Nope 😭😭😭

Well chapter 47 is out and translated since 2 month. I think the season is over or the author is doing a break.

Another website
I'm pretty sure since I even know what's happening next. I'm gonna check

Wait those haven't already released ??? I'm pretty sure I already read this chapter

https://i.postimg.cc/fTc9NPmy/i.jpg
Me in bed when I finally find a comeback to an argument from 3 weeks ago

https://i.postimg.cc/LXjM6Knk/i.png

https://i.postimg.cc/5NHTq6JC/i.jpg
Same, girl
Same

I'm sorry but if that's your point of view not a single study is correct. If studies inaccuracies (that are by the way taken into account) is what you think is the problem then indeed I can't do anything. All studies that I give you you'll answer me the same thing.

Secondly the vegetarian lobby isn't really strong compared to the meat lobby. (I don't even think there is a vegetarian lobby but maybe who knows)

They are tons of really big corporation who relies on meat consumption and abuse of farmers there is once again tons of studies showing meat lobbying the amount they spent doing so and making studies to undermine the negative effects of meat.

Ps: just so you know it was a really stressful time for me because of my exams and this helped me change my mind from all the stress. I'm really glad I was able to read so many studies on meat consumption lobbying and all the other subjects we talked about. Thanks to you I'll have lots to talk about to everyone with proofs. It's really nice talking to you feels good.

1. Processed meat vs. whole meat in studies
Meta-analyses and large-scale studies often separate processed meats from unprocessed red meat. Both have shown links to health risks like colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease, and diabetes, though processed meats tend to have higher risk factors. For example, the WHO classified processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen and red meat as a probable carcinogen based on rigorous studies.

2. Humans evolved to eat meat

Humans are omnivores, meaning we can digest meat, but that doesn't mean we must eat it for health. Many populations worldwide thrive on plant-based diets, obtaining all necessary nutrients from plants, legumes, nuts, and fortified foods. Modern science enables us to understand nutrition better than evolution's trial-and-error process. Evolution also doesn’t “design” organisms for optimal health—it enables survival. For example, humans can digest alcohol, but that doesn’t make it healthy.

3. Plants are risky too

While excessive consumption of anything can be harmful, the thresholds for plant-based risks are far higher than for meat. For instance:
Overeating bananas to dangerous potassium levels (hyperkalemia) is rare and would require eating over 10 in a short period.
Plant-based diets consistently show lower risks of chronic diseases, like heart disease, compared to diets high in animal products.
Meat, even in moderate amounts, introduces risks (e.g., saturated fat, heme iron, cholesterol) that are simply not comparable to plant foods.

4. Pills are better

While supplements can help address specific deficiencies, whole foods provide fiber, phytonutrients, and other compounds that pills cannot replicate. Over-reliance on supplements may also introduce risks, such as imbalances or toxicities. Dietitians universally recommend obtaining nutrients from whole foods first.

5. Scientific studies are flawed

Scientific studies undergo peer review, control for confounding variables, and use statistical methods to account for variability. Meta-analyses aggregate results from multiple studies to reduce bias and improve reliability. While no study is perfect, the overwhelming consensus from public health organizations supports plant-based diets as healthier overall compared to meat-heavy diets.

Ps: They found resveratrol which is really good for your health in wine but the concentration was 0.1 to 14 mg/L for red wine and from 0.04 to 3.5 mg/L for white wine.
You can find in grapes skin 50–100 μg/g of resveratrol.
The therapeutic dose of resveratrol is around 5000 mg per day.
Which means you'd have to drink at least 357 litters of red wine a day to have health benefits.

I'm sorry I was busy but here I'm back again.

1 my logic is eating meat is linked to higher risk of developing health risk than not.
2 I agree as well and that's not the point since any amount of consumption of meat is linked with increased health risks.
3 That's not true if you wanna go down the evolution and biology path humans had little access to meat and most likely ate insects roots berry during most of their development and sometimes little mammals. They started to eat meat very late. The human body can safely digest a lot of stuff with lots of very negative effects (such as alcohol).

1" test are made bigger scale to prevent these issues and they are meta studies not just one study.

2" yes I agree with proper consumption once again.

3" that's not true since there is nothing exclusively present in meat. which organ are you referring to ? They are herbivores with higher acidity and stronger jaws.

I'm basing my opinion on studies and not evolution since it's a really hard subject that I'm currently studying I wouldn't go and assume anything like that. Even actual researcher are never saying that's why but it could be a reason for any evolution traits. I don't know where you get that information

The wine thing is not true you can check recent studies it was press misinterpretation.

Taking pills is not a solution. The maximum amount of plants someone could eat is far greater than the amount of food they typically consume in a day, and no one is going to eat the same plant all day long. I don’t understand your point at all. Sure, maybe someone, somewhere, ate 1.5 kg of bananas in a day, but that’s just common sense at this point.

I’m not aware of any organs specifically designed to digest meat. And the argument that “if we can do it, we should” is completely flawed.

Studies show that no matter who you are, where you are, or the circumstances, eating meat increases your risk of developing cancer and other health problems. While it’s true that eating small amounts of meat may not significantly increase these risks, if you do exceed those amounts, the risks go up. It’s as simple as that.

This is similar to alcohol or cigarette consumption: even one glass of alcohol per month is enough to increase health risks, just as one cigarette can. Of course, these risks aren’t identical, but they serve as good examples to make the point.

I'm saying that following actual studies and scientific knowledge not eating meat and having a good balanced diet is in fact healthier. And there is no debate on that.

I'm sorry I don't live in the USA but here organic food must be pesticides free to be labelled like that it means no use of any toxic products on the plants but they are problems related to the ground being polluted by old or nearby plantations which are not organic but still it's way better.

To eat "to much" potassium you would need to eat over de recommended level of daily potassium intake which is roughly ten bananas and on a regular basis.
Yes it's all about balance but it's not the same balance at all. If one serving of meat is the max for a week and 10 servings of banana is the max for a day you can see the difference.

I'm not going to say anything about evolution because that's a pretty hard subject that I do not know enough to talk about.

It's written in the very article you gave me
You don't have to eat red meat

"Red meat has high amounts of protein, which helps promote muscle growth, ... , You can get the same amounts — and in some cases even more — from poultry, fish, eggs, and nuts, and as well as by following a plant-based diet."

I'm not saying you shouldn't eat red meat I'm saying you can get the same benefits from red meat (let's abandon the processed meat since we both definitely agree it's not healthy) by consuming other stuff (like a plant based diet) with less health risk which is the whole problem I had with the author. They are even a few small studies comparing the alimentation of monk and there longevity (which is the whole point of the story).

I kinda knew about the dihydrogen monoxide but I didn't realise since we used to make the joke in french my bad. (We also made de one with CHOCO)

And I understand you can use anything to push an agenda but I'm not sure WHO is pushing an anti meat agenda. Who knows (no pun intended) they might be but it would be weird.

I just realised I'm answering your message backwards anyway, obviously organic food is less likely to be tied with cancer than non organic food but nevermind I just found a study on comparing the amount of cancer risk between organic and non organic meat.

Conclusion of the study:
"Strikingly, the consumption of organically produced meat does not diminish this carcinogenic risk,..."
Study name:
"Consumption of organic meat does not diminish the carcinogenic potential associated with the intake of persistent organic pollutants (POPs)"

I found that study on pub med and I quickly checked who the guy is and he seems somewhat legit I do say I haven't read the whole study just the conclusion and the method.

And after a bit of research they are multiple meta-analysis (sounds fancy but just means gathering many studies together) that say the following:
Increased consumption of red and processed meat increase the risk of total mortality, cardiovascular disease, colorectal cancer and type 2 diabetes in all population, sex, age, BMI, history of smoking, sportive activity, lipids and blood pressure.

So I'm pretty sure for at least eating red or processed meat is not healthy. I haven't checked seafood nor poultry but from what I know these are way less worst.

I read what you said and understand. The last part seems a bit dramatic and didn't really understand what you meant.
However the WHO clearly states what you should eat to have a healthy diet.
It's shown meat is not part of it they even say to avoid trans fat which is found in many stuff including meat.
So I haven't found clear information saying you shouldn't eat any but still could find multiple studies saying multiple types of meat are increasing the odds of developing cancer.
All of that is just on the health side we all know of the terrible conditions of life of the animals and the consequence it has on our environment.

I mean he has nice hair a good body. I concede, I don't think his personality would be a match. I'm more a cosy book guy and his face looks kinda weird but love makes us blind so it's okay

I take back what I said the demon is kinda sexy those v lines are fine 👌https://i.postimg.cc/8zWkbRmk/i.jpg

yes he did and with ultimate grace https://i.postimg.cc/L6JR47k3/i.gif

This is just peakhttps://i.postimg.cc/dQXmpk5t/i.jpg 🤣🤣🤣

That's what I was gonna say 🤣🤣🤣