liver = meat
meat = unhealthy
>it's safe to consume a maximum of 30g of liver daily
What a small amount. Is it actually that bad to consume too much A-vitamin or are they just making it sound worse than it is?
I was looking to insert liver into my daily diet for it's enormous amounts of nutrition but getting possibly overdose of something that turns into toxic sort of works against the idea of eating healthy.
This claim is not only completely false but also completely unscientific. It is pure ideology and propaganda.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z
>Characterizing the potential health effects of exposure to risk factors such as red meat consumption is essential to inform health policy and practice. Previous meta-analyses evaluating the effects of red meat intake have generated mixed findings and do not formally assess evidence strength. Here, we conducted a systematic review and implemented a meta-regression—relaxing conventional log-linearity assumptions and incorporating between-study heterogeneity—to evaluate the relationships between unprocessed red meat consumption and six potential health outcomes. We found weak evidence of association between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Moreover, we found no evidence of an association between unprocessed red meat and ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke. We also found that while risk for the six outcomes in our analysis combined was minimized at 0 g unprocessed red meat intake per day, the 95% uncertainty interval that incorporated between-study heterogeneity was very wide: from 0–200 g d−1. While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations. More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between consumption of unprocessed red meat and chronic disease.
>Tel Aviv University researchers says Stone Age humans were apex predators, only moved to more plant-based diet 85,000 years ago
https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-2-million-years-humans-ate-meat-and-little-else-study/
People that are intelligent enough to be able to use pattern
recognition will know that if humans used to eat only meat back in the days, it can not be unhealthy. Humans would have been wiped out.
Humans have never eaten unhealthy diets like veganists (diet cosinsts mostly of sugars, poor nutritional values that absorbs poorly) do and there is no recorded history of it.
A human body needs both fat and protein to live, without them it will die, but it does NOT need carbohydrates and will continue life in a ketogenic state. A meat based diet is high in natural fats and proteins while a vegan diet consists almost solely of carbohydrates.
Nowadays it is common to blame problems from a typical western pattern diet on meat, while the meat itself is healthy, it can be turned unhealthy by making things like sausages or frying it in seed oils for example.
>People that are intelligent enough to be able to use pattern recognition will know that if humans used to eat only meat back in the days, it can not be unhealthy.
Wrong because races such as pajeets are already genetically adapted to veganism & it is scientifically proven (look up arachidonic acid pathway polymorphisms and such)
Life expectancy of 30 at birth at 50% infant mortality is life expectancy of 60 if you survive infancy.
Same as today, the mortality rates of ancient times are high only becomes of child mortality. You can learn to be Factful about this topic on www.gapminder.org or by reading Hans Roslings book "Factfulness".
Being short and brown is not signs of healthiness even if they survive and endure the lack of nutritions, we are talking about optimizing a healthy diet that gives you 100% of what your body needs to keep it beautiful.
All the information is available freely to download on the site, the data does not become obsolete beause the site uses bright colours. I can't help you further if this is your attitude, you are making assumptions based on something you read on Wikipedia, a site that everyone in school knows is an unreliable source.
>All the information is available freely to download on the site
>the data does not become obsolete beause the site uses bright colours
You do realise both these points are also applicable to Wikipedia, right?.. There're these tiny little numbers you can follow to see the actual articles. I'm not a paleontologist so I don't know which scientific journals are more trustworthy, but I still can see the number of them and years of the publications.
>neolithic
that's grainlets
the point is, pajeets literally cannot eat meat, they get cancer from it due to the fact their metabolism has an adaptation that allows them to survive without meat which throws inflammatory response off if they do
of course the physical results of that adaptation are obviously apparent
If it's still not clear:
1. I didn't like him using survival as proof of healthiness so I mentioned that we don't know how well did people live back there (and if it was related to their diet), that was still about paleolithic
2. I didn't like both of you using infant mortality as proof of healthiness but I couldn't find any reliable data about paleolithic so I mentioned neolithic life expectancy. It was not related to the original topic anymore.
Why am I so bad at this?..