4 ms·

One quite literally can conclude nothing useful from that. They got the same feeding, it says so in sentence 3. It shows the testing laboratories were a great v

One quite literally can conclude nothing useful from that. They got the same feeding, it says so in sentence 3. It shows the testing laboratories were a great variation in the outcome, not the chickens. The free range had a bit more fat - is that good or bad? "Vitamin A and E levels were not affected..." So what point were you trying to make by posting this? I'm getting fed up with the quality of posts here, you can't base your reality around what feels nice, give us data or stop making baseless claims.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> The free range had a bit more fat - is that good or bad? It’s a controlled study isolating the effect of letting the chickens run around. Lower fat ceteris paribus and higher fatty acid is generally considered good, and no, I’m not going to link to every paper that makes that point. If you let diet vary then yes, you get more pronounced results [2]. > give us data or stop making baseless claims This is a forum. Not your personal research service. These materials are a simple search away and you are refuting with zero evidence. [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  > isolating the effect of letting the chickens run around true but irrelevant. What you said earlier was about 'pasture raised'... > factory-farmed meat being less nutritionally dense than pasture-raised meat but they got the same nutrition because they were fed the same factory diet, free-range or not. So totally irrelevant. > and you are refuting with zero evidence No, you are claiming with zero evidence. I am asking for evidence, and then point out your one piece of subsequently cited 'evidence' wasn't. Your next cite is pretty ambiguous too - you previously: "and poor diet makes most factory-farmed meat less nutritionally dense than the pasture-raised", your cited study: > It is also noted that grain-fed beef consumers may achieve similar intakes of both n-3 and CLA through the consumption of higher fat grain-fed portions So in that respect the same. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutathione https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutathione for example says "Systemic bioavailability of orally consumed glutathione is poor because..." so that don't help, and I can't see any evidence for or against that glutathione (or the other antioxidant) survives cooking. Your posting unsubstantiated stuff is no more than an extension of ant-vaxxer's thinking, "this is fluffy and nice so it must be right". Reality matters. What you want to believe doesn't.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> The free range had a bit more fat - is that good or bad? It’s a controlled study isolating the effect of letting the chickens run around. Lower fat ceteris paribus and higher fatty acid is generally considered good, and no, I’m not going to link to every paper that makes that point. If you let diet vary then yes, you get more pronounced results [2]. > give us data or stop making baseless claims This is a forum. Not your personal research service. These materials are a simple search away and you are refuting with zero evidence. [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1475-2891-9-10

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> isolating the effect of letting the chickens run around true but irrelevant. What you said earlier was about 'pasture raised'... > factory-farmed meat being less nutritionally dense than pasture-raised meat but they got the same nutrition because they were fed the same factory diet, free-range or not. So totally irrelevant. > and you are refuting with zero evidence No, you are claiming with zero evidence. I am asking for evidence, and then point out your one piece of subsequently cited 'evidence' wasn't. Your next cite is pretty ambiguous too - you previously: "and poor diet makes most factory-farmed meat less nutritionally dense than the pasture-raised", your cited study: > It is also noted that grain-fed beef consumers may achieve similar intakes of both n-3 and CLA through the consumption of higher fat grain-fed portions So in that respect the same. Looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutathione https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glutathione for example says "Systemic bioavailability of orally consumed glutathione is poor because..." so that don't help, and I can't see any evidence for or against that glutathione (or the other antioxidant) survives cooking. Your posting unsubstantiated stuff is no more than an extension of ant-vaxxer's thinking, "this is fluffy and nice so it must be right". Reality matters. What you want to believe doesn't.