JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Here is an ok link that explains how the average quantities of seed oils (vegetable oil) that an American consumes contribute to inflamation due to an imbalance in Omega3/Omega6 fatty acids.

I do not claim to know that much about chemistry or biochemistry, but inflammation, to me is super important not to have. I could probably scare up an argument why inflammation is bad, but some probably already know.
Yea, no. Not going to play patacakes with gaslighters. Same with green bullsh!t.
 
I'm not buying this.

I'm curious what physically laborious jobs they sampled for this, like did someone spend their whole life career digging holes or did that someone own their own fence company?
Didn't click but women usually have a career of filing their fingernails so maybe that had something to do with it.
 
I recently bought some sesame seed oil for occasional asian stir frys I make. A friend told be how toxic seed oils were for me so I looked it up and found this:


"Repeatedly heating unsaturated fats to high temperatures, such as in restaurant deep-fryers where oil is infrequently changed, is a health concern, Crosby said. However, he added, "Cooking with seed oils at home isn't an issue.""
With these "myth debunked" articles, I never take them at face value. If I click them at all, I consult their footnotes.

In this case, they use the American Heart Association to anchor some of their arguments. The AHA is corrupt. I only searched minimally, here, but found in This pretty good link

The following excerpt about the similarly corrupt American Diabetes Association:

A spokesperson for the American Diabetes Association confirmed that the group received Coca-Cola money around 2010, but declined to specify how much. Reporting in Vox suggests ADA accepted $1.1 million from Coke between 2010 and 2015.

And from this, I surmise that the ADA tells the public what Coca Cola wants them to say. Similarly with sponsors and the AHA.
 
The AHA is corrupt. I only searched minimally, here, but found in This pretty good link
You picked a very liberal biased source who's point was to blast conservative influencers and Trumps campaign himself and thats evidence a Harvard study is wrong?

We can go down rabbit holes pick and choosing which sources to believe in but Im just curious what metric you use to judge if a source on food nutrition is believable or not? A Harvard research study or a politically biased news source like statnews.com?
 
You picked a very liberal biased source who's point was to blast conservative influencers and Trumps campaign himself and thats evidence a Harvard study is wrong?

We can go down rabbit holes pick and choosing which sources to believe in but Im just curious what metric you use to judge if a source on food nutrition is believable or not? A Harvard research study or a politically biased news source like statnews.com?
I think he said he eats $35,000/yr in fast food snacks recently so to me his credibility is suspect.
 
I knew I should have went into a lazy line of work.


Some call it lazy, some call it working hard to not have to work as hard ;)
 
Not too worried...
I had lazy eye when I was kid...now it migrated to the rest of my body...:eek: :D

On a serious note...
Diet and exercise along with genetics all play a large role in health I would bet .
Andy
 
This should probably go in the "What grinds your gears" thread..but...

People who claim they 'work hard'..or tell others to 'work hard'

If you aren't digging ditches or mining coal, or otherwise engaged in work that produces sweat of your brow and chews through calories..

Then you aren't 'working hard'..stop fooling yourself.
 
You picked a very liberal biased source who's point was to blast conservative influencers and Trumps campaign himself and thats evidence a Harvard study is wrong?

We can go down rabbit holes pick and choosing which sources to believe in but Im just curious what metric you use to judge if a source on food nutrition is believable or not? A Harvard research study or a politically biased news source like statnews.com?
They're not "blasting" anybody. Maybe not conservative enough for you but it's a pretty thorough website, and 10 mins of surfing it, the only evidence I could find of Liberal values was contributions from Bloomberg.

The Means siblings that are covered, primarily, in that article, were on a podcast
of Tucker Carlson, and were mentioned publicly by RFK, Jr, who as you know is campaigning w/Trump.

There's no blasting in that article. Just extensive coverage of key points in the Kennedy arm of Trump's current campaign.

There's conservative and there's convenient. Most of the junk in Google on diet is sheer, sponsored garbage, Harvard Studies, included.
 

Upcoming Events

Back Top