Maggie's Farm

I assume this means that the value of tossed off lifestyle blogging advice on health is limited by even less than seven years then, right? Why wouldn't it be?

You people are loopy. The only thing that rivals the denial of obvious science is the arrogance.

Sure, Bob. The linked article says precisely nothing to recommend three squares-plus-midnight egg sandwiches but it does obliquely admit, not surprisingly, that medicine knows jack about the link between diet and health:

...the authors discovered that beta blockers conferred no benefit in preventing recurrent myocardial infarctions, strokes, or mortality in patients with stable CAD including remote history of MI, known CAD, or 3+ risk factors for CAD with normal ventricular function and no current angina. Once again, a principle of cardiovascular medicine is being challenged.

No shit. Especially when framed like that.

Read: Take the average Western mixed diet cohort - one even somewhat brighter than MF's random availability cascade tribalism favoring grease cocktails and lard consume because fun! - and damned if conventional medicine is crap against its commonly lethal and quite predictable outcomes. Seems you can't just, you know, statin and stint your way clear of the bitter end.

But to you meanwhile this particular, peculiar blog, with its zealous lifestylers, can't possibly issue bad advice; (advice that at its inevitable, eventual conclusion, could constitute liable damages).

This disregard and disrespect for the reader, based on precisely zero scientific study or pertinent credential, to your mind however constitutes valid opinion, somehow free from bias, but you'll lodge a few fallacies against the largest dietary and health study in history, one that happened to more than confirm the connection between them among the largest sample size ever studied.

Like I said, you people are loopy.

In fairness, a recurrent theme of this blog is "moderation." I've never seen any post encouraging anyone to gorge themselves on a routine basis.

To wit:

Eat those eggs and bacon and sausages like you always wanted to, and skip the darn oatmeal unless it's all you can afford. And imagine that, in seven years, Mr. Science will tell you to eat candy and Dunkin Donuts for breakfast.

Our tummies might be smarter than today's science. Who knows? I love deep-fat fried donuts...

The no-health-connection-to-diet assertion is odd advice from the team that demanded of you health-by-exertion. Apparently one is impossible but the other is 100% assured. The body must be a strange thing indeed to have all that random correlation.

Most studies that report healthy attributes of plant-based diets have caloric restriction in their experimental design. The rural Chinese in the observational study were almost certainly on a calorie-restricted diet, not by choice but necessity.

Hearsay, conventional wisdom, or wives tales. First, the Chinese study precisely pinpointed by region the health effects of diet, a body of evidence that continues to this day as the Western mixed diet overtakes their historical culture.

Second, evil vegans routinely eat thousands of plant calories a day. Therefore isolating and then calling the rice diet nutritionally deficient calls into play a rice-only diet and a correlative mortality when neither exist, especially when the longest-lived people on earth are included whose staples are simply rice and root vegetables.

In other words, condemning rice for malnutrition is like not condemning a heavily carnist diet for malnutrition: For the roster of western disease pursuant it. That other canard is also a fallacy: the lifestyle-rationalized carnist diet because, heck, food is cheap and bacon burgers are fantastic and 80 is old enough, or whatever reason dujour avoids the plant option whenever the evidence tilts in its favor, and the evidence always tilts in its favor. (And it's another interesting logical twist to rationalize a whole lifestyle choice by way of the Maillard reaction and the flavorings we use to make meat palatable, all of them plant based. Or by way of the myth of protein deficiency.)

Over-weight is all but impossible when the plant-fueled body has recovered the health first lost to carnism. Carbohydrates are simply not the issue; the animal-heavy mixed diet is.

The studies and the empirical evidence supporting this are rife. They're just not popular.

loopy=deplorables.
i.e. if you don't agree with me you are "loopy".

Another obvious fallacy. Loopy is as loopy does. You turning that into a charge is predictably defensive denial.

And then you continue in that same fallacious vein:

There are a dozen or two dozen or so fad diets and vegetarianism and veganism are just two of them.

The plant diet is actually entirely wholesome, proved, and far more than not, historical. Adkins, for one example of many, would be a modern fad in the very definition of the word.

Without exception the advocates for each fad diet search the world for some study, any study that proves that they are right and not merely delusional.

No kidding. Among rightist lifestylers it's the industry funded press release cum pop news/social media/clickbait fodder that gets incorrectly translated into more over-the-fence rightist lifestyle narrative to be noddingly passed around as gospel. (As circular as that is maybe "loopy" was more literal than I realized.)

There is literally nothing you can say to substantiate your preferred fad diet that an advocate of a diametrically opposite fad diet doesn't also claim about their own delusional belief.

Kettle logic, Bob. Further, there is by this particular matrix of yours one reality; that all diets are fads, which is baldly false. While elsewhere you yourself assert the objective reality of the unnamed fad-free diet, here you give it that special rank without supporting evidence.

It is NOT those of us who simply want to eat three squares a day that you are fighting/arguing with, and in fact to be honest most of us simply don't care as we seem to be immune from this fad diet delusion. It is the other faddists that you must prove wrong to prove your own delusions to be correct.

More of the same, the irony of which is telling.

Your problem, Bob, is that you do indeed have no real interest in the actual subject. You are, as I keep observing, a lifestyle signaler, unable and unwilling to reconsider your own confirmation bias. That you can project it onto others only confirms the characteristic obtuseness.

(Before I start, note that you're just tossing off conventional wisdom. This is what I've been talking about.)

What supplements do you take to make up for what is missing in a "plant diet"?

False premise. Aside from B12, there's nothing missing. And B12 isn't produced in your cow or chicken meat either, it's produced in the lower intestine where it isn't absorbed but where it is expelled. Know how it makes it into your diet?

What supplements do you take to make up for what is missing in a carnist diet? Or should I say, what medicines do you take in order to tolerate what is in it? Aside from outright malnutrition, the Western mixed diet has among the very worst health outcomes on earth.

"Proved". To do what?

To be completely adequate and vastly healthier. And if you're going to try and cite the protein fear, that's carnism's self-congratulatory Myth One, one notch below first asserting your bad, flat-toothed, very long intestine self is one gene removed from the lion.

That you can survive is true. But many children of vegetarians/vegans are born with serious mental deficiencies due to lack of important nutrients in the diet. Others who escape that initial failure of a "plant diet" succumb to health problems while growing up. A plant diet does not provide the essential nutrients and this is much worse for growing children than adults.

Complete nonsense ranking with the protein scare, especially since the plant diet is the oldest and most long-lived diet there is. I'd expect rightist Darwinists who lovingly buy into the cave man myth behind Adkins et al would be somewhat more open minded than to infer that the Hardees diet of the last meager half century or the cattle diet of the last century or even the real mixed Western diet of the last 2000 years (such as it may have been) somehow constitutes formative evolution.

The fad, Bob, is your cheeseburger. You're just calling it something else.

"historical" so isn't [sic] cannibalism and a whole list of stupid things. Simply being historical does not equate to being correct.

But meat = primitive man = human development = healthy, per Adkins et al, right? That's the central carnist premise. Yet using your logic, it's simply being Adkins for a few decades that can't be correct - you started lobbing "fad" around, not me. If you're going to cite ancient human development you're really going to be seriously challenged by tens of thousands of years of man eating like ... a plant-eating ape.

I do not have a problem with an adult choosing a fad diet what I have a problem with is preaching to everyone that you are right and we are all "loopy" for not bowing down to your greater wisdom.

Fallacious in the extreme - that irony is still showing and I'm pretty sure I know why that is, Bob. Rightist lifestyle signallers have for years strawmanned and ridiculed their false hippie-leftist-moonbat vegan cartoons, never admitting to their own preaching and their own harping about these projected myths of theirs.

That's all I'm on about: The difference between us is that while we see the other one as moralizing the issue, I'm the one not preaching. I'm simply highlighting and turning the myth back around, seeing how very ironic unthought presumptions from rightists really are.

My central point is that "conservatives" need something a hell of lot better to signal and identify their traditional, middle-American picture of themselves than this particular self-deception. That ilk is one step from conflating the American founding solely with the pickup truck in the driveway and the fast food wrappers on its floorboards.

Lifestyle signalling. It's the new virtue signalling.

If you like your plant diet you can keep your plant diet. I love a plant diet it goes well with any meat entree.

Of course. And as pure as the purported motives are, Bob, and as detached from health and actual physiognomy as that simple force of habit is, reactionary rightists happily advertise their love of cow as their parting shot, as their badge of identity and resistance. You're all alike that way.

The thing is, not a vegan I have ever met would stoop to debating the subject as religiously as you have, if they'd bother at all. I'm different because I see it co-opting what should be a defining intellectual Americanism with an idiotic reflex against an enemy that never existed in any consequence in the first place.

Wrong, Bob. Kindly stop putting words in my mouth in order to argue against them. B12, as I mentioned it in reply to your utter falsehood about nutrition and the plant diet, is not developed in cows and chicken, but in their lower intestines, just like yours. The question is, how are you getting yours. I happen to get mine from the simplest tablet, and not from ingested barnyard manure. You?

As for your other assertion, it's completely false and you can't support it. I'm sure you can anecdote it until those cows come home, but in the interest of objectivity, it's a wives tale.

Again; you do take a B12 supplement even though you implied you can get everything you need from a plant diet.

The pedantic, pointless approach probably doesn't bode well for an argumentless argument, Bob, although it still does speak for itself: I accept it and your random Googled, uncited, factoid paragraph as the sum of it.

Why does that matter? Why do I point it out? Well, rhetorically because you consistently commit the sin of faddism you persist on lobbing against vegans (wrongly but you won't address that part*) and because if you really want to go there, I can post you a book on nutrition, none of which validates your copy-paste and all of which actually soundly condemns it on medical grounds. Not cultural or lifestyle preference cascade or myth or just needing to argue without a real argument. Real science.

Google It! doesn't sway thinkers and facts don't sway partisans. You like what you like because you like liking it. It's a bias, a preconception, and an orientation. It's a choice of lifestyle and it's one you enjoy signalling, reactively. It has nothing to do with health and nutrition because your argumentless argument, such as it is, has nothing to do with health and nutrition. That's not a position, it's a pose, just like ketosis-skinny isn't health and protein and B12 aren't the points you'd hoped.

Carnists have only to do with lifestyle and bias. Nutrition they care and know precious little about and health is clearly not their aim - what with the FatBurgerz pose - and that being their culturally bigoted view, brings us back around to the lifestyle preference part. Right about there their pose falls apart - it never was a valid position.

***

*What brought man the spark of mind was not meat but the root vegetable. All other relatively immediate advancements - fire, cooking, rudimentary farming, and the survival-enhancing products of increasing intelligence - were the result of that change. To this day the most long-lived people on earth depend heavily on root vegetables. There's a reason for this and abuts why plants work in general.

It then took leveraging those evolutionary steps to eventually introduce animal consumption, and even then in tiny percentages of the diet and very sparsely. That trajectory continued for thousands of years until the dawn of civilization and the nascent industrial age when organized man could actually plan and harvest meat either as a community or a trade.

It was only the fairly modern era that produced animal farming as commerce of any note - it is after all highly perishable. Hundreds of years more passed before the American rancher arose, for example. Then it was still another hundred years before you elected to prefer the steak cheeseburger-health-diet (and its mysterious curative powers) twice a week interspersed with three meals a day that include at least one animal product each.

The disastrous health consequences of that we'll blame on the bread and pasta (although carnists say fruit is exactly as lethal as corn syrup. It's complicated, see).

How this possibly comports with the view that mankind evolved to die without flesh in his diet is as unknown as the assertion is preposterous.

If carnists are going to rhetorically Darwin their way all the way from that and then to and through failed, commercialized animal protein dieting mythology sold in books by vested interests, they'll have their work cut out for them. There's tens of thousands of years of gap, somehow.

I'll answer you on B12 when you answer me on how cow cures chronic Western disease. A short list is fine.

Incidentally, Bob, if animal flesh is somehow required nutrition (when it wasn't developmental for thousands of evolutionary human years) I'm sure science has isolated those elements and you can offer a reliable list of them.

What is it, exactly, that we find so nutritionally essential that only animal flesh and excretions provide? I'll leave aside how we got to this evolutionary state in a mere hundred or two hundred years because it seems you don't address things that directly conflict your subjective argument.

So objectify it instead. What's in the beef, Bob?

What Causes Insulin Resistance?

Oh hell no; there is no such thing. Pork fat lard cheezburgers all around!