Well, I asked for those as that's what I've been accused of not doing myself earlier. So, if I'm the one not providing any, do better! I'm sure you all can use Google, but, I guess, there are way many here who are too lazy to do their own search and research and just come here to click arrows, hyperlinks, and scroll!
The point of asking you to provide references is to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're reading well-conducted scientific research but making errors. Or maybe you have nothing at all to support what you say.
You've said a bunch of stuff in this thread that makes me think your cites are goig to be low quality, but may e I'm wrong and you have links to randomised controlled studies.
All I said is based on many years of following various carefully selected sources of information. I cannot provide exact studies as I don't really keep tract of things outside of the conclusions I accumulate in my mind and based on my own self-experimentation. I really can provide them, I need to invest a lot of time digging them out and, honestly, I won't do this for people who're being aggressive and not appreciative to me - I won't sugarcoat it, you're not worth the effort and my time given the attitude. I do a lot of legwork only to people who respect my effort. Anyway, health and nutrition is not my job, but I have a great interest in it, and a very good track record of being able to memorize facts, aggregate, and distill knowledge. Studies, when it comes to nutrition, are more often flawed than not, but the people who I follow are pretty trustworthy, have the credentials, and they weed out things for me and explain them in a accessible way to a person who's not a biochemist or any health professional. I will list some of my sources though: Robb Wolf, Chris Kresser, Mark Hyman, William Davis, David Perlmutter, Mercola (I know, I know), Andrew Weil (I know, again), Jack Kruse, Doug McGuff, Chris Masterjohn, Paul Jaminet, and some others. I listen and follow many others, but I don't trust them - it's only to find references and seeds for new knowledge, but even those who I trust - I still try to dig deeper, cross-reference, and so on. I also do my own research over at the Hacker News of biohacking and self-experimentation (Longecity), but, again, that's only to see what others are doing and find new seeds, I'm not trusting most of the people over there as they have no face. I follow a long number of blogs, listen to many podcasts, so, I see many angles, and I pick for myself the lifestyle that makes the most sense based on my accumulated knowledge and, so far, and, thank god, things are working outstandingly for me. Also, I do find a meaningful explanation of things - something that's very essential, yet, a luxury nowadays. So, low quality or not - it's really your problem, not mine. I have no goal to prove anything to anybody, I spare the seeds of knowledge I've acquired so dearly to those who could appreciate the gift, to the others - they don't deserve it anyway. I'm really not the humanist type. I'm more of the egoist, so, the less people know the truth as long I know it, the better it is for me and my family! This planet is getting too overcrowded anyway! Munch grains, slurp kale, binge on pizza, abstain from wine - I can only feel sorry for you! I am sorry for being cynical, but that's life.
Regarding which specific points I made all over this thread do you want me to back with a study? The whole modern CVD prevention is based on a hypothesis (Lipid hypothesis), which itself is based on scientific fraud committed by Ansel Keys (he ignored evidence that didn't suit him well), and most of America and the world today eats the semi-dwarf wheat, which was created with prehistoric genetic engineering means, has never been studied on humans, and is not even wheat as it's a mix of wheat and a weed, and has twice the chromosomes of the other wheat cultivars. In science, the simplest hypothesis wins and there are competing ones, and the winner should be the explanation that we're eating foods that we're not adapted to and due to the oversanitization and many infection diseases of the past being eradicated, our immune response needs time (generations) to tame itself down. So, our hypothesis should be the winning one, not the one made with fraud for political and geopolitical reasons!
"The simplest hypothesis" does not "win". The hypothesis that fits the evidence best is accepted until a better one is discovered.
Your spittle-flecked diatribes don't put forth anything remotely resembling the scientific process.
Cite your sources and their studies, not their blogs. But frankly, you're well through the rabbit hole and I don't think you realize how out to lunch your insistence on avoiding those in favor of crackpot pseudoscience is.
