re: r/zerocarb sort of infuriates me

quote:

---

What sounds more fun than a bunch of Big Scrubs jerking each other off

---

Sorry Scrub, this made me truly lol irl

quote:

---

o man this is going to be another ketocult vs normal folks battle ground

---

Oh. You mean 90% of the threads on this board?

quote:

---

Book: Fiber Menace Dr. Paul Mason: Fiber not a necessity
Stout, you asked for a link. I ask that you do true investigation before you condemn. Condemnation before investigation is the definition of ignorance. Quit believing everything you are told.

---

Thanks.

I will check it out but again I feel fiber works for me so I will stick with it.

I do think it's silly that we try to fit everyone into one mold and say this is what you need to do. I know this thread does that a bit on my part but I was genuinely curious how a "diet" could work if you one is still consuming a ton of calories and fat like what I see on r/zerocarb

quote:

---

I will check it out but again I feel fiber works for me so I will stick with it.

---

Again, how are you defining "working"? It is true that eating a lot of indigestible fiber will cause you to...shite out that indigestible fiber. But is that a good end unto itself? It's circular. What you'll find from the all-meat guys is that the BMs are every couple of days and not all that big. That is a GOOD thing...it implies that your body is using 90%+ of what it's consuming. What is the goal of creating waste for the sake of waste creation?

Other considerations:

the micronutrients that come in all of these shite-inducing vegetables are vastly less bio-available than what is claimed on the label (for many of them, 90% less.) It's the opposite with meat - if your steak has Vitamin B, then you get all of that Vitamin B

micronutrients appear to be much less needed in volume in the absence of fiber/carbs in the body's ecosystem. Vitamin C is a good example. The molecule competes with carb molecules for absorption, and there is a crowding-out effect. In the absence of this competition, almost all (or all) of the micronutrient "gets in", and thus you need way way less of it.

Post a "study" that shows what you are saying that isn't a BS coralation study. Just to save you the time, you can't. And all of those so called studies have severe bais issues. There is no science showing that red meat causes cancer. Nor is there any science showing how that would have even be possible. If you understood how cancer works on a molecular level you would understand that.

quote:

---

Post a "study" that shows what you are saying that isn't a BS coralation study. Just to save you the time, you can't

---

That's not what I said, but by your 3rd grade level writing style I don't expect you to understand that.

quote:

---

There is no science showing that red meat causes cancer. Nor is there any science showing how that would have even be possible. If you understood how cancer works on a molecular level you would understand that.

---

That's also not what I said. What I said is you and others speaking in absolutes is irresponsible. It's like saying the theory of relativity is an absolute fact. We do not know that, but the latest science suggests that it is true at this time. That's the point, the science points to what much of you say, but we don't know for certain if it is true, and people come to this board uneducated and looking for advice, and you put things into the wrong context and terms.

quote:

---

I don’t promote anti mean or veganism at all

---

This is what I don't understand. I, in general, agree with what they say. My diet is probably 90% meat and I don't eat any "dumb" carbs for the most part. They come from sweet potatoes and things like that because I like them and don't want to give them up. But if you don't go full retard and join the cult then you're just stupid.

Yea it’s absurd the hard line they take, I agree with a lot of the lots of fat and protein approaches

I posted my meals from yesterday that may have added up to 80g of carbs


Today I’m literally sitting at about 35g after lunch and after dinner I won’t even hit 50g for today.

quote:

---

if you don't go full retard and join the cult then you're just stupid.

---

Who is trying to get you to join a "cult"? Hasn't Tex admitted that he's not zero carb? My weakness is pizza, and I drank more beer last week on vacation than I have in the past six months, so I'm certainly not zero carb.

quote:

---

That's also not what I said. What I said is you and others speaking in absolutes is irresponsible. It's like saying the theory of relativity is an absolute fact. We do not know that, but the latest science suggests that it is true at this time. That's the point, the science points to what much of you say, but we don't know for certain if it is true, and people come to this board uneducated and looking for advice, and you put things into the wrong context and terms.

---

It is ABSOLUTELY true that there is no evidence that red meat causes cancer. Yet, red meat causing cancer is often an a priori starting point in these threads (see the OP.) That is to say - there is NO MORE BURDEN OF PROOF on the "meat doesn't cause cancer crowd" beyond citing the existing, entire lack of evidence.

I'm totally fine saying "sure, maybe one day we'll find out red meat causes cancer". It's definitely possible.

You are raising a distinction without an actual difference being present. The ENTIRE point is that posters like the OP have had it ingrained in their minds that red meat causes cancer (and perhaps is even "trashy".) According to all that we know and all of human history...it DOES NOT. Full stop. So why is it even coming up in the first place?

You seem only concerned with debunking "meat absolutism". Fiber absolutism doesn't seem to bother you at all.