycelloser]

Hey buddy I dnr but mirin the effort bud cause I eat veggies
View attachment 90570

as long as u eat meat and fat then its fine

 

[rickgrimes]

as long as u eat meat and fat then its fine

Yea I do infact I do love meat and fat in my diet

 

[N30N]

Water

 

[Currycelloser]

Water

well its not water to many users here, look at the replies

 

[N30N]

well its not water to many users here, look at the replies

True. Lots of brainwashing

 

[Methodical]

why do you need beta carotene, also it is a pro oxidant for humans too.


You say our digestive systems are best in the world, but many people have got kidney stones due to oxalates present in spinach, so your argument is invalid.

Why You Should Avoid Cucumber, Spinach, Tomatoes, and Coffee When Suffering from Kidney Stones? - Ace Hospital

Kidney stones are a common urological condition that can cause significant pain and discomfort. At Ace Hospital, Pune’s premier urology specialty hospital, we

acehospital.in

Checking your browser - reCAPTCHA

First, it is a provitamin A. Second, no, not really. You need high concentrations.

That makes 0 sense. No average adult gets kidney stones due to the oxalates present in spinach. I'm not debating the existence of if it's ever possible to get kidney stones from spinach, because it doesn't matter. You're using existing science to back up a claim that doesn't make sense. The reality of it is, people who are getting kidney stones are not getting it because they mainly fucking eat spinach. You're insane if you truly deeply believe that.

Just because a lot of people have faulty brakes in their cars it doesn't mean every car is designed poorly. Humans are complicated and they're not 1:1. The first article are just recommendations what to do if you already have or are prone to kidney stones, not that it causes them in most people who eat spinach. The second paper just explains that to avoid calcium oxalate stones, people should drink enough water, avoid foods high in oxalate (which I'm not disagreeing with by the way), and eat a sufficient amount of calcium. Just like the milk/cottage and spinach study, most people are not rawdogging every meal with pure spinach without ANY other food item present.

I've already explained that what you say is 'technically' sometimes true but it's heavily heavily misleading, almost to the point I feel like you're intentionally trying to be dishonest. Show me a study where a normal, healthy, average human adult diet that adding spinach is going to significantly increase your chances of kidney stones. There's not going to be any because it makes no sense to anyone who actually understands the science. It's clear that you understand the science at a very surface level and nothing beyond that.

I like debating with you because you're one of the very few users who doesn't just say stuff to say it, you try to back up what you claim and you try to properly explain your arguments. I like that trait in someone. But I also don't understand the desire to keep going when it's clear when you're incorrect.

Everything up until this point, you have not proven why spinach is bad for you (or why you should even cut it out of your diet), just that SOME people get kidney stones. Your logic of "well it's harder therefore don't" or "it's harder therefore it's harmful" is dumb. I'm not going to pretend it's a valid argument because it's not.

 

[rickgrimes]

First, it is a provitamin A. Second, no, not really. You need high concentrations.

That makes 0 sense. No average adult gets kidney stones due to the oxalates present in spinach. I'm not debating the existence of if it's ever possible to get kidney stones from spinach, because it doesn't matter. You're using existing science to back up a claim that doesn't make sense. The reality of it is, people who are getting kidney stones are not getting it because they mainly fucking eat spinach. You're insane if you truly deeply believe that.

Just because a lot of people have faulty brakes in their cars it doesn't mean every car is designed poorly. Humans are complicated and they're not 1:1. The first article are just recommendations what to do if you already have or are prone to kidney stones, not that it causes them in most people who eat spinach. The second paper just explains that to avoid calcium oxalate stones, people should drink enough water, avoid foods high in oxalate (which I'm not disagreeing with by the way), and eat a sufficient amount of calcium. Just like the milk/cottage and spinach study, most people are not rawdogging every meal with pure spinach without ANY other food item present.

I've already explained that what you say is 'technically' sometimes true but it's heavily heavily misleading, almost to the point I feel like you're intentionally trying to be dishonest. Show me a study where a normal, healthy, average human adult diet that adding spinach is going to significantly increase your chances of kidney stones. There's not going to be any because it makes no sense to anyone who actually understands the science. It's clear that you understand the science at a very surface level and nothing beyond that.

I like debating with you because you're one of the very few users who doesn't just say stuff to say it, you try to back up what you claim and you try to properly explain your arguments. I like that trait in someone. But I also don't understand the desire to keep going when it's clear when you're incorrect.

Everything up until this point, you have not proven why spinach is bad for you, just that SOME people get kidney stones. Your logic of "well it's harder therefore don't" or "it's harder therefore it's harmful" is dumb. I'm not going to pretend it's a valid argument because it's not.

Agree, balanced diet or death

 

[Currycelloser]

First, it is a provitamin A. Second, no, not really. You need high concentrations.

That makes 0 sense. No average adult gets kidney stones due to the oxalates present in spinach. I'm not debating the existence of if it's ever possible to get kidney stones from spinach, because it doesn't matter. You're using existing science to back up a claim that doesn't make sense. The reality of it is, people who are getting kidney stones are not getting it because they mainly fucking eat spinach. You're insane if you truly deeply believe that.

Just because a lot of people have faulty brakes in their cars it doesn't mean every car is designed poorly. Humans are complicated and they're not 1:1. The first article are just recommendations what to do if you already have or are prone to kidney stones, not that it causes them in most people who eat spinach. The second paper just explains that to avoid calcium oxalate stones, people should drink enough water, avoid foods high in oxalate (which I'm not disagreeing with by the way), and eat a sufficient amount of calcium. Just like the milk/cottage and spinach study, most people are not rawdogging every meal with pure spinach without ANY other food item present.

I've already explained that what you say is 'technically' sometimes true but it's heavily heavily misleading, almost to the point I feel like you're intentionally trying to be dishonest. Show me a study where a normal, healthy, average human adult diet that adding spinach is going to significantly increase your chances of kidney stones. There's not going to be any because it makes no sense to anyone who actually understands the science. It's clear that you understand the science at a very surface level and nothing beyond that.

I like debating with you because you're one of the very few users who doesn't just say stuff to say it, you try to back up what you claim and you try to properly explain your arguments. I like that trait in someone. But I also don't understand the desire to keep going when it's clear when you're incorrect.

Everything up until this point, you have not proven why spinach is bad for you (or why you should even cut it out of your diet), just that SOME people get kidney stones. Your logic of "well it's harder therefore don't" or "it's harder therefore it's harmful" is dumb. I'm not going to pretend it's a valid argument because it's not.

Yea sure you need higher quantities of spinach to actually get kidney stones, I will try to find a good study and send it to ya, but my one question is, u agree with me that oxalates are bad regardless of the dosage right? But what disadvantage does meat have? Meat is rich in almost all vitamins unlike spinach, why can’t u eat that? I have seen people who hate spinach but they eat it for the sake that it is “healthy”, no! Meat is far more healthy and superior, this was my initial point which is why I made this thread, because people force themselves to eat foods which are not highly nutritious and might also contain some compounds like oxalates, phytic acid, etc.

 

[Methodical]

but my one question is, u agree with me that oxalates are bad regardless of the dosage right?

I probably view it more neutrally than you would. I think most chemical processes that our body does is neutral unless something goes wrong. In the case of oxalates, I find it neutral unless someone has too much and gets kidney stones, then I would view it bad.

But what disadvantage does meat have? Meat is rich in almost all vitamins unlike spinach, why can’t u eat that? I have seen people who hate spinach but they eat it for the sake that it is “healthy”, no! Meat is far more healthy and superior, this was my initial point which is why I made this thread, because people force themselves to eat foods which are not highly nutritious and might also contain some compounds like oxalates, phytic acid, etc.

The problem with this is I'm comparing the entirety of meat which includes variety and many different types to a single food item like spinach which is only really commonly eaten in like 2-3 ways. In most contexts, you can substitute anything with anything as long as you get what your body needs and supplement what it needs help with. Vegans make the same argument about meat all the time - Why eat meat, hurting and killing an animal, when you get all of the nutrition elsewhere?

Not everything is going to be 100% good for you 100% perfectly, but that also applies to meat. I can make a detailed argument how eating a lot of meat normally means eating a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol, and how that can increase your LDL cholesterol and how that's bad for you. But you would never eat 1 single type of meat in huge amounts by itself, you would probably eat it alongside something else which will change how your body digests that food item. You understand that studies that force people to eat huge amounts of one item is probably going to result in seeing results that aren't good for the body. But you also understand anyone who partakes in the primal diet has a variety of items they eat. They eat heart, liver, tongue, steak, eggs, and so on. These items makeup what one item by itself would do.

People eat spinach because in some cases that provitamin A benefits their dietary needs even if they don't like the taste per se. Same way when a lot of people in the primal diet start out feeling sick by it, it normally changes over time and most people change their taste-buds by exposure to those items. It's not the 'best' item to eat in the same eating a sirloin steak every day is not the 'best' item to eat. You're meant to eat a diverse diet. Whatever you define by diverse is up to each person, but the conclusion that certain food items are bad based almost solely off of flawed research is a waste of the reader's time but also the waste of your time writing about it.

 

[Currycelloser]

I probably view it more neutrally than you would. I think most chemical processes that our body does is neutral unless something goes wrong. In the case of oxalates, I find it neutral unless someone has too much and gets kidney stones, then I would view it bad.


The problem with this is I'm comparing the entirety of meat which includes variety and many different types to a single food item like spinach which is only really commonly eaten in like 2-3 ways. In most contexts, you can substitute anything with anything as long as you get what your body needs and supplement what it needs help with. Vegans make the same argument about meat all the time - Why eat meat, hurting and killing an animal, when you get all of the nutrition elsewhere?

Not everything is going to be 100% good for you 100% perfectly, but that also applies to meat. I can make a detailed argument how eating a lot of meat normally means eating a lot of saturated fat and cholesterol, and how that can increase your LDL cholesterol and how that's bad for you. But you would never eat 1 single type of meat in huge amounts by itself, you would probably eat it alongside something else which will change how your body digests that food item. You understand that studies that force people to eat huge amounts of one item is probably going to result in seeing results that aren't good for the body. But you also understand anyone who partakes in the primal diet has a variety of items they eat. They eat heart, liver, tongue, steak, eggs, and so on. These items makeup what one item by itself would do.

People eat spinach because in some cases that provitamin A benefits their dietary needs even if they don't like the taste per se. Same way when a lot of people in the primal diet start out feeling sick by it, it normally changes over time and most people change their taste-buds by exposure to those items. It's not the 'best' item to eat in the same eating a sirloin steak every day is not the 'best' item to eat. You're meant to eat a diverse diet. Whatever you define by diverse is up to each person, but the conclusion that certain food items are bad based almost solely off of flawed research is a waste of the reader's time but also the waste of your time writing about it.

Diverse? We humans are not meant to eat diverse, we are hyper carnivores in nature, which means we ate 80-90% meat, saturated fats are good for you, cholesterol is demonised for no reason, it is the backbone molecule for every cell of our body, every hormones are made up of cholesterol, ur brain is made up of 60% cholesterol, meat, fruits, dairy and organs are the healthiest diet. LDL cholesterol is the worst way to determine heart diseases or artheroclerosis, actually polly unsaturated fatty acid cause artheroclerosis.

Meats are antioxidants too, contains more vitamin a, haem iron than spinach, so why should u eat spinach? To determine heart diseases, u need to check oxidised ldl or lipid peroxidation, though meat increases ldl cholesterol, it lowers oxidised ldl, which is vice versa for other so called “healthy fats” present in plants which contain exessive amounts of linoleic acid. Also tell me what nutrients does vegetables have which is not present in meat.

 

[neymar]

Don't carrot make u tan

You would need extreme large amounts..

 

[Methodical]

Diverse? We humans are not meant to eat diverse, we are hyper carnivores in nature, which means we ate 80-90% meat, saturated fats are good for you, cholesterol is demonised for no reason, it is the backbone molecule for every cell of our body, every hormones are made up of cholesterol, ur brain is made up of 60% cholesterol, meat, fruits, dairy and organs are the healthiest diet. LDL cholesterol is the worst way to determine heart diseases or artheroclerosis, actually polly unsaturated fatty acid cause artheroclerosis.

Meats are antioxidants too, contains more vitamin a, haem iron than spinach, so why should u eat spinach? To determine heart diseases, u need to check oxidised ldl or lipid peroxidation, though meat increases ldl cholesterol, it lowers oxidised ldl, which is vice versa for other so called “healthy fats” present in plants which contain exessive amounts of linoleic acid. Also tell me what nutrients does vegetables have which is not present in meat.

Seems like you misunderstood what I said.

A primal/carnivore diet is still 'diverse' because it has a large variety of items you can eat.

I wasn't actually making a point about LDL, I was just saying that I could do what you do which is bring up junk research to make a point about an issue that doesn't commonly exist.

 

[Currycelloser]

Seems like you misunderstood what I said.

A primal/carnivore diet is still 'diverse' because it has a large variety of items you can eat.

I wasn't actually making a point about LDL, I was just saying that I could do what you do which is bring up junk research to make a point about an issue that doesn't commonly exist.

Yea but why eat vegetables? Like meat has everything better than vegetables, u say we eat it for variety, but we already have variety, meat, organs, dairy, fruits. We were never meant vegetables, most vegetables that we eat now never existed in nature

 

[Methodical]

Yea but why eat vegetables? Like meat has everything better than vegetables, u say we eat it for variety, but we already have variety, meat, organs, dairy, fruits. We were never meant vegetables, most vegetables that we eat now never existed in nature

Most people eat it because they want to. It's a personal choice like being a carnivore is. You can make an argument for the carnivore diet, as most people here do, but using incorrect science about the vegetables you dislike is what I'm arguing against. I'm not anti-carnivore, I just personally don't follow it. My issue was arguing why you determined why something was 'bad' - I felt like your reasoning for why you disliked it was incorrect. And I still feel like it's incorrect even with clarification.

I'm not here to argue whether or not people should eat vegetables in general because that's a fool's errand.

 

[Currycelloser]

Most people eat it because they want to. It's a personal choice like being a carnivore is. You can make an argument for the carnivore diet, as most people here do, but using incorrect science about the vegetables you dislike is what I'm arguing against. I'm not anti-carnivore, I just personally don't follow it. My issue was arguing why you determined why something was 'bad' - I felt like your reasoning for why you disliked it was incorrect. And I still feel like it's incorrect even with clarification.

I'm not here to argue whether or not people should eat vegetables in general because that's a fool's errand.

Most people eat more veggies than meat thinking it’s healthier