this is true and I’m tired of pretending it isn’t
swim
- 0 Posts
- 34 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
Cake day: November 25th, 2023
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
33·1 month agoFor real tho
Ah ok, I get you, then. I didn’t downvote your comment.
Guns are tools. And what’s more, “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
What do you mean, it was an AR-15. I don’t support a ban, just clarifying facts.
If you’re curious about the downvotes, I would consider that it appears you thought you were “asking,” when what your comment does is issue a command. With no other context to understand from where you are coming.
These free-to-play are always pay-to- win
Extract to where, tho
‐ Men in Black (1997)
Not to mention her luxury room and board, the shopping sprees, and the jewelry gifts.
Everything you’re quoting is from the link I posted, saying things I’ve already said in other comments. I’m proud of you for reading the information.
Based on a 100-gram comparison, the Impossible Burger has more favorable stats for protein (17.2 g compared with beef’s 16.8 g), fiber (4.4 g to beef’s 0 g), and iron (3.7 mg to beef’s 2 mg) than traditional beef. It’s also lower in calories with fewer grams of total fat (11.5 g vs beef’s 19.9 g) and saturated fat (5.3 g vs beef’s 7.3 g)
Did I ask you to continue providing studies? Agenda? Good luck, friend.
I just told you why the study you linked is invalid for this conversation. Do you want me to quote the comment you just replied to so you can reread it?
Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don’t understand. I’ll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn’t differentiate between those foods in that “range of ultra-processed foods (UPF),” so that means data coming from “sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery” is getting all mixed in with the data of the “‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers,” which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we’re talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.
Link a study showing what?
Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I’ll quote the user above:
that category contains “soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes.” This gives you no information on Impossible burgers’ impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
Impossible has more salt than beef, but less saturated fat.
… that is there question.