Am I calculating this incorrectly?

[Anonymous No.12050493]

>read rat studies on significant cognitive benefit of DHA supplementation
>the rats weigh 200-240g, and the supplementation in their rat chow is always "1.25% DHA" and they are always allowed to eat ad libitum(whenever and however much they want)
>rats apparently consume ~20-25g of food each day so their consuming ~300mg of DHA per day during these studies, but they only weigh up to ~250g, so their mg/kg/day dose is ~1,200mg/kg/day
>converting rat dose to HED(human equivalent dose) is rat dose multiplied by 0.162
>the HED is ~200mg/kg/day, or 10,000mg in a 50kg person, for all of these beneficial cognitive effects
Even with supplements, you will never have access to 10,000mg of DHA per day. You could barely touch 5,000g even with the most concentrated supplements and you'd spend ~$4-5 per day to achieve this. This must be incorrect. You could not reach this with salmon and sardines either. You'd have to consume 1.5lbs of salmon every day to potentially touch 10,000mg of DHA.

[Anonymous No.12050506]

>>12050493
Perhaps the dose they're feeding to the rats is "more than enough", and you can achieve similar effects with more reasonable doses?

[Anonymous No.12050543]

>>12050506
I cannot find studies using lower doses than this. From what I've seen, our levels of DHA increase linearly with consumption, so that is not a useful indication either. Our bodies would, I suppose, happily use 10,000mg per day if it could, though I've never seen one single study showing effects of such a high dose in humans. They all use pathetically low doses such as 250mg per day. There is just no way to know.

[Anonymous No.12050558]

>>12050543
Why not run your own study and compare varying concentrations of DHA in comparison to cognitive effects, for instance, the time taken to finish a maze?

[Anonymous No.12050560]

>>12050543
>>12050558
I mean, getting ahold of rats is relatively easy, and you wouldn't be doing anything that could be considered inhumane. So why not?

[Anonymous No.12050561]

>10 grams per day
>"Why yes, I do have a baseline plasma total DHA concentration of 900mcg/mL, how could you tell?"

[Anonymous No.12050567]

>You'd have to consume 1.5lbs of salmon every day to potentially touch 10,000mg of DHA.
Not difficult. You eat a mixture of omega 3 rich foods like salmon, pig brain (cheapest source), and sardines, it's easily accomplished.

[Anonymous No.12050571]

>>12050567
What's the best source of disease free pig brain?

[Anonymous No.12050590]

>>12050567
Even from these safer oily fish, you will suffer mercury poisoning and ingest other pollutants consuming so much of them every day, and it is financially unfeasible even compared to proper supplements. Pig brains could contain prions. These studies use DHA supplements and not fish. We do not know if the pollutants would counteract the effects. It's not easily accomplished.

[Anonymous No.12050594]

>>12050590
>Pig brains could contain prions.
Wouldn't your gastric acid denature them?

[Anonymous No.12050595]

>>12050590
>>12050594
I mean, you would also be denaturing them via the act of cooking, no?

[Anonymous No.12050597]

>>12050571
>>12050590
There is not a single cass of porcine to human prison prion disease and pigs are very resistant to them in the first place. Prion disease requires several extraordinarily rare coincidences to occur. First, the mammal must have it (one in millions if not rarer), second we know from CJD outbreaks where the source was traced that the majority of persons who ate cofirmed prion CNS bovine tissue did not develop the disease, and thus there is a generic susceptibility which requires an even rarer combination of genetic polymorphisms to be present that firstly have aberrant protein metabolism that fails to deaminate the protein and secondly allow it to replicate.

[Anonymous No.12050604]

>>12050594
>>12050595
>Prion aggregates are stable, and this structural stability means that prions are resistant to denaturation by chemical and physical agents: they cannot be destroyed by ordinary disinfection or cooking. This makes disposal and containment of these particles difficult.
Oh fuck.

[Anonymous No.12050615]

>>12050604
There are plenty of proteins that withstand that temperature that are consumed and in any case CDA endogenously can deaminate those proteins including prions.

[Anonymous No.12050632]

>>12050590
Retard
>Pigs were considered prion resistant as no natural cases have been observed despite a large population and being fed intensely with feedstuffs containing animal derived protein. However, it has been demonstrated that BSE is able to infect pigs albeit with low efficiency, while infection using scrapie strains in transgenic mice overexpressing porcine PrP was completely unsuccessful.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3510857/

[Anonymous No.12050641]

>>12050567
The pollutants have been shown to reduce all of the benefits. Inuit are the shining example of that.

[Anonymous No.12050669]

>>12050561
the average is about 10mcg/L, for anyone following along

[Anonymous No.12050674]

>>12050641
Good thing pig brain is the cheapest and has no mercury.

[Anonymous No.12050675]

>extrapolating from rodent studies to humans

There's your problem. Stop reading terrible nutrition ''''science''' lab studies. Eat fish once or twice a week. Get on with your life.

[Anonymous No.12050677]

>>12050675
t. midwit

[Anonymous No.12050679]

>>12050677
I have a degree in biochemistry. OP post is retarded, and so are you.

[Anonymous No.12050681]

>>12050679
>appeal to authority of my undergraduate degree
Peak midwit.

[Anonymous No.12050683]

>>12050674
>potentially ending up with a universally fatal degenerative brain disorder to save some money

[Anonymous No.12050686]

>>12050675
The only way you reliably know is through espiermental studies where the subjects are euthanized and analyzed. It's only legal to do this on lab animals, not humans. Otherwise you would be a great candidate.

[Anonymous No.12050687]

>>12050679
>biochem
How is the <130 iq treating you, brainlet?

[Anonymous No.12050692]

>>12050683
Refuted in this thread time and again. Pigs don't have naturally occurring prions. Stop reading pop science.

[Anonymous No.12050699]

>>12050681
>>12050686
>>12050687
You people are very very slow. I don't even know why I'm bothering to type this. These kid of lab studies are useless. They have low reliability, poor replication, almost zero validity. EVEN THE RESEARCHERS themselves will tell you that they are preliminary, only there for further work. The only people who take them seriously are journalists who write headlines like "LE VITAMIN C LINKED TO BIG PENIS" and morons like OP who think he's going to live 10 years longer because of a fucking supplement.

Looking forward to the autistic replies.

[Anonymous No.12050700]

when you see this sort of supplement shilling on /sci/ you just know that big pharma marketing really works lol. keep buying your pills goooood goy

[Anonymous No.12050701]

>>12050699
Experimental studies are highly reliable and replicable, unlike human humans epidemiological studies.

[Anonymous No.12050703]

>>12050700
Ah yes, that naturally occurring fatty acid that you can also get from dietary sources, "Big Pharma" totally controls that too. Fucking seriously, /pol/ is a mental disorder.

[Anonymous No.12050704]

>>12050700
Zero DHA detected.

[Anonymous No.12050705]

>>12050692
In the grand scheme, the amount of cholesterol you'd consume if you wanted a significant dose of DHA would be prohibitive. You'd need to only eat that. It's not feasible- very disgusting too.

[Anonymous No.12050709]

>>12050701
The higher the reliability the lower the validity.

[Anonymous No.12050710]

>>12050705
>GRUGG THINK CHOLESTEROL BAD!
Nice try, sugar baron.

[Anonymous No.12050712]

Classic midwittery:
>noooo carbs bad! sugar industry lobbied the gubment!!!! FAT GOOD don't you know cholesterol doesn't cause heart disease!! le ketogenic will solve the obesity epidemic!

[Anonymous No.12050714]

>>12050700
>>12050710
t. baseline plasma total DHA concentration of 1mcg/mL

[Anonymous No.12050717]

>>12050714
No, I will not suckle your high-fructose corn syrup!

[Anonymous No.12050719]

>>12050712
>Being such a faggot you rely on glucose for your brain.
You shame your ancestors, anon.

[Anonymous No.12050721]

>>12050705
Dietary cholesterol is harmless

[Anonymous No.12050724]

>>12050719
>ancestors
I should really filter all posts that contain this word. In nutrition, talking about our 'ancestors' is the equivalent of promoting homeopathy in medicine.

Please go read a book. I beg you kid.

[Anonymous No.12050730]

>>12050724
Not him, nor am I ketotard, but dietary cholesterol is harmless.

[Anonymous No.12050731]

>>12050724
But Varg said...

[Anonymous No.12050736]

>>12050730
Didn't say it did. I am simply saying that the argument about what our ancestors eat - the 'paleolithic' diet etc. - are pure pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.12050742]

>>12050736
The meme said it was.

[Anonymous No.12050772]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520996/table/nutrients-11-00769-t001/?report=objectonly

>all of the useless 800mg studies show zero improvement and the only study to show improvement is the study which used a proper 2,000mg dose
extremely convenient. imagine if it were 5,000mg or 10,000mg.

[Anonymous No.12050775]

You can buy a bottle of 90 pills of algal DHA from walmart for $20 frens. 2 pills = 900mg of algal DHA. I take 4 a day and notice significant cognitive improvement for around a dollar a day. It wouldn't be that hard to take twice that. You could even achieve 10,000mg a day for like $11 a day. All without any heavy metals.

[Anonymous No.12050808]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4772061/
We know for a fact that DHA supplementation significantly improves cognitive ability at least in children.

8-10 year olds given 1.2g. An 8 year old weighs 25kg and is being give more than most 50kg+ people supplement. We need 2.5g+ just to even attempt seeing benefit as adults.

[Anonymous No.12050819]

>>12050808
>We need 2.5g+ just to even attempt seeing benefit as adults.

Not true. I am a heavy alcohol and meth user, and I notice memory effects from 1800mg algal DHA a day.

[Anonymous No.12050826]

>>12050775
That is a low dose and cheap garbage like that is definitely in the useless ethyl ester form which you barely absorb. You need the tryglyceride or free fatty acid form to readily absorb it.

[Anonymous No.12050837]

>>12050826
typical /sci/fag: you don't even bother to apply the Scientific Method before shooting off your faggot mouth. Don't investigate my assertions: see if I care.

[Anonymous No.12050876]

>>12050819
>and I notice memory effects

[Anonymous No.12051047]

>>12050493
So first,
1) mice and rat (and rabbit, etc) studies are a far cry from human studies. It's well known that doses of a lot of drugs/supplements do NOT scale from mice or rats to humans in a predictable way. 1mg/kg in rats of one substance could require 1ng/kg or 100mg/kg in humans for the same effect, you just don't know.
2) when doing research, we have finite resources. So usually, you want to ask "does X have an effect?", you try out some massive doses on purpose to see if there is ANY effect. Because if you tried out a small dose, and didn't see an effect, you could imagine that you just didn't give a high enough dose, so you just wasted money.
Instead, you start off big, see if there is any effect at all so you know you're not missing much.
>>12050699
Is semi-right. We use these animal model studies to filter out bullshit, mostly. It gives promising ideas that "if it works in this animal it could work in humans", but there is a reason we do human trials.
I can't tell you the amount of animal models that exist to mimic human disease that we had to do something completely different to the animals. Lots of 1 gene diseases in humans that, when you fuck up the same gene in mice, doesn't do diddly squat to the mouse.
>>12050701
the studies being replicable != "more likely to work in humans", just that the same effect is replicable in mice.
I mean shit, you can replicate gene therapy in mice 24/7, all day long, with 100% success, but it still doesn't mean shit. Doing 2 more mouse studies that come out with the same results as the first wouldn't have changed the fact that Jesse Gelsinger fucking died.

[Anonymous No.12051105]

Doesn't DHA accumulate in tissue and have a half-life of 2-3 years in the brain? 2-3g every day is probably enough for whatever effects we see with these doses in rodents. I think the point is to have a significant excess. DHA level decreases with age as well due to... I don't recall why but I know it does. How would 10 grams of DHA somehow increase our performance more than 2 grams? It just doesn't make sense. Our bodies use a tiny amount and recycles it.

[Anonymous No.12051111]

>>12050699
based

[Anonymous No.12051140]

>>12050699
>and morons like OP who think he's going to live 10 years longer because of a fucking supplement.
Even funnier, we have real data that cuts out the bullshit middle man that says what DOES make us live longer.
We have studies of groups of people who consume X vs those who don't consume X, and they factor in everything under the sun, and what they find out is that people who consume X live longer.
You'd THINK OP would be convinced by this, given that its real human data.
Instead I see people like OP say "ooooo that could be something else", then turn to a goddamn rat study and make HUGE assumptions like "oh works in rats must work in humans, and at the same dose as rats, etc etc"

My favorite? Coffee. You drink it, you have lower all-cause mortality, from cancer to heart disease.
If you aren't drinking coffee but going after crazy shit like random supplements, you don't actually care about life span, you care about consumerism supplement and feel-good "healthy" shit, like vegans do with their anti-GMO horseshit.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31055709/

[Anonymous No.12051141]

>>12051105
It doesn't need to recycle it when its concentration is very high. It always has a huge, free supply.

[Anonymous No.12051161]

>>12051047
>>12051140
Well I'm glad at least a few people are scientifically literate here. This place is turning into some boomer's facebook feed with all the nutrition bs.

[Anonymous No.12051196]

>>12050724
>the government is lying to you to sell you corn
It literally does lie to you to sell you shit, and not just carbs either but also vegetable oils. The reason for this is that if an infrastructure of mass production and accessibility of cheap food is not established, and if all these companies and processing facilities are never cultivated, then food price would inflate in parallel with monetary inflation and soon enough it would become unaffordable for the average citizen. In other words, if an alternative to butter and grass-fed red meat with the occasional non-gmo veggie is not produced, then people would be forced to buy these but at much higher costs, and they'll proceed to starve. So the FDA pretends to be retarded and keeps greenlighting stuff that's detrimental to our health just so this doesn't happen.

The the exact same thing that happened in the Soviet Union, which failed to establish a system of cheap processed trash so that the peasants were fed and did not rebel against it, but they did because they were not fed. The same reason why China keeps existing without any perestroikas as well, one is not needed as their food is the worst quality food on Earth but still manages to feed the population and keep them pacified.

And before you pull CPI and claim that it's all fine, consider pic related, which is the price of trash fast food cooked in multi-use vegetable oils and containing god knows what else. If you remove the bad components of its production, it would probably shoot up to the $10 range, maybe above. That's just 550kcal, now make that x4 per family member for the day. A family of 3 would have to spend upwards of $3000 per month on food alone, or face malnutrition. That's just food by the way.

[Anonymous No.12051206]

>>12051140
>Coffee. You drink it, you have lower all-cause mortality, from cancer to heart disease.
Why would drinking coffee do this? What is the mechanism?

[Anonymous No.12051215]

>>12051140
What other foodstuffs confer such boons?

[Anonymous No.12051221]

>>12051196
Of course the government lies to sell you corn, but that doesn't mean it's the corn's fault for the fact that these people weigh 300 pounds. Millions of people eat carbs every day and manage to remain healthy and at low body fat. Why do do carbs cause obesity only in low income areas of Western countries? There is clearly something else which is missing from your picture.

[Anonymous No.12051231]

>>12051215
>What other foodstuffs confer such boons?

[Anonymous No.12051234]

>>12051215
that is a weird choice of words lmao

[Anonymous No.12051237]

>>12051206
Earlier this year I'd say "we don't know yet but have an idea", but a nice review was published this June that makes a good case for the phenolic phytochemicals in coffee being the reason ("Heath effects of coffee: Mechanism Unraveled?"). Its not caffeine, as caffeine alone does not produce this effect, and decaf-coffee does.

Coffee is full of phytochemicals; similar to vegetables and some fruits. We know that vegetables are healthy for a number of reasons, but phytochemicals is the big one. Turns out, most people don't eat enough veggies (big fucking shock), but coffee is the #1 most consumed beverage on the planet, and a LOT of people drink it daily, healthy lifestyle or not. So we see a population-wide effect of coffee drinking.
Some people see that and go "oh, that's all", but I think its great. Its a true super-healthy food. Don't eat enough vegetables? Drink coffee. You do eat enough vegetables? Coffee helps even more.
There is also some small evidence that it may have a pre-biotic effect on your gut flora in a good way, and has some very weak antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects which can certainly lower all-cause mortality, but the big one is phytochemicals (probably)

[Anonymous No.12051238]

>>12051140
The focus of this is cognitive improvement and not longevity.

[Anonymous No.12051250]

>>12051237
>phytochemicals

[Anonymous No.12051252]

>>12051231
>>12051234
Apologies, when I type quickly without considering my words too much, my autism filter is lower than normal.

[Anonymous No.12051257]

>>12051252
I liked it. Nice seeing a variety of terms used once in a while.

[Anonymous No.12051271]

>>12051237
We have many studies showing that phytochemicals are completely useless, don't we?

[Anonymous No.12051301]

>>12051221
>Why do do carbs cause obesity only in low income areas of Western countries?
Well that's literally my point, that these people cannot afford the food that they are supposed to eat and settle for the cheap stuff without anyone out there telling them that it's trash designed to keep them pacified and eventually leads to health issues in the long term. The FDA is supposed to fulfill this role. It's not fulfilling it because there would be mass rebellions the moment it does.

Also by the way it's not just carbs. It's bad fats as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM

[Anonymous No.12051308]

>>12051271
Yes and no. It's a complicated subject when you dive into the nitty gritty.
There are different types of phytochemicals, so lumping them together (like I did) is not the best way to represent them.
Some phytochemicals are carcinogenic, and some may be beneficial (in coffee its mostly phenolic phytochemicals). There's little evidence that "phytochemicals" as a whole are super-beneficial, but you have to really look carefully at what exactly they are testing for (types of cancer? heart disease?) and what they mean when they say "phytochemicals" (all phytochemicals? a subset? just one type?)
For coffee, the argument is that the specific polyphenol phytochemical makeup of coffee targets the Nrf2 pathway and NFkB. The review goes into detail on some of the phytochemicals and how they explicitely have been shown to be cytoprotective; and coffee consumption has been shown to protect against spontaneous DNA damage in lymphocytes in humans (several studies + metastudies), which mimics what the evidence of the specific polyphenol phytochemicals in coffee do with the Nrf2 pathway.

[Anonymous No.12051314]

>>12051301
There are very few people (like < 0.05% of the population, even in the USA) for which it is actually a problem to find affordable food that isn't bad.
When people say "it's cheaper to eat junk than healthy stuff" they're comparing cheap burgers and fries with expensive avocado salads. Almost anyone can go to the supermarket, buy some brown rice, vegetables, and chicken.

[Anonymous No.12051358]

I hate supplements and "nootropics". It seems as if we know nothing about them, even with something like coffee. Surely by now we could identify certain effects of consuming any of these substance, but no. It's one "no significant effects were observed" after another.

[Anonymous No.12051359]

>>12051314
Fast food is the most nutrient dense of any whether you like it or not. I go to McDonalds first thing every morning and have about 1250 worth of calories. This gives me the energy I need to get through my day. Otherwise I'll spend the day without energy or motivation and will just end up cooming

[Anonymous No.12051367]

>>12051358
I think it's largely to do with the complex nature of biology, as a whole something we don't understand too well and simply deal with in terms of ad hoc frameworks that are intended to explain insofar as much as they are able without understanding in greater detail the nuances of the system they attempt to model.

[Anonymous No.12051370]

>>12051359
Isn't a food being "nutrient dynamic" more important than it simply being "nutrient dense" though?

[Anonymous No.12051380]

>>12051359
If you remain under your calorie requirements you won't gain weight. People don't. So they gain weight. It's pretty simple.

[Anonymous No.12051390]

In the grand scheme, supplementing things like DHA or an NAD+ precursor probably is beneficial as their levels decrease even from age 25 and onward. We do want their supplementation if it is available to us in our modern day. Our ancestors did not have this opportunity, but we have it. Anything which decreases through age, we should supplement.

[Anonymous No.12051402]

>>12051390
The issue is that they're not regulated at all, and we do not know how our bodies use them.

[Anonymous No.12051403]

>>12051358
its basically this
>>12051367
>I think it's largely to do with the complex nature of biology
Science, at the end of the day, is limited by the statistical framework that lets us say "yes" or "no" to questions in any meaningful way.
Reductionism is the way to do it for the most part; isolate single parts of a system (single protein interacting with another protein), and see what response you can measure, and if its meaningful.
A question about human-wide effects is a substantially hard question to answer, because of so many caveats to consider.
We KNOW that people who drink coffee have lower all-cause mortality. That's set in stone. It's in the data, clear as day.
Understanding WHY that is the case is the hard part.

[Anonymous No.12051405]

>>12050493
Yes you are calculating this incorrectly, rats are not humans period.

1,5g DHA and EPA of each each is enough and easy to get by, WHC is a very good brand for example that has highly dosed fish oil caps.

[Anonymous No.12051412]

>>12051390
The problem is whether their effects are meaningful.
What I mean is, if you don't exercise, eat properly, or get enough sleep, it really doesn't matter how much DHA or NAD+ you take, a person who does the three above activities will live a longer lifespan than you, be more mobile than you in later life, and suffer less cognitive decline than you.
taking supplements and pretending its more useful than a more-beneficial lifestyle is a fools errand.

[Anonymous No.12051420]

>>12051403
>Understanding WHY that is the case is the hard part.
Exactly.

[Anonymous No.12051449]

>>12051314
not really, no
The prices here range from +30% to up to +100% for the exact same food that our ancestors could easily afford in the early part of the last century, or any other before that (keep in mind that this is a chart from 2015 and they're all at least 20% more expensive now). I don't think that you can just cook ground-fed organic beef in organic butter as a low-income family. Let's say that you want to serve them meat today. It's a family of 3. To do that, you need to cover 6000kcal (maintenance, not surplus) with the beef and maybe something on the side, let's say bread and some veggies.

Per person,
>3 servings of 150 grams of beef, 450g total = 1125kcal
>the butter that you used for cooking = +150kcal => 1275kcal
>a portion of veggies next to the steak, let's say some carrots and lettuce since these are the only ones on the chart, 150g each serving 450g total = 150kcal => 1425kcal
>some bread, 100g per serving 300g total = 250kcal => 1675kcal
>apples as the cheapest desert available, 2 big apples (400g total) = 200kcal => 1875

And we still haven't even reached 2000kcal. Now the organic price of this, according to the 2015 chart, would be:
>1350g of beef at $8 per lb = $24
>200g butter for cooking at $5 per lb = $4.5
>1350g of veggies mix at $2 per lb = $6
>1200g bread (for a lack of a reference price let's put it at $3.5 per pound since the average non-organic in the nation right now is at $2.5) = $9.5
>6 apples at 1200g, at $2 per lb = $5.5

The total to feed a family of 3 at bare maintenance, in 2015 prices, is right around $50 per day without including electricity or fuel cost, or even opportunity cost from spending a couple of hours to cook them. Varies between $30 to $60 depending on the luxury of the food. This is excluding any forms of expensive fast food or eating outside, for a total average of $1500 monthly. This is the average rent for a 1000sqft apartment in California right now.

[Anonymous No.12051463]

>>12051390
We can increase them through behavior. 30-45 minutes of moderate aerobic exercise each day, along with 8 hours of high quality sleep, some kind of intermittent fasting routine, along with what we consider a "healthy" diet, will show greater results than any supplement. We KNOW that these behaviors induce significant improvements in all areas of physical and cognitive ability. It is not speculation. They're even synergistic.
Something like DHA supplementation, if it does induce benefit, and it very well may, it truly is only indicative that your diet lacks DHA, but DHA is a lame situation as all of the sources in your diet are grossly contaminated with mercury etc, so some kind of purified supplement makes more sense. Otherwise, unless you have a gastrointestinal disease which inhibits your ability to absorb nutrients, most supplements are completely unnecessary and effectively serve zero purpose. Omega 3 PFUA, especially DHA and EPA, is an exception, thanks to pollution. Methylmercury is extremely neurotoxic.

[Anonymous No.12051466]

>>12051449
My bad I found the wrong stats. The average rent is in fact around $2.7k for a 1000 square feet apartment

[Anonymous No.12051516]

>>12051449
>organic price
Organic is literally 90% more expensive on average. Why are you using organic prices?

[Anonymous No.12051640]

>>12051516
>Why are you using organic prices?
Because that's the point that I'm trying to make, that food which doesn't rely on advances in chemistry to bring down its price, along with the companies and facilities needed to make it a feasible product for the lower class, scales with not only inflation but also with population count and their demand. A society that cannot produce junk food for its lower classes will shortly collapse or have these lower classes starve to death. So therefor, the government must turn a blind eye to this issue and greenlight affordable junk food, even if it's proven that it's bad for us. Governments that didn't do this, like the Soviet Union, no longer exist and the transitional government to capitalism proved how unaffordable these foods actually were. This is in response to this post's pic >>12050724 laughing at someone on keto for claiming this. Have the FDA ban any form of a chemical with a proven adverse effects that is used by all these multi-billion corporations, and the organic Big Mac would become $15 overnight.

[Anonymous No.12051666]

>>12051640
I don't think you realise what organic food actually is.

[Anonymous No.12051707]

>>12051412
>eat properly

[Anonymous No.12053469]

>>12051412
We know in rats that high DHA supplementation is synergistic with exercise, so after all of that, supplementing DHA is a reasonable idea as nobody consumes enough fish anyway.