Quote (ozzyarmy3 @ 17 Sep 2023 13:57)
There’s way too much garbage and not enough time, but here’s 2.
1. Eggs are relatively low in saturated fat and a fantastic source of protein and healthy fats. They do have a decent amount of fat in them however, which doesn’t make something inherently BAD for you, they should only be limited during a fat loss phase and used in conjunction with egg whites. It’s also wildly inconclusive and wrapped around other variables if indeed eggs can increase risk of heart disease. This is like the red meat argument. People who eat massive quantities of red meat also smoke tobacco, drink beer, eat fried foods and eat in a caloric surplus. So is it REALLY the red meat? Lots of large scaled studies say no.
2. The advice the other guy gave about IF to increase natural testosterone levels is hogwash, and if you really want me to support this, then I’ve made my point.
Egg fat is around 1/3 saturated now that i checked, its still not insignificant although i do have to admit i recalled it to be 45-50%. In big enough quantities it might elevate LDL by itself in addition to the cholesterol it contains. Its well established that high sat fats increase LDL which is very highly correlated with heart disease. Perhaps no egg studies exist, but we dont need to go through every type of food out there. Its much more sound to avoid excess eggs than to indulge in them given the knowledge we
currently have. Its also relatively safe to continue doing whatever youre doing if your LDL, HDL, fasting sugar and BP are in check, some individuals handle sat fats better than others due to genetic factors.
But bro... the red meat talking point is bs. Its like climate studies. Some studies do and will necessarily point towards the opposite results. Its a statistical fact. But the majority is towards red meat being harmful. The point about uncontrolled variables explaining the connection is a talking point thats been heard over and over in the medical community, but the fat they contain is mostly harmful and even in the case of lean products, they are significantly associated with GI cancer. The people who do the guidelines arent idiots who failed the "elementary criticism of studies" course, they are usually pro publishers and researches themselves. Theres a reason behind the consensus.
We used to think moderate alcohol use was connected to longevity, and even attributed the results to confounding factors such as moderate red wine drinkers being of a higher socioeconomic status (physically active, healthy otherwise, educated etc), but turns out it was wrong altogether and harmful at virtually all quantities.
Quote (addone @ 18 Sep 2023 00:14)
Thanks for all suggestions so far. I have heard of all kinds of diets and fads. Every year there is a new one and another doctor with credentials is saying the opposite to the other guy before him. The food pyramid for example has been proven to be unhealthy and being phased out. The official sources are usually being funded by big pharma knowingly people will get sick and buy their drugs. So credentials aren't necessarily metric for me I just said fuck it will look at the people themselves if they look like shit it's a good indicator. Then try it myself if I feel like it's helping I'll stick with it if not I'll take it out. I figured there is only one way to find out.
So far I feel good taking creatine, but this is only day 3 so will monitor progress and update every few weeks.
What about Big Supplement funding your pro creatine science, tho?
Doctors mostly look like they have conflicting views, but the majority is really following the guidelines. Those in the mainstream dont have a lot of motivation to speak out because theres nothing to capitalize on, but you see every snowflake doctor because they live off their anti-mainstream views so they want to go public to sell their stuff. You end up this way with a skewed numerical representation of views. You gotta factor that in as well.
This post was edited by Neptunus on Sep 18 2023 03:42pm