Lifefuel / Motivation why is nutrition the most misunderstood topic on this thread

[blanquita444]

Humans are flexible facultative carnivores

Aight bro js call me when you get e coli

 

[blanquita444]

Btw if we were "more carnivore" we would have more canines but we have almost all flat teeth

 

[Nihilus]

Btw if we were "more carnivore" we would have more canines but we have almost all flat teeth

we dont have flat teeth lmao , they are rigid to crush bones

Aight bro js call me when you get e coli

e.coli is already in your gut

holy normie @Mandy?

 

[Mandy?]

we dont have flat teeth lmao , they are rigid to crush bones


e.coli is already in your gut

holy normie @Mandy?

It’s genuinely people like these that follow mainstream biology,rely on articles and science but don’t do their own research on different approaches that can’t give advice.

 

[blanquita444]

It’s genuinely people like these that follow mainstream biology,rely on articles and science but don’t do their own research on different approaches that can’t give advice.

"mainstream biology" holy cage its science

 

[Nihilus]

It’s genuinely people like these that follow mainstream biology,rely on articles and science but don’t do their own research on different approaches that can’t give advice.

biology does not say that we're omnivores . litreally
i'll make a thread abt this

 

[blanquita444]

biology does not say that we're omnivores . litreally
i'll make a thread abt this

 

[Mandy?]

"mainstream biology" holy cage its science

Once a majority walks the rest walks with the majority,it dosen’t matter if you’re completely in the wrong. You should always do your own research and make own experiment's to see how your diet can be optimal from different approaches rather than just one. Also it’s a poor thing to describe,meantream biology≠confirmed science.

 

[Mandy?]

View attachment 162330

You shouldn’t speak on this,

 

[blanquita444]

You shouldn’t speak on this,

Why

 

[Mandy?]

Why

Because searching up “are humans carnivores” on google is not an efficient respond,that’s literal downright normie basic shit. Almost like basically searching up your symptom. The arguments that are visible are also very weak because Gorillas have fangs but they’re not carnivores aren’t they? They use their large canines for domination and biting on combat. Since humans started using tools to hunt our natural selection removed the need of a natural attack mechanism.

 

[blanquita444]

Because searching up “are humans carnivores” on google is not an efficient respond,that’s literal downright normie basic shit. Almost like basically searching up your symptom. The arguments that are visible are also very weak because Gorillas have fangs but they’re not carnivores aren’t they? They use their large canines for domination and biting on combat. Since humans started using tools to hunt our natural selection removed the need of a natural attack mechanism.

yeah but if we ate only meat we would only have canines so its a dumb argument

 

[Mandy?]

yeah but if we ate only meat we would only have canines so its a dumb argument

No carnivore only had canines I don’t know how you got that from. The only animal I know that has sharp teeth all over are sharks and some fish. Our incisors have more than capacity to properly pull off meat. Our digestive tract is also much shorter compared to if you look at other great apes which are mainly herbivores.


We also simply lack fermentive gut flora to break down fiber.

 

[Mandy?]

yeah but if we ate only meat we would only have canines so its a dumb argument

Yours is also a very dumb argument, the canines are primarily a weapon not designed to help you eat better.

 

[blanquita444]

Yours is also a very dumb argument, the canines are primarily a weapon not designed to help you eat better.

dont u eat raw meat tho

 

[Mandy?]

dont u eat raw meat tho

I don’t,I’m against it. It still dosen’t get rid of the fact that the human digestive system isn’t designed to consume a high fiber diet or a plant based one. Fish,Dairy,Eggs and Red meat (all cooked) are big components consisting of 60% of it.

 

[blanquita444]

I don’t,I’m against it. It still dosen’t get rid of the fact that the human digestive system isn’t designed to consume a high fiber diet or a plant based one. Fish,Dairy,Eggs and Red meat (all cooked) are big components consisting of 60% of it.

cool

 

[holy]

I also want to ask why you find vegetables important since fruits and the juices are in my opinion minerally richer.

provide unique compounds and nutrients that fruits and fruit juices alone cannot cover, especially fiber types, phytochemicals like sulforaphane, and higher concentrations of certain minerals.

fruits complement them, but they don’t replace them.

Vegetables are absolutely useless, absolutely

false.

they provide essential nutrients and bioactive compounds (like vitamin c, vitamin k1, folate, and phytochemicals) that animal products lack in sufficient amounts. these aren’t optional. without them, deficiency and long-term disease risk increases.

Fiber is absolutely useless and a waste product

also false.

it regulates bowel movements, lowers cholesterol, stabilizes blood sugar, and feeds gut bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids crucial for colon health.

if fiber were “waste,” populations consuming high-fiber diets wouldn’t consistently show lower rates of colon cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. jesus fucking christ lmfao

no facultative carnivore in nature eats fiber to "help with digestion"

nihilus, we're not carnivores.

humans are not cats or wolves. humans evolved with a mixed diet that included high fiber intake from roots, tubers, grains, and plants. our long colon and gut microbiota are adapted to ferment fiber, producing beneficial compounds.

Naturally you have fat to lubricate your intestines

biologically wrong. fat digestion happens in the small intestine and is absorbed, not left to “lubricate" (tf). fiber (not fat) is what bulks stool and prevents constipation.

also, if you want the evidence for any of the claims i made, feel free to ask for them.

 

[holy]

biology does not say that we're omnivores . litreally

again, false.

biology and anthropology classify humans as facultative omnivores. this is based on:

1. anatomy (teeth, digestive tract)
2. physiology (ability to digest both plant and animal foods)
3, and evolutionary evidence (early humans ate a mix of meat, tubers, fruits, nuts, and other plant foods).

humans cannot survive long-term on raw meat alone, and many essential nutrients (vitamin c, fiber, certain phytochemicals) are only reliably obtained from plants.

does not say that we're omnivores .

hundreds of studies in evolutionary biology, comparative anatomy, and nutrition science disagree. humans are omnivorous by design, even if not obligate like true carnivores.

i'll make a thread abt this

you'd need conclusive evidence that humans can survive, thrive, and reproduce long-term on an exclusively plant or exclusively animal diet, while showing the alternative is impossible. this is basically biologically impossible lol.
1. again, humans have teeth, digestive enzymes, and gut microbiota adapted to both plant and animal foods. claiming we’re strictly carnivores or strictly herbivores ignores evolutionary anatomy.
2. nutrients like vitamin c, fiber, and certain phytochemicals cannot be obtained from an exclusive animal diet without supplementation. conversely, vitamin b12, heme iron, and certain amino acids cannot be reliably obtained from an exclusive plant diet without fortification.
3. any “proof” would require long-term population-level studies of humans surviving on a single food type, which don’t exist because humans evolved as omnivores.

you'd be trying to fight thousands of years of evolutionary, anatomical, and nutritional evidence with an argument that can’t be tested in reality jfl

an accurate analogy of what your thread would be would be like trying to prove fish aren’t adapted to water by only showing one fish in a desert lmfaoo

 

[blanquita444]

again, false.

biology and anthropology classify humans as facultative omnivores. this is based on:

1. anatomy (teeth, digestive tract)
2. physiology (ability to digest both plant and animal foods)
3, and evolutionary evidence (early humans ate a mix of meat, tubers, fruits, nuts, and other plant foods).

humans cannot survive long-term on raw meat alone, and many essential nutrients (vitamin c, fiber, certain phytochemicals) are only reliably obtained from plants.



hundreds of studies in evolutionary biology, comparative anatomy, and nutrition science disagree. humans are omnivorous by design, even if not obligate like true carnivores.



you'd need conclusive evidence that humans can survive, thrive, and reproduce long-term on an exclusively plant or exclusively animal diet, while showing the alternative is impossible. this is basically biologically impossible lol.
1. again, humans have teeth, digestive enzymes, and gut microbiota adapted to both plant and animal foods. claiming we’re strictly carnivores or strictly herbivores ignores evolutionary anatomy.
2. nutrients like vitamin c, fiber, and certain phytochemicals cannot be obtained from an exclusive animal diet without supplementation. conversely, vitamin b12, heme iron, and certain amino acids cannot be reliably obtained from an exclusive plant diet without fortification.
3. any “proof” would require long-term population-level studies of humans surviving on a single food type, which don’t exist because humans evolved as omnivores.

you'd be trying to fight thousands of years of evolutionary, anatomical, and nutritional evidence with an argument that can’t be tested in reality jfl

an accurate analogy of what your thread would be would be like trying to prove fish aren’t adapted to water by only showing one fish in a desert lmfaoo

i love you bhai

 

[Nihilus]

they provide essential nutrients and bioactive compounds (like vitamin c, vitamin k1, folate, and phytochemicals) that animal products lack in sufficient amounts. these aren’t optional. without them, deficiency and long-term disease risk increases

k1 is useless for the body and you need to convert it to k2 , which you can get directly from animal foods
folate absorption is easier from animal foods thats why you need way less ( it exists as a Monoglutamate ) while plant folate is a Polyglutamate that is harder to digest and absorb ( furthermore the fiber makes it harder )
you get vitamin C from fruits
there are no essential phytochemicals , literally none

it regulates bowel movements, lowers cholesterol, stabilizes blood sugar, and feeds gut bacteria that produce short-chain fatty acids crucial for colon health.

you dont understand what you're saying , there is no direct causation in all of this btw
you get the short chain fatty acids directly from fat , you nourish your gut microbiom (the right bacteria ) with raw animal foods not cellulose

nihilus, we're not carnivores.

humans are not cats or wolves. humans evolved with a mixed diet that included high fiber intake from roots, tubers, grains, and plants. our long colon and gut microbiota are adapted to ferment fiber, producing beneficial compounds.

humans are facultative carnivores , for the most of our history we were hypercarnivores even and we didnt eat a diet high in fiber . you're repeating a mainstream myth

 

[Nihilus]

again, false.

biology and anthropology classify humans as facultative omnivores. this is based on:

1. anatomy (teeth, digestive tract)
2. physiology (ability to digest both plant and animal foods)
3, and evolutionary evidence (early humans ate a mix of meat, tubers, fruits, nuts, and other plant foods).

humans cannot survive long-term on raw meat alone, and many essential nutrients (vitamin c, fiber, certain phytochemicals) are only reliably obtained from plants.



hundreds of studies in evolutionary biology, comparative anatomy, and nutrition science disagree. humans are omnivorous by design, even if not obligate like true carnivores.



you'd need conclusive evidence that humans can survive, thrive, and reproduce long-term on an exclusively plant or exclusively animal diet, while showing the alternative is impossible. this is basically biologically impossible lol.
1. again, humans have teeth, digestive enzymes, and gut microbiota adapted to both plant and animal foods. claiming we’re strictly carnivores or strictly herbivores ignores evolutionary anatomy.
2. nutrients like vitamin c, fiber, and certain phytochemicals cannot be obtained from an exclusive animal diet without supplementation. conversely, vitamin b12, heme iron, and certain amino acids cannot be reliably obtained from an exclusive plant diet without fortification.
3. any “proof” would require long-term population-level studies of humans surviving on a single food type, which don’t exist because humans evolved as omnivores.

you'd be trying to fight thousands of years of evolutionary, anatomical, and nutritional evidence with an argument that can’t be tested in reality jfl

an accurate analogy of what your thread would be would be like trying to prove fish aren’t adapted to water by only showing one fish in a desert lmfaoo

i made the thread already
yes we're facultative carnivores = high animal products with occasional fruits ( and plants if starvation )

 

[holy]

k1 is useless

k1 (phylloquinone) is the plant form, k2 (menaquinone) is animal/microbial.

the body can convert k1 → k2 in the liver and gut.

“useless” holy ignorance of biochemistry. k1 contributes to coagulation and bone health before conversion. you can get k2 from animal sources, yes, but ignoring k1 is so retarded because it’s a major dietary source and has independent effects.

folate absorption is easier from animal foods thats why you need way less ( it exists as a Monoglutamate ) while plant folate is a Polyglutamate that is harder to digest and absorb ( furthermore the fiber makes it harder )

yes, plant folate is polyglutamate, animal folate monoglutamate.

your point is cherry-picked: cooking, chewing, and gut enzymes cleave polyglutamates efficiently.

“blocks folate” nonsense.

fiber slows absorption slightly but does not prevent it. a 100 g serving of spinach or broccoli provides 50–60% dv of folate in a form humans absorb fine.

you get vitamin C from fruits

...what?

many vegetables (broccoli, bell peppers, kale, cauliflower) are extremely rich in vitamin C.

the argument that “you can skip vegetables because fruit exists” is a strawman.

there are no essential phytochemicals , literally none

lol, okay.

sulforaphane in broccoli, indole-3-carbinol, polyphenols, carotenoids

all bioactive compounds with documented human health effects. "nonessential" when they are literally crucial for long-term health, reducing oxidative stress, cancer risk, and cardiovascular risk.

your statement is just straight denial of peer-reviewed research like wtf lmfao

you dont understand what you're saying , there is no direct causation is all of this btw

wtf is this dodge?

no fucking shit humans have multiple pathways to produce short-chain fatty acids, but studies repeatedly show that dietary fiber increases:

1. butyrate,
2. propionate,
3, and acetate levels,

which directly feed colonocytes and reduce inflammation.

"you only get SCFAs from fat"

flatly wrong.

fat digestion does not produce SCFAs in the colon. it produces glycerol and fatty acids absorbed in the small intestine.

you get the short chain fatty acids directly from fat , you nourish your gut microbiom (the right bacteria ) with raw animal foods not cellulose

what a fucking cherry pick lmfao.

certain gut bacteria CAN metabolize amino acids and mucins, but this is not equivalent to the diversity of beneficial SCFA-producing bacteria fed by fiber. you cannot argue fiber is useless while ignoring literally thousands of studies linking fiber intake to gut microbial diversity, lower colon cancer risk, and metabolic benefit

humans are facultative carnivores , for the most of our history we were hypercarnivores even and we didnt eat a diet high in fiber . you're repeating a mainstream myth

calling humans “hypercarnivores” for most of history is a fringe hypothesis at best, cherry-picking northern hunter-gatherers.

the overwhelming archeological and isotopic evidence shows a mixed diet including tubers, roots, nuts, fruits, and meat.

humans have a long small intestine and colon capable of fermenting fiber. hypercarnivores (like cats) have a very short colon and no fermentative capacity. humans are anatomically and physiologically nothing like obligate carnivores.

idk why u keep repeating the “we didn’t eat a diet high in fiber” shit because high-fiber foods were staples for the vast majority of humans (roots, tubers, legumes). fiber intake was lower than modern vegan diets but still significant.

claiming fiber is a myth in human evolution is just denialism.

i made the thread already

link it.

 

[Nihilus]

k1 (phylloquinone) is the plant form, k2 (menaquinone) is animal/microbial.

the body can convert k1 → k2 in the liver and gut.

“useless” holy ignorance of biochemistry. k1 contributes to coagulation and bone health before conversion. you can get k2 from animal sources, yes, but ignoring k1 is so retarded because it’s a major dietary source and has independent effects.



yes, plant folate is polyglutamate, animal folate monoglutamate.

your point is cherry-picked: cooking, chewing, and gut enzymes cleave polyglutamates efficiently.

“blocks folate” nonsense.

fiber slows absorption slightly but does not prevent it. a 100 g serving of spinach or broccoli provides 50–60% dv of folate in a form humans absorb fine.



...what?

many vegetables (broccoli, bell peppers, kale, cauliflower) are extremely rich in vitamin C.

the argument that “you can skip vegetables because fruit exists” is a strawman.



lol, okay.

sulforaphane in broccoli, indole-3-carbinol, polyphenols, carotenoids

all bioactive compounds with documented human health effects. "nonessential" when they are literally crucial for long-term health, reducing oxidative stress, cancer risk, and cardiovascular risk.

your statement is just straight denial of peer-reviewed research like wtf lmfao



wtf is this dodge?

no fucking shit humans have multiple pathways to produce short-chain fatty acids, but studies repeatedly show that dietary fiber increases:

1. butyrate,
2. propionate,
3, and acetate levels,

which directly feed colonocytes and reduce inflammation.

"you only get SCFAs from fat"

flatly wrong.

fat digestion does not produce SCFAs in the colon. it produces glycerol and fatty acids absorbed in the small intestine.



what a fucking cherry pick lmfao.

certain gut bacteria CAN metabolize amino acids and mucins, but this is not equivalent to the diversity of beneficial SCFA-producing bacteria fed by fiber. you cannot argue fiber is useless while ignoring literally thousands of studies linking fiber intake to gut microbial diversity, lower colon cancer risk, and metabolic benefit



calling humans “hypercarnivores” for most of history is a fringe hypothesis at best, cherry-picking northern hunter-gatherers.

the overwhelming archeological and isotopic evidence shows a mixed diet including tubers, roots, nuts, fruits, and meat.

humans have a long small intestine and colon capable of fermenting fiber. hypercarnivores (like cats) have a very short colon and no fermentative capacity. humans are anatomically and physiologically nothing like obligate carnivores.

idk why u keep repeating the “we didn’t eat a diet high in fiber” shit because high-fiber foods were staples for the vast majority of humans (roots, tubers, legumes). fiber intake was lower than modern vegan diets but still significant.

claiming fiber is a myth in human evolution is just denialism.



link it.

dude i study biochemistry, i am just too lazy to respond all over . yes ik what k1 does , but K2 can fully substitute for K1 in the coagulation system because Both K1 and K2 are converted into the active cofactor vitamin K hydroquinone (KH₂) for γ-glutamyl carboxylase, the enzyme that activates clotting factors. and yes ik all these pathways you're citing . and most of these phytochemicals are plainly toxic and cause the body to detox . most studies are very flawed btw you'd know if you did read them
there is no "overwhelming evidence" we ate a mixed diet . just narratives..
nevertheless i tagged you in my thread

 

[AJis19]

most diets cherry-pick some “truth” or anecdote, then completely ignore biology, calories, nutrients, or science. some people get temporary results and then use it as an excuse to boast about the specific diet, but they’re often unsustainable and just risky.

I'll make a guide on this soon (even tho some ppl will probably either say it's water or disagree with it for some odd fucking reason) but I'll just lay down the fundamentals:

- protein drives muscle repair and growth, aim for enough every day.
- carbs fuel your brain and training. instead of being a pussy about it, just pick mostly whole sources.
- fats are essential for hormones, brain, and absorption of vitamins, don’t go too low.
- fiber from plants keeps digestion smooth and gut healthy.
- micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) are non-negotiable, eat a variety of vegetables, fruit, eggs, meat, dairy, nuts.
- water is mandatory, dehydration slows everything.
- meal timing matters mostly for training performance
- stick to minimally processed whole foods.
- track, adjust, and be consistent.

that's it.

McDonald's is my happy place

 

[vespertine]

k1 (phylloquinone) is the plant form, k2 (menaquinone) is animal/microbial.

the body can convert k1 → k2 in the liver and gut.

“useless” holy ignorance of biochemistry. k1 contributes to coagulation and bone health before conversion. you can get k2 from animal sources, yes, but ignoring k1 is so retarded because it’s a major dietary source and has independent effects.



yes, plant folate is polyglutamate, animal folate monoglutamate.

your point is cherry-picked: cooking, chewing, and gut enzymes cleave polyglutamates efficiently.

“blocks folate” nonsense.

fiber slows absorption slightly but does not prevent it. a 100 g serving of spinach or broccoli provides 50–60% dv of folate in a form humans absorb fine.



...what?

many vegetables (broccoli, bell peppers, kale, cauliflower) are extremely rich in vitamin C.

the argument that “you can skip vegetables because fruit exists” is a strawman.



lol, okay.

sulforaphane in broccoli, indole-3-carbinol, polyphenols, carotenoids

all bioactive compounds with documented human health effects. "nonessential" when they are literally crucial for long-term health, reducing oxidative stress, cancer risk, and cardiovascular risk.

your statement is just straight denial of peer-reviewed research like wtf lmfao



wtf is this dodge?

no fucking shit humans have multiple pathways to produce short-chain fatty acids, but studies repeatedly show that dietary fiber increases:

1. butyrate,
2. propionate,
3, and acetate levels,

which directly feed colonocytes and reduce inflammation.

"you only get SCFAs from fat"

flatly wrong.

fat digestion does not produce SCFAs in the colon. it produces glycerol and fatty acids absorbed in the small intestine.



what a fucking cherry pick lmfao.

certain gut bacteria CAN metabolize amino acids and mucins, but this is not equivalent to the diversity of beneficial SCFA-producing bacteria fed by fiber. you cannot argue fiber is useless while ignoring literally thousands of studies linking fiber intake to gut microbial diversity, lower colon cancer risk, and metabolic benefit



calling humans “hypercarnivores” for most of history is a fringe hypothesis at best, cherry-picking northern hunter-gatherers.

the overwhelming archeological and isotopic evidence shows a mixed diet including tubers, roots, nuts, fruits, and meat.

humans have a long small intestine and colon capable of fermenting fiber. hypercarnivores (like cats) have a very short colon and no fermentative capacity. humans are anatomically and physiologically nothing like obligate carnivores.

idk why u keep repeating the “we didn’t eat a diet high in fiber” shit because high-fiber foods were staples for the vast majority of humans (roots, tubers, legumes). fiber intake was lower than modern vegan diets but still significant.

claiming fiber is a myth in human evolution is just denialism.



link it.

good stuff but calling phytochemicals essential is ridiculous. there's associations between fruits and vegetables and better health outcomes, but how do you attribute those to the phytochemicals? isolated extracts of things like anthocyanins or sulforaphane don't show strong benefits. of course, a pill is different than a whole vegetable.

 

[blanquita444]

k1 (phylloquinone) is the plant form, k2 (menaquinone) is animal/microbial.

the body can convert k1 → k2 in the liver and gut.

“useless” holy ignorance of biochemistry. k1 contributes to coagulation and bone health before conversion. you can get k2 from animal sources, yes, but ignoring k1 is so retarded because it’s a major dietary source and has independent effects.



yes, plant folate is polyglutamate, animal folate monoglutamate.

your point is cherry-picked: cooking, chewing, and gut enzymes cleave polyglutamates efficiently.

“blocks folate” nonsense.

fiber slows absorption slightly but does not prevent it. a 100 g serving of spinach or broccoli provides 50–60% dv of folate in a form humans absorb fine.



...what?

many vegetables (broccoli, bell peppers, kale, cauliflower) are extremely rich in vitamin C.

the argument that “you can skip vegetables because fruit exists” is a strawman.



lol, okay.

sulforaphane in broccoli, indole-3-carbinol, polyphenols, carotenoids

all bioactive compounds with documented human health effects. "nonessential" when they are literally crucial for long-term health, reducing oxidative stress, cancer risk, and cardiovascular risk.

your statement is just straight denial of peer-reviewed research like wtf lmfao



wtf is this dodge?

no fucking shit humans have multiple pathways to produce short-chain fatty acids, but studies repeatedly show that dietary fiber increases:

1. butyrate,
2. propionate,
3, and acetate levels,

which directly feed colonocytes and reduce inflammation.

"you only get SCFAs from fat"

flatly wrong.

fat digestion does not produce SCFAs in the colon. it produces glycerol and fatty acids absorbed in the small intestine.



what a fucking cherry pick lmfao.

certain gut bacteria CAN metabolize amino acids and mucins, but this is not equivalent to the diversity of beneficial SCFA-producing bacteria fed by fiber. you cannot argue fiber is useless while ignoring literally thousands of studies linking fiber intake to gut microbial diversity, lower colon cancer risk, and metabolic benefit



calling humans “hypercarnivores” for most of history is a fringe hypothesis at best, cherry-picking northern hunter-gatherers.

the overwhelming archeological and isotopic evidence shows a mixed diet including tubers, roots, nuts, fruits, and meat.

humans have a long small intestine and colon capable of fermenting fiber. hypercarnivores (like cats) have a very short colon and no fermentative capacity. humans are anatomically and physiologically nothing like obligate carnivores.

idk why u keep repeating the “we didn’t eat a diet high in fiber” shit because high-fiber foods were staples for the vast majority of humans (roots, tubers, legumes). fiber intake was lower than modern vegan diets but still significant.

claiming fiber is a myth in human evolution is just denialism.



link it.

Clockk itttt

 

[vespertine]

good stuff but calling phytochemicals essential is ridiculous. there's associations between fruits and vegetables and better health outcomes, but how do you attribute those to the phytochemicals? isolated extracts of things like anthocyanins or sulforaphane don't show strong benefits. of course, a pill is different than a whole vegetable.

good thing i cook with garlic often so i won't drop dead of allicin deficiency

 

[Nihilus]

good thing i cook with garlic often so i won't drop dead of allicin deficiency

Allicin is literally toxic , literally
It kills the cells directly
It forces your body to do a detox

 

[vespertine]

Allicin is literally toxic , literally
It kills the cells directly
It forces your body to do a detox

n***a is about to argue its beneficial via hormesis

 

[Nihilus]

n***a is about to argue its beneficial via hormesis

Completely anti-science btw , or at least in the nature of the narrative

 

[Nihilus]

n***a is about to argue its beneficial via hormesis

Only natural Hormesis is good : walking and moving , playing , weather adaptation ect
Not dumping toxins and lifting metal up and down or plunging in ice water

 

[JeezyTheSnowman]

most diets cherry-pick some “truth” or anecdote, then completely ignore biology, calories, nutrients, or science. some people get temporary results and then use it as an excuse to boast about the specific diet, but they’re often unsustainable and just risky.

I'll make a guide on this soon (even tho some ppl will probably either say it's water or disagree with it for some odd fucking reason) but I'll just lay down the fundamentals:

- protein drives muscle repair and growth, aim for enough every day.
- carbs fuel your brain and training. instead of being a pussy about it, just pick mostly whole sources.
- fats are essential for hormones, brain, and absorption of vitamins, don’t go too low.
- fiber from plants keeps digestion smooth and gut healthy.
- micronutrients (vitamins and minerals) are non-negotiable, eat a variety of vegetables, fruit, eggs, meat, dairy, nuts.
- water is mandatory, dehydration slows everything.
- meal timing matters mostly for training performance
- stick to minimally processed whole foods.
- track, adjust, and be consistent.

that's it.

@miljar @Lemontree thoughts on fiber?

 

[Lemontree]

@miljar @Lemontree thoughts on fiber?

it’s not that important also I’ll at milk jar cuz you spelled it wrong @milkjar

 

[milkjar]

it’s not that important also I’ll at milk jar cuz you spelled it wrong @milkjar

i've said my thoughts before, people ignore the countless nutrients in the carnivore diet and just dismiss it with muh fiber

 

[Currycelloser]

humans quite literally olved eating both fiber types. insoluble fiber is critical for stool bulk, colon health, and reducing risk of diverticulosis and colon cancer.

prove it???

the innuits and isotope studies showed homo sapiens ate 90% meat, we wouldnt have survived the ice age if it werent for meat

 

[Currycelloser]

antinutrients (oxalates, lectins, tannins, etc.) ONLY pose issues in extreme, restrictive diets. for the general population, diverse plant intake is safe and protective. many antinutrients also act as antioxidants and reduce chronic disease risk.

plant antinutrients has shown to disrupt the NFKB pathway, i actually had a gut infammatory issue when i was young due to lectins

 

[holy]

good stuff but calling phytochemicals essential is ridiculous. there's associations between fruits and vegetables and better health outcomes, but how do you attribute those to the phytochemicals? isolated extracts of things like anthocyanins or sulforaphane don't show strong benefits. of course, a pill is different than a whole vegetable.

1. kind of a sleight of hand move, which is pretending “not essential = irrelevant.” that’s false. oxygen isn’t an “essential nutrient” either, because you don’t list it on a nutrition label, but good luck thriving without it lmfao. this is the same with phytochemicals: they’re not “essential for survival in the short term." no one made that claim. but the whole point is long-term disease risk reduction. that’s where the evidence is.

2:

isolated extracts of things like anthocyanins or sulforaphane don't show strong benefits.

this is misleading. you could say the same about vitamin E or beta-carotene supplements, which often fail in trials when pulled out of food matrices. that doesn’t prove the nutrient is useless. It proves food is more than the sum of single molecules in a capsule.

nutrition science is full of synergy effects. for example, sulforaphane’s bioavailability depends on myrosinase activity (an enzyme present in the plant and gut bacteria). If you just swallow a standardized pill without the enzyme, of course you don’t see the same outcome. same for anthocyanins: their metabolites, not the parent compound, are what act in the body, and the metabolic context changes in whole food.

3: epidemiology with little to no information on “associations.” we have mechanistic links. polyphenols modulate NF-κB signaling (that’s inflammation pathways). Indole-3-carbinol shifts estrogen metabolism in humans, which is tied to breast and prostate cancer risk. carotenoids like lutein and zeaxanthin accumulate in the retina and reduce risk of macular degeneration. biochemistry, basically.

I'll basically frame it in this way:

phytochemicals aren’t “essential”

but they’re conditionally important for lowering risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and neurodegeneration.

to dismiss them just because a single isolated extract trial didn’t work is really fucking lazy. by that standard, you’d have to dismiss most of nutrition science.

also, food matrices matter, phytochemicals have measurable bioactive effects, and we’ve got both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence. your “pill vs vegetable” distinction actually strengthens the case for whole plant foods

 

[vespertine]

1. kind of a sleight of hand move, which is pretending “not essential = irrelevant.” that’s false. oxygen isn’t an “essential nutrient” either, because you don’t list it on a nutrition label, but good luck thriving without it lmfao. this is the same with phytochemicals: they’re not “essential for survival in the short term." no one made that claim. but the whole point is long-term disease risk reduction. that’s where the evidence is.

2:


this is misleading. you could say the same about vitamin E or beta-carotene supplements, which often fail in trials when pulled out of food matrices. that doesn’t prove the nutrient is useless. It proves food is more than the sum of single molecules in a capsule.

nutrition science is full of synergy effects. for example, sulforaphane’s bioavailability depends on myrosinase activity (an enzyme present in the plant and gut bacteria). If you just swallow a standardized pill without the enzyme, of course you don’t see the same outcome. same for anthocyanins: their metabolites, not the parent compound, are what act in the body, and the metabolic context changes in whole food.

3: epidemiology with little to no information on “associations.” we have mechanistic links. polyphenols modulate NF-κB signaling (that’s inflammation pathways). Indole-3-carbinol shifts estrogen metabolism in humans, which is tied to breast and prostate cancer risk. carotenoids like lutein and zeaxanthin accumulate in the retina and reduce risk of macular degeneration. biochemistry, basically.

I'll basically frame it in this way:

phytochemicals aren’t “essential”

but they’re conditionally important for lowering risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and neurodegeneration.

to dismiss them just because a single isolated extract trial didn’t work is really fucking lazy. by that standard, you’d have to dismiss most of nutrition science.

also, food matrices matter, phytochemicals have measurable bioactive effects, and we’ve got both epidemiological and mechanistic evidence. your “pill vs vegetable” distinction actually strengthens the case for whole plant foods

well yeah food is more than the sum of a single molecule in a capsule. you must not have seen that i said that.

while your points are fairly airtight, the comparing phytochemicals to oxygen was a stretch. oxygen is required to keep cells alive minute by minute, which phytochemicals don't even come close to. phytochemicals aren't irrelevant, but their health effects are modest, context-dependent, and hard to separate from the rest of ones diet and lifestyle in human data.

they’re bioactive, but whether those mechanisms translate into large, reproducible disease risk reductions is up for debate. they can bind receptors, modulate enzymes, shift pathways, etc. in vitro or in short-term biomarker studies, but look at hard clinical endpoints and the signal is a lot weaker and confounded.

if you're not obese, not smoking, and not a heavy drinker than the relative benefits of ingesting these phytochemicals is far from miraculous. i doubt they'd hurt you as some might suggest, but there is no indication that one is missing out on a great deal.

adjusted cohorts show roughly 5% lower all-cause mortality per daily serving of fruit/vegetables up to ~5/day (~20–25% total). [https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4490?]

the better question is how much of that can be attributed to phytochemicals found in those fruits and vegetables, rather than their mineral/vitamins/other elements.

 

[holy]

the innuits and isotope studies showed homo sapiens ate 90% meat, we wouldnt have survived the ice age if it werent for meat

what the fuck is honestly up with this site and cherry picking shit only favors YOUR agenda???

anyways, the Inuit are an ecological exception. they are certainly not THE ancestral baseline for Homo sapiens. they adapted to a brutally constrained environment where plant food was limited for half the year. that survival strategy doesn’t define the entire species’ evolutionary diet.

the actual isotope evidence across most Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites shows mixed diets: animal protein, yes (no shit), but also tubers, nuts, seeds, and fruits. archeobotanical remains (charred tubers, grinding stones with starch residues) confirm fiber intake was significant. our gut anatomy reinforces that. humans have a long colon relative to body size (longer than true hypercarnivores) and a microbiome specialized in fermenting complex carbs into short-chain fatty acids (butyrate, propionate, acetate).

you don’t keep a colon like that if fiber were irrelevant.

prove it???

Dietary fibre intake and the risk of diverticular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies - European Journal of Nutrition

Background A high intake of dietary fibre has been associated with a reduced risk of diverticular disease in several studies; however, the dose–response relationship between fibre intake and diverticular disease risk has varied, and the available studies have not been summarised in a...

link.springer.com

basically, a large meta-analysis of five prospective cohort studies (865,829 participants) showed that every additional 10 g/day of dietary fiber cut diverticular disease risk by about 26% (relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.71–0.78).

specifically speaking, insoluble fiber demonstrated a strong inverse association with diverticular disease, including cellulose sources like whole grains and vegetables.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316623017923

also, being more broadly, epidemiological evidence consistently links high-fiber diets with lower risks of cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522028131

selective extremes don’t define species.

using Inuit or isolated isotope findings as a universal dietary formula for humans is basically like claiming that because a few can live on fumes, we should all quit eating. evolutionary success hinges on flexibility. this has been shown so many times.

plant antinutrients has shown to disrupt the NFKB pathway, i actually had a gut infammatory issue when i was young due to lectins

two issues here.

1. anecdotes about childhood gut issues don’t generalize to population-level nutrition. some people are sensitive to lectins (or gluten, or lactose). that doesn’t make the compounds broadly toxic. By that logic, we’d ban peanuts because some kids go into anaphylaxis.

anecdote ≠ evidence. no, I'm not saying biological individuality don't exist, but it doesn’t get to rewrite population-wide outcomes.


2.

plant antinutrients has shown to disrupt the NFKB pathway

selective reading.

NF-κB is a transcription factor involved in inflammation. some plant compounds can modulate it, but often the effect is inhibition and not activation. things like polyphenols, tannins, and flavonoids downregulate NF-κB signaling, reducing inflammatory cytokines. that’s why diets rich in these compounds are associated with lower CRP (C-reactive protein, a systemic inflammation marker).

even “antinutrients” like tannins and phytic acid have dual roles. phytate, for example, reduces mineral absorption slightly, but it’s also a potent antioxidant and has anti-cancer properties. lectins, when cooked properly (beans, grains), are largely inactivated. If you eat raw kidney beans, yes, you’ll get gut problems.

but humans figured out fire and cooking a while ago.

https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/37/7/769/7913091

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/089158499090146A

 

[Nihilus]

what the fuck is honestly up with this site and cherry picking shit only favors YOUR agenda???

anyways, the Inuit are an ecological exception. they are certainly not THE ancestral baseline for Homo sapiens. they adapted to a brutally constrained environment where plant food was limited for half the year. that survival strategy doesn’t define the entire species’ evolutionary diet.

the actual isotope evidence across most Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites shows mixed diets: animal protein, yes (no shit), but also tubers, nuts, seeds, and fruits. archeobotanical remains (charred tubers, grinding stones with starch residues) confirm fiber intake was significant. our gut anatomy reinforces that. humans have a long colon relative to body size (longer than true hypercarnivores) and a microbiome specialized in fermenting complex carbs into short-chain fatty acids (butyrate, propionate, acetate).

you don’t keep a colon like that if fiber were irrelevant.

Dietary fibre intake and the risk of diverticular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies - European Journal of Nutrition

Background A high intake of dietary fibre has been associated with a reduced risk of diverticular disease in several studies; however, the dose–response relationship between fibre intake and diverticular disease risk has varied, and the available studies have not been summarised in a...

link.springer.com

View attachment 162690
View attachment 162691

basically, a large meta-analysis of five prospective cohort studies (865,829 participants) showed that every additional 10 g/day of dietary fiber cut diverticular disease risk by about 26% (relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.71–0.78).

specifically speaking, insoluble fiber demonstrated a strong inverse association with diverticular disease, including cellulose sources like whole grains and vegetables.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316623017923

also, being more broadly, epidemiological evidence consistently links high-fiber diets with lower risks of cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522028131

selective extremes don’t define species.

using Inuit or isolated isotope findings as a universal dietary formula for humans is basically like claiming that because a few can live on fumes, we should all quit eating. evolutionary success hinges on flexibility. this has been shown so many times.



two issues here.

1. anecdotes about childhood gut issues don’t generalize to population-level nutrition. some people are sensitive to lectins (or gluten, or lactose). that doesn’t make the compounds broadly toxic. By that logic, we’d ban peanuts because some kids go into anaphylaxis.

anecdote ≠ evidence. no, I'm not saying biological individuality don't exist, but it doesn’t get to rewrite population-wide outcomes.


2.


selective reading.

NF-κB is a transcription factor involved in inflammation. some plant compounds can modulate it, but often the effect is inhibition and not activation. things like polyphenols, tannins, and flavonoids downregulate NF-κB signaling, reducing inflammatory cytokines. that’s why diets rich in these compounds are associated with lower CRP (C-reactive protein, a systemic inflammation marker).

even “antinutrients” like tannins and phytic acid have dual roles. phytate, for example, reduces mineral absorption slightly, but it’s also a potent antioxidant and has anti-cancer properties. lectins, when cooked properly (beans, grains), are largely inactivated. If you eat raw kidney beans, yes, you’ll get gut problems.

but humans figured out fire and cooking a while ago.

View attachment 162700

https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/37/7/769/7913091

View attachment 162701

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/089158499090146A

These last studies you sited especially the last one , no clear biochemical pathway and just theorizing that it may do it just because it interferes with iron reactions , helplessly trying to draw a correlation
Vagues studies like this are anti-science and should not be used as proof for anything...

 

[holy]

while your points are fairly airtight, the comparing phytochemicals to oxygen was a stretch. oxygen is required to keep cells alive minute by minute, which phytochemicals don't even come close to.

point taken. kind of realized at the last minute that it was a shitty analogy because it’s acute survival versus chronic risk reduction.

the more precise framing would be: “not essential for short-term survival, but highly relevant for long-term healthspan.”

their health effects are modest, context-dependent, and hard to separate from the rest of ones diet and lifestyle in human data

half-true.

nobody’s denying that nutrition studies can be messy and confounded.

but “modest and context-dependent” doesn’t mean negligible. If the difference between developing colon cancer at 65 versus 75 is “modest,” that’s still a decade of life extension at the population level. public health works on relative risk.

mechanisms translate into large, reproducible disease risk reductions is up for debate.

standard reductionist pushback which ignores where the strongest evidence sits.

whole dietary patterns rich in phytochemical-dense foods instead of single extracts. the Mediterranean diet, DASH, and plant-forward cohorts consistently show lower cardiovascular mortality, cancer incidence, and cognitive decline. no, these aren’t explained away by “just vitamins and minerals” because controlled fortification trials with vitamins don’t reproduce the same protection.

if you're not obese, not smoking, and not a heavy drinker than the relative benefits of ingesting these phytochemicals is far from miraculous. i doubt they'd hurt you as some might suggest, but there is no indication that one is missing out on a great deal.

lmfao why would you shrink nutrition down to “don’t be a fuck-up and you’re fine.” data doesn’t back that.

even in non-smokers with healthy BMIs, fruit and vegetable intake still tracks with lower risk of cardiovascular mortality and neurodegenerative disease.

adjusted cohorts show roughly 5% lower all-cause mortality per daily serving of fruit/vegetables up to ~5/day (~20–25% total). [https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g4490?]

that isn't trivial??? In fact, do you realize how massive that is when applied across populations?

for context, statins reduce all-cause mortality by ~10–15% in secondary prevention.

If vegetables deliver a similar or greater risk reduction WITHOUT side effects, brushing them off is so fucking absurd.

the better question is how much of that can be attributed to phytochemicals found in those fruits and vegetables, rather than their mineral/vitamins/other elements.

absolutely.

and the answer is: we know from intervention studies that it’s not just the vitamins/minerals. vitamin E, beta-carotene, and multivitamin RCTs don’t replicate the epidemiological benefit. whole foods do. that’s precisely why phytochemicals are part of the explanation. they’re key contributors.

 

[Nihilus]

basically, a large meta-analysis of five prospective cohort studies (865,829 participants) showed that every additional 10 g/day of dietary fiber cut diverticular disease risk by about 26% (relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.71–0.78).

Again , drawing correlations . They just have less disease because they eat less slop .
A true revolutionary study would be comparing that average person to society's "healthy" person and to a primal one . And let's see who has less risks of anything

 

[Currycelloser]

what the fuck is honestly up with this site and cherry picking shit only favors YOUR agenda???

anyways, the Inuit are an ecological exception. they are certainly not THE ancestral baseline for Homo sapiens. they adapted to a brutally constrained environment where plant food was limited for half the year. that survival strategy doesn’t define the entire species’ evolutionary diet.

the actual isotope evidence across most Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites shows mixed diets: animal protein, yes (no shit), but also tubers, nuts, seeds, and fruits. archeobotanical remains (charred tubers, grinding stones with starch residues) confirm fiber intake was significant. our gut anatomy reinforces that. humans have a long colon relative to body size (longer than true hypercarnivores) and a microbiome specialized in fermenting complex carbs into short-chain fatty acids (butyrate, propionate, acetate).

you don’t keep a colon like that if fiber were irrelevant.

Dietary fibre intake and the risk of diverticular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies - European Journal of Nutrition

Background A high intake of dietary fibre has been associated with a reduced risk of diverticular disease in several studies; however, the dose–response relationship between fibre intake and diverticular disease risk has varied, and the available studies have not been summarised in a...

link.springer.com

View attachment 162690
View attachment 162691

basically, a large meta-analysis of five prospective cohort studies (865,829 participants) showed that every additional 10 g/day of dietary fiber cut diverticular disease risk by about 26% (relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.71–0.78).

specifically speaking, insoluble fiber demonstrated a strong inverse association with diverticular disease, including cellulose sources like whole grains and vegetables.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316623017923

also, being more broadly, epidemiological evidence consistently links high-fiber diets with lower risks of cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522028131

selective extremes don’t define species.

using Inuit or isolated isotope findings as a universal dietary formula for humans is basically like claiming that because a few can live on fumes, we should all quit eating. evolutionary success hinges on flexibility. this has been shown so many times.



two issues here.

1. anecdotes about childhood gut issues don’t generalize to population-level nutrition. some people are sensitive to lectins (or gluten, or lactose). that doesn’t make the compounds broadly toxic. By that logic, we’d ban peanuts because some kids go into anaphylaxis.

anecdote ≠ evidence. no, I'm not saying biological individuality don't exist, but it doesn’t get to rewrite population-wide outcomes.


2.


selective reading.

NF-κB is a transcription factor involved in inflammation. some plant compounds can modulate it, but often the effect is inhibition and not activation. things like polyphenols, tannins, and flavonoids downregulate NF-κB signaling, reducing inflammatory cytokines. that’s why diets rich in these compounds are associated with lower CRP (C-reactive protein, a systemic inflammation marker).

even “antinutrients” like tannins and phytic acid have dual roles. phytate, for example, reduces mineral absorption slightly, but it’s also a potent antioxidant and has anti-cancer properties. lectins, when cooked properly (beans, grains), are largely inactivated. If you eat raw kidney beans, yes, you’ll get gut problems.

but humans figured out fire and cooking a while ago.

View attachment 162700

https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/37/7/769/7913091

View attachment 162701

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/089158499090146A

-associative studies and epidimiology

u cant make this shit up

 

[Currycelloser]

he Mediterranean diet,

mediterranean diet alwasy had meat and saturated fats btw jfl, japanese eat a lot of red meat and fat and fish btw

 

[Nihilus]

mediterranean diet alwasy had meat and saturated fats btw jfl, japanese eat a lot of red meat and fat and fish btw

Mediterranean diet = grains + meat ( with lots of it raw ) + Raw diary + olive oil + seasonal fruits + and they use some veggies ( like leafs ) to season
They live long because of the low stress , the sun and the raw foods

 

[holy]

Again , drawing correlations . They just have less disease because they eat less slop .
A true revolutionary study would be comparing that average person to society's "healthy" person and to a primal one . And let's see who has less risks of anything

nihilus, I swear to God I am willing to go back and forth with you all day as long as you stop literally inventing strawmen to dodge objective, mechanistically backed, massively powered epidemiological evidence.

like, what the fuck is this???

A true revolutionary study would be comparing that average person to society's "healthy" person and to a primal one . And let's see who has less risks of anything

n***a WHAT???

there is literally NOOO living dataset of prehistoric humans with controlled fiber intake and documented diverticular disease outcomes. why tf would you demand impossible data and use it to dismiss solid, real-world evidence?????

 

[Currycelloser]

what the fuck is honestly up with this site and cherry picking shit only favors YOUR agenda???

anyways, the Inuit are an ecological exception. they are certainly not THE ancestral baseline for Homo sapiens. they adapted to a brutally constrained environment where plant food was limited for half the year. that survival strategy doesn’t define the entire species’ evolutionary diet.

the actual isotope evidence across most Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites shows mixed diets: animal protein, yes (no shit), but also tubers, nuts, seeds, and fruits. archeobotanical remains (charred tubers, grinding stones with starch residues) confirm fiber intake was significant. our gut anatomy reinforces that. humans have a long colon relative to body size (longer than true hypercarnivores) and a microbiome specialized in fermenting complex carbs into short-chain fatty acids (butyrate, propionate, acetate).

you don’t keep a colon like that if fiber were irrelevant.

Dietary fibre intake and the risk of diverticular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies - European Journal of Nutrition

Background A high intake of dietary fibre has been associated with a reduced risk of diverticular disease in several studies; however, the dose–response relationship between fibre intake and diverticular disease risk has varied, and the available studies have not been summarised in a...

link.springer.com

View attachment 162690
View attachment 162691

basically, a large meta-analysis of five prospective cohort studies (865,829 participants) showed that every additional 10 g/day of dietary fiber cut diverticular disease risk by about 26% (relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.71–0.78).

specifically speaking, insoluble fiber demonstrated a strong inverse association with diverticular disease, including cellulose sources like whole grains and vegetables.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316623017923

also, being more broadly, epidemiological evidence consistently links high-fiber diets with lower risks of cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522028131

selective extremes don’t define species.

using Inuit or isolated isotope findings as a universal dietary formula for humans is basically like claiming that because a few can live on fumes, we should all quit eating. evolutionary success hinges on flexibility. this has been shown so many times.



two issues here.

1. anecdotes about childhood gut issues don’t generalize to population-level nutrition. some people are sensitive to lectins (or gluten, or lactose). that doesn’t make the compounds broadly toxic. By that logic, we’d ban peanuts because some kids go into anaphylaxis.

anecdote ≠ evidence. no, I'm not saying biological individuality don't exist, but it doesn’t get to rewrite population-wide outcomes.


2.


selective reading.

NF-κB is a transcription factor involved in inflammation. some plant compounds can modulate it, but often the effect is inhibition and not activation. things like polyphenols, tannins, and flavonoids downregulate NF-κB signaling, reducing inflammatory cytokines. that’s why diets rich in these compounds are associated with lower CRP (C-reactive protein, a systemic inflammation marker).

even “antinutrients” like tannins and phytic acid have dual roles. phytate, for example, reduces mineral absorption slightly, but it’s also a potent antioxidant and has anti-cancer properties. lectins, when cooked properly (beans, grains), are largely inactivated. If you eat raw kidney beans, yes, you’ll get gut problems.

but humans figured out fire and cooking a while ago.

View attachment 162700

https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/37/7/769/7913091

View attachment 162701

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/089158499090146A

Total Meat Intake is Associated with Life Expectancy: A Cross-Sectional Data Analysis of 175 Contemporary Populations - PMC

The association between a plant-based diet (vegetarianism) and extended life span is increasingly criticised since it may be based on the lack of representative data and insufficient removal of confounders such as lifestyles. We examined the ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Meat and Nicotinamide: A Causal Role in Human Evolution, History, and Demographics - PMC

Hunting for meat was a critical step in all animal and human evolution. A key brain-trophic element in meat is vitamin B3 / nicotinamide. The supply of meat and nicotinamide steadily increased from the Cambrian origin of animal predators ratcheting ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

• The Inuit of the Canadian Arctic thrived on fish, seal, walrus and whale meat.
• The Chukotka of the Russian Arctic lived on caribou meat, marine animals and fish.
• The Masai, Samburu, and Rendille warriors of East Africa survived on diets consisting primarily of milk and meat.
• The steppe nomads of Mongolia ate mostly meat and dairy products.
• The Sioux of South Dakota enjoyed a diet of buffalo meat.
• The Brazilian Gauchos nourished themselves with beef.

keep coping boyo

 

[Nihilus]

n***a WHAT???

there is literally NOOO living dataset of prehistoric humans with controlled fiber intake and documented diverticular disease outcomes. why tf would you demand impossible data and use it to dismiss solid, real-world evidence?????

I meant ppl on the primal diet , rn...

nihilus, I swear to God I am willing to go back and forth with you all day as long as you stop literally inventing strawmen to dodge objective, mechanistically backed, massively powered epidemiological evidence.

I did read the study , it's very non-convincing
How am I strawmen-ing anything? I said Epidemiology is a very low tier type of evidence. Is vaguely draws correlations
You can literally draw correlations on anything. It's not about the fiber , phytochemicals ect you name it . It's about the overall life choices for that individual.
There's decreased mortality risk because ppl ( who get more fiber ) eat less slop , move more ect
The same epidemiological studies say meat cause decease because these ppl ( the average person ) eat meat with a high inflammatory diet that's why they get decease
Yk what bro , I'll make a thread about how epidemiology is the astrology of science. We'll discuss further there when I do

 

[Currycelloser]

what the fuck is honestly up with this site and cherry picking shit only favors YOUR agenda???

anyways, the Inuit are an ecological exception. they are certainly not THE ancestral baseline for Homo sapiens. they adapted to a brutally constrained environment where plant food was limited for half the year. that survival strategy doesn’t define the entire species’ evolutionary diet.

the actual isotope evidence across most Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites shows mixed diets: animal protein, yes (no shit), but also tubers, nuts, seeds, and fruits. archeobotanical remains (charred tubers, grinding stones with starch residues) confirm fiber intake was significant. our gut anatomy reinforces that. humans have a long colon relative to body size (longer than true hypercarnivores) and a microbiome specialized in fermenting complex carbs into short-chain fatty acids (butyrate, propionate, acetate).

you don’t keep a colon like that if fiber were irrelevant.

Dietary fibre intake and the risk of diverticular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies - European Journal of Nutrition

Background A high intake of dietary fibre has been associated with a reduced risk of diverticular disease in several studies; however, the dose–response relationship between fibre intake and diverticular disease risk has varied, and the available studies have not been summarised in a...

link.springer.com

View attachment 162690
View attachment 162691

basically, a large meta-analysis of five prospective cohort studies (865,829 participants) showed that every additional 10 g/day of dietary fiber cut diverticular disease risk by about 26% (relative risk [RR] = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.71–0.78).

specifically speaking, insoluble fiber demonstrated a strong inverse association with diverticular disease, including cellulose sources like whole grains and vegetables.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316623017923

also, being more broadly, epidemiological evidence consistently links high-fiber diets with lower risks of cancer, cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and obesity.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002916522028131

selective extremes don’t define species.

using Inuit or isolated isotope findings as a universal dietary formula for humans is basically like claiming that because a few can live on fumes, we should all quit eating. evolutionary success hinges on flexibility. this has been shown so many times.



two issues here.

1. anecdotes about childhood gut issues don’t generalize to population-level nutrition. some people are sensitive to lectins (or gluten, or lactose). that doesn’t make the compounds broadly toxic. By that logic, we’d ban peanuts because some kids go into anaphylaxis.

anecdote ≠ evidence. no, I'm not saying biological individuality don't exist, but it doesn’t get to rewrite population-wide outcomes.


2.


selective reading.

NF-κB is a transcription factor involved in inflammation. some plant compounds can modulate it, but often the effect is inhibition and not activation. things like polyphenols, tannins, and flavonoids downregulate NF-κB signaling, reducing inflammatory cytokines. that’s why diets rich in these compounds are associated with lower CRP (C-reactive protein, a systemic inflammation marker).

even “antinutrients” like tannins and phytic acid have dual roles. phytate, for example, reduces mineral absorption slightly, but it’s also a potent antioxidant and has anti-cancer properties. lectins, when cooked properly (beans, grains), are largely inactivated. If you eat raw kidney beans, yes, you’ll get gut problems.

but humans figured out fire and cooking a while ago.

View attachment 162700

https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/37/7/769/7913091

View attachment 162701

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/089158499090146A

citing mechanistic studies jfl, also the study said phytic acid 'may' prevent against cancer, again there is no proof