Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I do not claim it is, I just gave the source as an example of a better wording - "associated".Coronary artery calcium scores aren't necessarily indicative of cardiovascular disease risk. Calcified plaques are sometimes more stable than those that aren't calcified.
Not agreeing - as long as there is nothing proven, just opinions, its OK they do not agree. Appealing to the majority is a logical fallacy. Facts are what matters.The funny thing is that most nutritionists and most MD's including the mainstream medical websites like Mayo Clinic doesn't agree with your exceptionally expensive dietary preference.
I would not call my diet a carnivore diet, I am somewhere between keto and carnivore. Berries contain about 7grams of sugar per 100grams, I eat daily or every other day about 50 grams, which is about 3.5 sugars a day, which is hardly something to even talk about in this context.The things you keep saying, you yourself don't follow. You supplement your "carnivore diet" with berries which contains sugar, carbs, and fiber because the true carnivore diet is giving your problems.
Which is irrelevant from the nutritional standpoint. Poor people have poor diets, thats the nature of things. Good things are frequently more expensive than low quality things.Even most experts say that a carnivore diet is unrealistic simply due to the fact most people around the world can't afford the diet due to high cost.
This is just repeating your previous two points - appeal to majority and arguing from your personal economic standpoint.Even if most experts are lying and there's a conspiracy at hand against the carnivore diet, most people really have no choice because the "perfect" carnivore diet is unaffordable to most people. The rest of us just have to adapt won't we? Find alternatives, fill the gaps with exercise for example. At least exercise is free. I'll run barefoot on the streets if I have to.
Coronary artery calcium scores aren't necessarily indicative of cardiovascular disease risk.
The funny thing is that most nutritionists and most MD's including the mainstream medical websites like Mayo Clinic doesn't agree with your exceptionally expensive dietary preference.
The things you keep saying, you yourself don't follow. You supplement your "carnivore diet" with berries which contains sugar, carbs, and fiber because the true carnivore diet is giving your problems.
Even most experts say that a carnivore diet is unrealistic simply due to the fact most people around the world can't afford the diet due to high cost.
Even if most experts are lying and there's a conspiracy at hand against the carnivore diet, most people really have no choice because the "perfect" carnivore diet is unaffordable to most people. The rest of us just have to adapt won't we? Find alternatives, fill the gaps with exercise for example. At least exercise is free. I'll run barefoot on the streets if I have to.
If its "exceptionally expensive" - thats hard to define, its dependent on one's location and financial situation. Its almost always cheaper than medical treatments related to bad diets, so, this is quite subjective.
Did you not say you had a trouble eating meat/saturated fats (it was giving you gout), and thats why you eat plants?If a person has trouble consuming plant foods, they need need to see a gastroenterologist. Avoiding otherwise healthy foods because you have GI problems seems counterproductive, and won't result in improved health long term.
I am not ordering you what to eat. Eat what you can or want. I do not know why you take everything personally.Cheaper doesn't always mean affordable.
If me and my mom would switch to carnivore diet, we'd at least be at a $300 deficit per month. $300 maybe chump change for you but for me, it's over half of my monthly salary already.
And by deficit, I mean negative and if we have some savings in the bank, that means depleting our savings. If we go on a carnivore diet for 1 year, we'd be at a significant debt.
Dealing with additional financial stress trying to cope with an expensive diet would probably cut our lives shorter and negate all the "hypothetical, imaginary or even placebo" benefits we may get from a carnivore diet.
Ironically, if more people would get onboard the carnivore diet, it will only drive prices of meat even higher.
This is why experts are criticizing the carnivore diet as unsustainable or even "elitist". If most people would be gullible enough to be pulled by this fad diet, even the prices would get so high from the sky-rocketing demand that even many people in USA would be unable to afford the carnivore diet.
Agreed, even in the respected institutions, associations, journals and studies.There's alot of misinformation out there that isn't really based on good science, but has the color or appearance of being so.
It also allowed the voices, that are not supported by big money or by the official establishment, to be heard. It also allowed your voice to be heard, here. Its a good thing. It allows questioning things with leads to breakthroughs and improvements.The internet has allowed alot of these types of voices to be promoted beyond what they would otherwise be.
Agreed, even in the respected institutions, associations, journals and studies.
It also allowed the voices, that are not supported by big money or by the official establishment, to be heard. It also allowed your voice to be heard, here. Its a good thing. It allows questioning things with leads to breakthroughs and improvements.
Sadly, they are also much more rigid in changing according to new research and much more dependent on money from pharmaceutical or junk food companies.Respected institutions tend to have more reputation at stake and engage in more vetting of the kinds of studies they will promote.
This is too vague and unspecific. If you see some conflict of interest in the sources I use, you can tell me more.I don't think that's likely. More bad actors with money can use mediums like the internet to promote misinformation for malicious or self-serving purposes, especially if there is a financial interests at stake. Behind the misguided maverick physician that thinks butter or pork belly is the new superfood, there's lots of animal agriculture interests funding him, with the intended goal of sewing fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
Sadly, they are also much more rigid in changing according to new research and much more dependent on money from pharmaceutical or junk food companies.
What if there is not? A well established opinion or interpretation that leads to health crisis and is not confirmed by repeated experiments, is not a good science.If there is a well established body of evidence, why should they change? Why throw caution to the wind? That's not how good science is done, particularly when it comes to medicine.
What if there is not?
Thats nice, but its a logical fallacy. Majority was wrong so many times in history that its not even countable. What matters (in medical science) are clinically significant findings that can be repeated/confirmed by multiple labs.There is no doubt among the vast majority of cardiologists and lipidologists that diets high in saturated fat contribute to heart disease.
Thats nice, but its a logical fallacy. Majority was wrong so many times in history that its not even countable.
I do not argue with minority or against majority. I am saying that appealing to majority is a logical fallacy. Majority does not establish truth.That's called the Galileo Fallacy. That's in itself illogical thinking. It's an appeal to a conspiracy theory or claims of persecution.
I do not argue with minority or against majority. I am saying that appealing to majority is a logical fallacy. Majority does not establish truth.
I say that what matters is what is repeatable, testable.
Nobody claimed you must follow the advice of a minority just because its not the consensus. So this is a strawman.It doesn't seem wise to follow the advice of a minority, just because it is not the consensus.
Not sure how you qualify the word "indicating", but it does not sound very solid. Probably some kind of statistical associations?And the pro-saturated fat camp conveniently dismisses all the evidence indicating diets high in saturated fat cause heart disease, out of hand.
Nobody claimed you must follow the advice of a minority just because its not the consensus. So this is a strawman.
Not sure how you qualify the word "indicating", but it does not sound very solid. Probably some kind of statistical associations?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?