I'll start with gluten. There is many different arguments for and against gluten. The argument for a gluten free diet is that it increases energy and that it promotes weight loss. While the arguments against a gluten free diet is that it contains many helpful minerals such as zinc, calcium and more.
I looked into one of the organisations that are for a gluten free diet and the name Peter Benenson came up. Peter benenson is a jew so clearly he is a figure to be trusted. Seriously though if you are avoiding gluten don't. The main reason why the food you are eating isn't healthy for you isn't because of the gluten but because of the other shit they put into the food. If you have a gluten allergy then obviously you should avoid it. Here is the research I did. Also can someone do me a favor and archive the links. So the idea that gluten isn't healthy is not only stupid but also counter intuitive.
Fad diets are just another way people express their need for community. Since everyone is an obese fuck these days it just so happens to be the best way to unify people into a collective identity, since race has been all but obliterated from the west. The reality is that losing weight is unbelievably simple; not that anyone is really unaware of this. We're living in a time so fucked that people need to manufacture identities just to have a reason to interact with each other.
I agree. The world is in a fucked up state and that this is just a repercussion of this. Though there is shit being put into our food. Generally just avoid anything that isn't 100% of that material because the chances its going to be not healthy is pretty high. Obviously you could make things homemade if you want to make yourself a more varied diet.
On the topic of food, what are the (non-anecdotal) pros and cons of a plant-based diet. I have never seriously looked into it because I thought meat was hard to replace, soy was bad, and because the United Nations and other organizations push a plant-based diet on people (but this might be reverse psychology)
The all-meat, raw-meat diet is an obvious psy-op IMO because it is not sustainable, and its health-benefits are very questionable also I know that there's a push for cannibalism since there will be mass food shortages in the coming years (after 2020) ... combined with the influx of subhuman degenerates from Africa into Europe that's not going to go well, at all.
>>5456 This. Quoting Michael Pollan: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
He also recommends not eating anything your great-grandparents wouldn't recognize as food. That means sticking to the perimeter of the grocery store, where you find the fresh fruits and vegetables, meat, and dairy, and mostly avoiding the middle aisles, which is almost all processed garbage full of preservatives, flavorings, and other shit.
>>5413 Speaking of "gluten allergy" hot topic (at least here, suddenly ppl with allergy to grains started appearing). People with gluten allergy would have fucking died thousands of years ago due to agricultural diet of majority of people, leaving no progeny.
It is not the grain, never was. It is all the chemical shit they use to kill critters with. Just think of it - even bugs and bacteria die horribly from it, yet you eat it. How come. Small ratio to body size just makes you somewhat poisoned instead of writhing in agony.
Of course crop rotation, more spacing and traditional repellents would have provided same grain with no "allergy to gluten, not a dozen toxic chemicals to kill bugs, I swear", but it would increase costs, and mass industrialized is all about decreasing costs. Half a cent a pound of grain saved gives many millions in profits, and fuck the morbidly obese permanently poisoned consumer so long as he pays for the privilege.
Females and small children are better suited to plant diet. Notice how "natural" vegetarians (not brainwashed zealots, just personal preferences) are always women, and even they like milk products and eggs and some fish/poultry just fine. While men are naturally predisposed to like red meat and fatty products (you need animal fat to produce testosterone for one).
This reflects the natural diet.
For both sexes a plant-only died is a self-imposed slow death, especially so for men. Animal protein and fats are a must.
Women are gatherers, so they start the day collecting berries, nuts and roots, maybe leafy vegetables. First they feed themselves, then the children who can't gather, then save some for later. Finding birth eggs is, surprise, a gathering activity in search of protein and fats.
Men are hunters. They naturally like high protein high fat diet. They also naturally like lots of exercises in search and pursuit of quarry. Having caught and butchered their game, the now fed males would bring the leftover back and share. Women and children would eat some red meat, and men would eat some berries, nuts and roots they can't be arsed to collect on their way to the game. Men too old to hunt would demote to gathering.
So there is your natural diet. Women and children - vegetables and grains, plus some milk products and/or fish or eggs. Men - meat, milk products, eggs, fish, plus some grains and vegetables. Both eat roots in moderation.
However, men must often exert themselves, otherwise they'll bloat. If you can't exert, switch to female-old man diet for a time.
Indians have extremely sophisticated vegetarian diets due to religion, but they are heavily dependent on milk and milk products (up to 5000 milk recipes, as the saying goes), nuts, various berries and honey. You can survive and even thrive on it, but you need animal products and strict regimen anyway, if not bloody meat. Also tropical climate, because cold climates require more meat and fat in the diet to not die horribly.
The beefed-up vegetarian either consumes loads of milk protein and nuts fats, or is a fraud.
>the best she can think of is gluten and Jews
How about all the other bullshit. Pesticides, unnamed colours and flavours, excess sodium and sugars and sugar replacements. Not always inherently bad but not well studied either. Food should be minimalistic. I bought some cornchips and was absolutely impressed when I could recognise every single ingredient as a real food. (Yes t. Ameriburger so what?)
Since the topic is food, you get sage.
>the best she can think of is gluten and Jews
How about all the other bullshit. Pesticides, unnamed colours and flavours, excess sodium and sugars and sugar replacements. Not always inherently bad but not well studied either. Food should be minimalistic. I bought some cornchips and was absolutely impressed when I could recognise every single ingredient as a real food. (Yes t. Ameriburger so what?)
Since the topic is food, you get sage.
>>7631 Very interesting article. The authors basically argue for a culture to form around heroin use similar to the one around alcohol use.
I've seen arguments that go the opposite way, suggesting that the modern culture of alcohol use (with everyone drinking socially) is in fact damaging.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/04/did-drinking-give-me-breast-cancer/ http://archivecaslytosk.onion/mQYUj >Just as the evidence was becoming clear that women are disproportionately vulnerable to alcohol’s cancer risks, the industry mounted a campaign to get them to drink even more. “Women all over the world are underperforming consumers,” explains a professor at the Boston University School of Public Health. The distilled spirits industry, facing flagging sales, created “alcopops”—sweetened alcoholic beverages such as Zima, Smirnoff Ice, and Skyy Blue that are packaged in childlike bright colors. The director of new products at Anheuser-Busch explained in 2002, “The beauty of this category is that it brings in new drinkers, people who really don’t like the taste of beer.”
Actually, looking at the article more closely, I think it argues for moderation as well:
>I’ve never drunk as heavily as I did before I could legally buy a drink. My experience isn’t unusual. Ninety percent of alcohol consumption by underage Americans is binge drinking
>women who report seven drinks on the weekend but no alcohol consumption on the weekdays may have higher risk of breast cancer as compared with those who consistently have one drink every day
basically, the US should lower the age limit. Also this:
>If you take 1,000 women, 110 will get breast cancer without drinking. Drink up to these guidelines and an extra 20 women will get cancer because of that drinking. Double the guideline limit and an extra 50 women per 1,000 will get cancer
So having a few drinks isn't that bad. Still, I think that having these substances be legal results in more people who use them heavily and moderately. Moderation is better then immoderate use, but still worse than no use at all.
>alcohol use [...] is in fact damaging
No shit Sherlock.
Have you ever seen a drunk person?
They act like a retard because in that moment they ARE a fucking retard.
Become a teetotaler.
I would say vote Prohibition Party but I think that's a joke and having it be illegal doesn't/didn't do jack shit anyway.
>>15490 Probibition, as you say, is DoA. The more viable suggestion is to destroy the culture around drinking. Treat it like we do cigarettes and smokers. Ban ads for alcoholic drinks, give movies featuring drinking an automatic R rating, tax it heavily, put messages on the packaging deacribing it as damaging, etc. Not anything to make people go to the black market en masse, but enough to reduce the amount of drinking people do.
This is basically how heroin is treated today, although less extreme. So suggesting that the culture around heroin use needs to be more like drinking is crazy to me. Maybe heroin is better for people than alcohol, IDK.
>>15495 >destroy the culture around drinking
This was tried before and didn't work. Figures like Al Capone emerged from it.
Prohibition is not the key to reduce addiction. You have to look at what is making people use the drug more frequently. Most of the times it's because of psychological or economic problems. So the solution is actually to build a better society.
I know it sounds liberal-talk. But it's actually 'true' (or at least a better solution than prohibition).
>>15489 >Double the guideline limit and an extra 50 women per 1,000 will get cancer
I call BS on it. Alcohol has been around in nearly all cultures for milleniums. If cancer correlation was true, then we would see significant statistic of cancer in old cultures with heavy drinking behavior (Medieval Nordic, for example). And that's not the case at all.
>>15496 >Prohibition is not the key to reduce addiction
What I'm suggesting is not prohibition. Basically you'd treat alcohol the same way the mormons do. Utah is known to have very low alcohol consumption rates. Gangsters can't profit off of it because people can still get alcohol legally. It's more expensive and harder to consume, but still easier than through the black market.
>I call BS on it
Consider that utah also has lower cancer rates then the rest of the US.
>then we would see significant statistic of cancer in old cultures with heavy drinking behavior
>And that's not the case at all.
How do you know? Presumably the scientist have looked into these things.
Here's a bit of scholarship on the subject:
https://academic.oup.com/alcalc/article/32/1/51/176643 For all the cancer categories, "non-temperance" (higher alcohol consumption) countries had higher rates, although it was only significant for stomach cancer. This seems very suggestive to me, especially considering how confounded such a thing could be (what if richer countries tend to drink more?)
>>15497 >What I'm suggesting is not prohibition.
It's basically prohibition, or suppression. Also, not only there's no evidence alcohol causes cancer, but there is a billion dollar industry behind it. Government can't just pass the laws/taxes you're suggesting.
>It's more expensive and harder to consume
And look the impact of their actions:
>Scott says "We are told there are not enough restaurants and nightlife to keep the visitors occupied outside of the convention, because they can't get a drink. [...] our liquor laws create a sense, and in some cases a reality, that you can't do that in Utah. And we lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year in delegate spending because of that perception."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_laws_of_Utah#Conventions
>Consider that utah also has lower cancer rates then the rest of the US.
Probably doesn't have correlation with alcohol. There's just too many variables to say it's because of a single reason. Most likely it has to do with pollution than anything else (if that information about cancer rate is even true, I didn't search for it).
>How do you know?
Because it doesn't make any sense and because there's no statistical significance.
Ethanol (alcohol) is present in many different things and is a product of fermentation. Most people drink beer or wine and these are >90% water. Other ~4% is starch, flavonoids, etc. Only ~6% of it is actually ethanol.
So, what exactly is causing the (supposedly) 'cancer'? Water? What exactly is the mechanism of action behind that?
About the cancer rate in ancient times: I meant statistical significance (p>0.05). Also, from this publication (got the pdf using sci-hub.tw - the quote is from "Conclusions" section):
>Despite the fact that other explanations [for cancer in ancient times], such as inadequate techniques of disease diagnosis, cannot be ruled out, the rarity of malignancies in antiquity is strongly suggested by the available palaeopathological and literary evidence. This might be related to the prevalence of carcinogens in modern societies.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nrc2914
This means cancer was rare in ancient times, even though people drank large quantities of alcohol beverages.
Don't get me wrong, though, I'm not saying driking alcohol in high quantities is healthy. It's clearly not (mostly because of behavioral and motor skill changes, which normally causes aggression and vehicle accidents). But there's absolutely no evidence that alcohol causes cancer and I don't think prohibition (or government inhibition/suppression) is a solution, nor desirable. People won't stop drinking and they shouldn't really. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a drink now and then.
>>15501 >From a guest service perspective, Utah’s liquor laws are really awkward and make us look like we are still in covered wagons. Utah’s liquor laws make us appear to be inhospitable.” He also cites many instances where out-of-towners were befuddled, put off, or downright angry at the policies that are in place to keep in accordance of the law.
If the whole country had similar laws, this wouldn't be a problem. You can also choose laws so that average people don't face too much confusion, I'm not saying Utah's laws are perfect.
>there's absolutely no evidence that alcohol causes cancer
This is a ridiculous statement. Population level studies, as you say, are heavily confounded by the variety of factors that might cause a population to lessen drinking. The same is true of looking at ancient populations, with the added bonus that all the statistics are extrapolated. But if you look at individuals and control for all the factors that might lead to increased or depressed drinking, you can get strong evidence that alcohol increases cancer risk. This shouldn't be so surprising, since alcohol is used as an antiseptic due to the way it denatures proteins. Why shouldn't it do the same thing in our bodies?
>>15533 >Why do I even try?
You don't, so that's an easy one to answer. You didn't even try reading my post post properly, let alone send off to google to try looking for counterclaims. As for why you go onto imageboards and pretend to try, I have no idea.
I'll start with gluten. There is many different arguments for and against gluten. The argument for a gluten free diet is that it increases energy and that it promotes weight loss. While the arguments against a gluten free diet is that it contains many helpful minerals such as zinc, calcium and more.
I looked into one of the organisations that are for a gluten free diet and the name Peter Benenson came up. Peter benenson is a jew so clearly he is a figure to be trusted. Seriously though if you are avoiding gluten don't. The main reason why the food you are eating isn't healthy for you isn't because of the gluten but because of the other shit they put into the food. If you have a gluten allergy then obviously you should avoid it. Here is the research I did. Also can someone do me a favor and archive the links. So the idea that gluten isn't healthy is not only stupid but also counter intuitive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Benenson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_UK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International