• rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    It’s nutritious. Instead of carefully observing some diet you can eat some beef and buckwheat or cabbage or beans, and you’re good.

    That said, I eat meat so rarely that my relatives worry, mainly because it takes some time to cook if you boil it, and I’m lazy and unorganized, and frying it has the potential of, eh, leaving the kitchen for 5 minutes which turn out to be half an hour and returning for the smell.

    Other than that people can’t care about every problem at once.

  • thesink05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Not everyone has the time and resources to commit to every ‘good’ fight under the sun especially when the systemic problems are as deeply rooted in our society as they are.

    Which device did you post from? Did you vet it wasn’t made with slave labor? You might need to go recycle all your devices and unfortunately that will cut you off from getting your message out to the world.

    Your post does more harm to your cause than good because it just makes everyone angry at you.

    • Sizzler@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Stop eating meat, it’s easy, you change your diet and are healthier.

      Honestly stop saying “Your post does more harm to your cause than good because it just makes everyone angry at you”

      It’s a tired and worn out excuse to avoid saying “I’m lazy and selfish”

  • DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    Why do people eat food they know isn’t good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?

    They all have the same answer.

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold “healthier Crisco” cooking oils that weren’t high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.

      The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.

      Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.

      So beef, according to most studies, isn’t bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.

      Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don’t eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don’t have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.

      • Aatube@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        WHO report

        someone else online summarized the genetics part as the following:

        Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques 1 and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c 2.

        But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          Forgive me, because I’m struggling to understand the linked information, but as someone with atherosclerosis this is an issue close to my heart (ha!).

          I just want to make sure I understand you.

          Your link to the european heart journal says that the causal link between LDL and ASCVD is “unequivocal”.

          I think the WHO study says (amongst a lot of other complicated stuff) that replacing SFAs with PUFAs and MUFAs is more favourable than replacing SFAs with complex carbohydrates? The strong implication being (although I couldn’t see this exactly) that higher SFA intake contributes to heart disease.

          • EndRedStateSubsidies@leminal.space
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 days ago

            I always keep in mind the first doctor to advocate washing hands after handling corpses was laughed out of medicine and died alone in an asylum ironically enough from sepsis.

            To that point, the vast majority of research on nutrition is done on the presumption carbohydrates should be the foundation of our diet. Even “low” carb diet studies with have 30% of the calories coming from simple carbs. Oddly enough, the human body works much differently and much better when you don’t give it -any- sugar: https://youtu.be/cST99piL71E

            I can expand, but briefly, sugar acts like a sandblaster through your heart and shreds the endothelium (the finger-things that move things in and out of the bloodstream). LDL is a repair van that drives around with cholesterol and saturated fat to repair the plaques. (HDL brings empty LDL back to the liver) The entire logic of blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming bandaids for stab wounds. Doctors say eat less fat and more “healthy whole grains” (carbs) and the liver makes more cholesterol. Doctor sees cholesterol is still high because the body needs it and prescribes statins which impair production. This leads to nerve pain because it’s what literally every nerve in the body is insulated with.

            The problems with cholesterol stem from it sitting in the bloodstream and glycating due to prolonged sugar exposure. Sugar staying in the bloodstream is basically ketoacidosis, so clearing sugar is a priority that results in LDL gumming up and going bad, essentially.

            I can expand on this, but basically the human body needs predominantly fat with some protein and actually zero carbs.