Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Can one live on only meat?
Replies
-
-
queenliz99 wrote: »But the problem I have with eating only meat is where do people get their necessary vitamins and minerals? What about fiber? That is a *kitten* load of saturated fats. Your omegas would be whacked out.
Fiber is not an essential, and is potentially an anti-nutrient. Fiber is implicated in constipation and in diarrhoea. One has to be wary of applying vague epidemiology in one diet to another diet.
In the absence of industrial seed oils your omega ratios might be wonderful, and fish (which is the meat off a fish according to my local vegetarian) is an excellent source of omega-3.
In the absence of carbohydrate the saturated fat you eat is oxidised to power your body processes. Sat fat in the bloodstream is not a strong function of sat fat in the diet.
At least in eating meat you know the stuff you're eating is pretty similar to the stuff you're made of, which isn't obviously the case with plants.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
"Vegetable oil". Hmm. Look at a vegetable. Where's the oil ? What's the nutrient in "vegetable oil" that's essential to life that isn't in meat ?
Mankind probably got here without seeing industrially extracted oils for most of the journey.
0 -
positivepowers wrote: »Liz...you will be OK for a month, in my opinion. Many indigenous Arctic cultures survived and thrived for millennia on diets of primarily whale, seal and bear meat, and in winter, rotted fish, with a growing season of barely two months to provide any kind of vegetation. This is well-documented: Google "Indigenous Arctic diets".
The real question is, "Will you lose any weight?".
No, the real question is, "How many types of vitamin/mineral deficiencies can you acquire?" Those cultures may have lived for millennia on meat but have one of the lowest lifespans of modern man.
"Inuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the overall Canadian population.1…"
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-are-the-inuit-healthy.html
Has Greenland moved, or are these Greenlanders that moved to the land of healthy food and slimness ?
Greenland's Life expectancy at birth :-
total population: 71.25 years
male: 68.6 years
female: 74.04 years (2012 est.)
0 -
Raw meat is not a bad idea.... many cultures eat raw meats and fish. It's only a bad idea when a huge slaughterhouse sends the meat from 500 cows to some central processing location where they are mixed with the meat from thousands more and reground, then squirted into 'chubs' and shipped off all over the country. BTW if you want your burger meat/mince freshly ground in store from that day's meat cuttings off the carcass get "Market Trim" at Safeway or go to a butcher and watch them grind it for you. Much smaller chance of any contamination since it is not remixed and reground meat from thousands of cows.0
-
DancingDarl wrote: »I have no idea, but I believe in order for meat to be considered a "complete" diet, some of it has to be consumed raw to incorporate some of the more rare vitamins (they are degraded by heat):
http://paleoleap.com/raw-meat/
I like that this site talks about the benefits of eating spoiled meat because it has "probiotics" like kefir and yogurt:
http://www.mygutsy.com/is-raw-meat-healthy/
Raw meat is just a bad idea. You need to cook it to kill bacteria and any organisms micro or eggs.
It isn't. There are some risks but modern testing does allow for inclusion in diet without major elevation in risk. Carpaccio and tartares are delicious.
As a general rule, any diet that is highly exclusive (like a meat only diet) is bad news and people will tend to have nutritional deficiencies. Is it possible to eat such a diet and not fall into the trap of nutritional issues?
Yes it is. A person focusing on only eating meat would be best served to include vitamin supplementation and offal. Liver, tripe and other offal will serve significantly to reduce nutritional risk. For example - during the 18th century, it was seen that certain sailors did not get scurvy - the reason? They ate cooked rats. All of the rat. Yum.
(rats synthesise vitamin C - actually most species do.) And surprise cooking still allows for vitamin content to be maintained.
But the whole raw meet thing is incorrect. Cooking does not "destroy" all vitamin C. What actually happens is that cooking degrades SOME of the vitamin C available. As a general rule, cooking meat or vegetables to point (a point, rare and firm) reduces by 50%, those soggy vegetables? by 2/3rds. But they still have some vitamin content.
1 -
I'm a meat eater and love it but eating nothing but meat and no veg, fruit or whole grains for a month...... he or she is gonna have a pretty sore O ring0
-
WinoGelato wrote: »
"Vegetable oil". Hmm. Look at a vegetable. Where's the oil ? What's the nutrient in "vegetable oil" that's essential to life that isn't in meat ?
Mankind probably got here without seeing industrially extracted oils for most of the journey.
I've been trying to understand the appeal of this "challenge" especially for those who seem to embrace it for longer than a month. One thing I had theorized that some of these people just don't like vegetables so they see this as a good way to avoid them for a month "hey I'm doing a challenge, I can't eat that broccoli!". But I couldn't understand how vegetable oil fit in with that mindset.
People keep saying this diet isn't that much different than vegetarians or vegans, but many who follow that lifestyle are doing it for ethical reasons. Are the meat only eaters doing this to protect the plants?
I just truly am trying to wrap my head about it.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
"Vegetable oil". Hmm. Look at a vegetable. Where's the oil ? What's the nutrient in "vegetable oil" that's essential to life that isn't in meat ?
Mankind probably got here without seeing industrially extracted oils for most of the journey.
I've been trying to understand the appeal of this "challenge" especially for those who seem to embrace it for longer than a month. One thing I had theorized that some of these people just don't like vegetables so they see this as a good way to avoid them for a month "hey I'm doing a challenge, I can't eat that broccoli!". But I couldn't understand how vegetable oil fit in with that mindset.
People keep saying this diet isn't that much different than vegetarians or vegans, but many who follow that lifestyle are doing it for ethical reasons. Are the meat only eaters doing this to protect the plants?
I just truly am trying to wrap my head about it.
Yep, that comparison is driving me nuts. Most who are vegetarians or vegans are doing it because they do not want animals to die in order to fill their belly. This challenge is the opposite...it is wanting the most animals possible to die in order for their bellies to be full.
Que? I doubt people are entering this as a way to "kill the most animals". Seriously?
The reason it is being compared, and which makes sense as a comparison, is that both are restrictive diets, both carried out without thought will lead to nutritional issues.
Clearly the comparison isn't about the ethical background but about the restrictive attitudes that are needed and the dietary results.
And in both cases it is possible to overcome the nutritional issues.0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
"Vegetable oil". Hmm. Look at a vegetable. Where's the oil ? What's the nutrient in "vegetable oil" that's essential to life that isn't in meat ?
Mankind probably got here without seeing industrially extracted oils for most of the journey.
Not that I think you need vegetable oil, but have you seen an olive or an avocado?0 -
WinoGelato wrote: »
"Vegetable oil". Hmm. Look at a vegetable. Where's the oil ? What's the nutrient in "vegetable oil" that's essential to life that isn't in meat ?
Mankind probably got here without seeing industrially extracted oils for most of the journey.
Not that I think you need vegetable oil, but have you seen an olive or an avocado?
They are green or black?
They are oval?
They come with a stem?
They float?
What game are we playing?0 -
This content has been removed.
-
WinoGelato wrote: »I had plans to try something like this already, except I am still including coconut oil and some eggs.
Oh I'm glad you're here. I'm genuinely curious why people try something like this? I know you're a huge proponent of keto and how beneficial its been for you. What's the draw for something even more extreme like this? Are you hoping for accelerated weight loss? Some change in your health markers? Ive been struggling go understand the appeal and potential benefits of this, other than bragging rights, and while I don't always agree with your logic I know that you have strong convictions about your LCHF lifestyle so I'm sure yo are trying to avhieve something with this.
For me, it is partially curiosity, There are a few low carbers on MFP who eat virtually an all meat diet. They've discussed how it made them feel even better. Better energy, better stomach issues, better weight loss and stability, and the cooking is simple. LOL I felt a lot better going keto. It's why I have stayed with it. I wonder if I will feel even better after cutting out veggies... As it is, there are many veggies I avoid due to stomach pain, bloating and gas. I do find that the fewer plant products I eat, the better I have felt so far. This is just taking it a bit further.
I would enjoy seeing a bit of weight loss but I am a size 8 so I am pretty happy with where I am. I now eat quite a bit for a sedentary woman (about 2000-2500kcal per day) so I doubt I'll lose. If I do it will be because my appetite dips and I eat less, or it increases my CO, or a combination of the two.
As for health markers, I wouldn't mind seeing lower FBG numbers and lower insulin, but that's about it. My health markers are fine and don't need improving.
It is just some experimenting. I'll see how it makes me feel and if that is worth the expected food boredom. Who knows, I may enjoy it. I enjoy a keto diet much more than most people seem to expect, so maybe this will agree with me too.
It isn't about bragging rights. I doubt I will even tell anybody (IRL) I am doing it besides my husband. I don't need the support or judgement from others. Most people can't wrap their heads around this idea. I think it is sort of like vegetarianism or veganism was viewed 30 or so years ago. It is largely misunderstood.
Thanks for responding.
Do the people who do this diet on the regular ever talk about any negative impacts or feelings about the approach? I tend to find anyone who can't point to possible or actual drawbacks that they encounter far less compelling as an influencer. I would much rather hear "well, now it's great but when I first started I felt XYZ" or "sure, I enjoy eating a juicy rare ribeye every night but in all honesty, I'd love a baked potato or some asparagus to go with it" but I'm sticking with this approach!
The evangelical zealot approach doesn't resonate well with me, I believe any rational person should be able to recognize and acknowledge pros and cons with any point of view.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
"Vegetable oil". Hmm. Look at a vegetable. Where's the oil ? What's the nutrient in "vegetable oil" that's essential to life that isn't in meat ?
Mankind probably got here without seeing industrially extracted oils for most of the journey.
I've been trying to understand the appeal of this "challenge" especially for those who seem to embrace it for longer than a month. One thing I had theorized that some of these people just don't like vegetables so they see this as a good way to avoid them for a month "hey I'm doing a challenge, I can't eat that broccoli!". But I couldn't understand how vegetable oil fit in with that mindset.
People keep saying this diet isn't that much different than vegetarians or vegans, but many who follow that lifestyle are doing it for ethical reasons. Are the meat only eaters doing this to protect the plants?
I just truly am trying to wrap my head about it.
Yep, that comparison is driving me nuts. Most who are vegetarians or vegans are doing it because they do not want animals to die in order to fill their belly. This challenge is the opposite...it is wanting the most animals possible to die in order for their bellies to be full.
Que? I doubt people are entering this as a way to "kill the most animals". Seriously?
The reason it is being compared, and which makes sense as a comparison, is that both are restrictive diets, both carried out without thought will lead to nutritional issues.
Clearly the comparison isn't about the ethical background but about the restrictive attitudes that are needed and the dietary results.
And in both cases it is possible to overcome the nutritional issues.
It may not be what brought them to the diet, but it still is the net action. An all meat diet causes the most animal deaths possible in one's diet. There is not one morsel of their food that isn't about the death of an animal.
And I still don't like the comparison. One is an ethical or moral food choice and the other clearly is not.
I also will say a vegetarian or vegan diet can easily meet nutritional needs because the diet is still quite varied. An all meat diet, I have still not heard from anyone of the supporters in this thread how it can meet all the needed nutrients for a healthy, balanced diet. I doubt I will.
But a lot of vegetarians don't eat vegetarian for ethical reasons. One can say "I understand the moral principals, and morals aside" compare the two diets, particularly when the vast majority of people do not use morals as a primary decider of their dietary choices. Whether we like or not a comparison it is still possible to make one based on a subset of criteria and parameters - here it is dietary subgroups and vitamin deficiency risks.
I don't support an all meat WoE but I will state how it can meat all the nutrient needs of a balance diet.
In fact, any diet may meet all the needs of nutrition. It's called supplementation. Supplementation is relatively easy.
Nor is what the OP is suggesting a long term WoE - it seems to be a one month thing.
Still there are several people that have completed clinical research of eating that way. There is even a family that only eats meat and has done so for 17 years. Clearly they have not experienced scurvy or other nutritional deficiencies.
http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.de/2009/09/two-brave-men-who-ate-nothing-but-meat.html
edit: floating phrase.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
And people do all sorts of waca-doodle experiments with food - if you are trying to understand how people can get into the whole "only meat" thing I remember reading the Joe Anderson and his family blog about how it was "the best thing for them".
Here is someone who has gone from vegan to all meat. http://zerocarbzen.com/about-me/
Well, personally I'm going to consider all restrictive diets as dubious (or worse) - I'll respect how people eat because I understand it is a multifaceted decision that includes so many different factors - but generally anyone arguing either that their WoE is "nutritionally best" or the opposite that method x is "OMG, gonna die, necessarily nutritionally deficient" is blowing the horn on two sides of the same coin (might as well mix my metaphors and screw the pooch) and full of it.
Any diet may be nutritionally deficient. Almost any diet may meet personal nutritional needs. Most require some thought and specific action.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »
"Vegetable oil". Hmm. Look at a vegetable. Where's the oil ? What's the nutrient in "vegetable oil" that's essential to life that isn't in meat ?
Mankind probably got here without seeing industrially extracted oils for most of the journey.
Not that I think you need vegetable oil, but have you seen an olive or an avocado?
They are green or black?
They are oval?
They come with a stem?
They float?
What game are we playing?
I thought we were playing Where's Waldo, but now it seems more like Guess Who.0 -
I suppose you could, but it doesn't sound like much fun.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'd say most vegetarians and almost all vegans do it for ethical or moral reasons. Sure the fad vegetarians who think it will help them lose weight, but that fad dieter lasts as long as other dad dieters do on their ways of eating.
Even for a month, I don't think it is nutritionally sound. I have asked those select few who have come in saying they have done it for how they balance the nutrition, but I have not heard back. Once again, I am not surprised. How are they making sure it is nutrient balanced??? *shrugs*
Apart from Vitamin C and E what nutritional deficiency are you concerned about? Can these deficiencies be managed on an all meat diet?
Or are you asking if a "only meat" diet is suboptimal? It is. But so is a vegan diet. Whoops, doing that comparison thing again.
0 -
So I guess by your standards I am inappropriate to ask someone eating a whole meat diet how they are making sure their diet is nutrient and health sound. I stand corrected. Who knew.
If someone wanted to ask me how I make sure my vegetarian diet (and my plan when I transition to vegan) was nutritionally balanced and sound, I would be more than happy to answer.
The fact that you consider my vegetarian diet dubious matters little to me. I'll get over it.
Moving on.
I don't think your diet is dubious. (You missed the rest of the sentence.)
Please don't get defensive.
Nor do I think it is incorrect to ask questions or somehow that is "inappropriate".
I'm sure you, in turn, get all the questions about "but vitamin b12" "but protein" about your WoE.
In general, they might be actual questions by someone considering your WoE as an option, sometimes they are concern trolling; the use of a "sense of concern" as a way of criticising a diet.
Are you truly concerned about "primal carnivores" and their dietary inefficiencies? We can discuss those in detail - again, the vitamin C issue can be relatively easily managed. Or are you on principal against this and concern trolling because you see it as unethical?
Which is fine - but take a clear stand - if you are against this WoE for ethical reasons, I can understand that position - even if I complete do not share it.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Hmm. Meat only. I suppose it could be just hamburger which is certainly cheapest of all cuts. I know Costco has a huge selection of frozen ground beef and bacon. My hubby thinks I'm nuts if I do this but it's only one month.
True. How about sausage? Some varieties can have fillers that aren't meat.
Ground beef is fine, but I've always thought those plastic tube packs were a bit suspect.
What are these plastic tube packs you speak of?
These types of packs...
Heh I've never seen mince packaged like that here. Sausage mince come like that though.
Sausage is what I'm familiar with in those too, as well as the little versions the farm I buy from uses for ground pork and lamb. Just don't like thinking of them as tubes, ugh.
Are these chubs extra large? Or are we talking the little ones?
(Oh, just noticed 5 lbs -- so big ones!)0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »thorsmom01 wrote: »This is no different then the other fad type of challenges around.
Every week there's a new one that goes around like " go paleo for a month " or " eat only eggs for a week and lose weight " or " green smoothie 30 day challenge"
Some people will blindly follow anything.
I'll continue to eat a well balanced diet that meets all my macros and micros.
But don't you think one month is not very long to do any long term damage but just to torch some body fat? What could be the harm?
No I don't think one month would do major damage.
But I do not see eating all meat as a superior way to torch body fat. That would come down to a calorie deficit. Let's say I ate all bananas while you ate all beef but both of us ate 1400 calories per day. We would both be "torching" fat because we would both be in a calorie deficit. We would both lose weight.
It would come down to calories for weight loss. So my point is that diets like this are unnecessary . why torture yourself with eating only meat when you could eat a well balanced varied diet and still get the same results ? If someone enjoys eating only meat then they should go for it but from a weight loss standpoint, its totally unnecessary. People want to believe there's a magic diet for them because they are special snowflakes. This diet isn't any different then all the other Eat this and not that craziness.
Also keep in mind that many people are followers , they don't think for themselves. I'd be willing to bet that your friend saw this new diet on social media and just went along with it because she saw others doing it. I had several coworkers who took part in a fitbit challenge. They where supposed to get in x amount of steps per day. Well they where going home and putting their fitbits on their kids and having the kids run around to get the steps in. They just did the challenge to fit in and really it meant nothing to them. Its the herd mentality. About a year later there was a group of ladies from the gym who did a vegetarian challenge. They where supposed to eat no meat or animal products for the month. During the month I saw one of the ladies at McDonald's. I asked her why she saw ordering a big Mac because their challenge wasn't over yet. She said " don't tell anyone I was here, please ! I just did it to have something in common with the girls and wanted them to like me " I told her I wouldn't tell and because I wasn't part of the challenge anyway so it didn't matter to me anyway. My point is- sometimes people will do or say anything to try to fit in with a crowd . these people find it impossible to just be their selves so latch onto whatever the new fad or trend is. Your friend probably just saw this all meat thing posted somewhere and went along with it.
There's two groups of people that go along with this type of stuff- 1. The People who are always looking for the magical miraculous diet . paleo one week and keto the next and vegetarian the week after..
2. The people that will follow anything just to be part of a click or crowd.
If I where you , I would nicely explain to the friend that weight loss comes from a calorie deficit and special diets are unnecessary for weight loss. I would also ask her how she planned on hitting all her macros and micros by eating only meat. It wouldn't be easy and would not produce some miraculous result.0 -
Had a buddy at previous employer that did this. He was about 300 lbs, and lost weight dramatically. If I remember right (probably not), it was a form of Atkins. I remember one of his lunches was just a huge pile of bacon. He had massive success - about 80 lbs lost in maybe 4 months - but it didn't look fun. He often said he was tired of eating just meat.0
-
queenliz99 wrote: »
No, I will include some coconut oil amd eggs. I'll skip dairy because I find I tend to do better without much and my cheese consumption is creeping up. I'll see how it goes. I enjoy veggies so it could get old. If so, I'll stop.
I'm sorry, I meant which type of meats?0 -
-
AndyJBacon wrote: »Had a buddy at previous employer that did this. He was about 300 lbs, and lost weight dramatically. If I remember right (probably not), it was a form of Atkins. I remember one of his lunches was just a huge pile of bacon. He had massive success - about 80 lbs lost in maybe 4 months - but it didn't look fun. He often said he was tired of eating just meat.
I suspect this sort of thing works in large part because it makes eating dull and tedious. I know I couldn't overeat if I ate only meat, and as time went on it would be hard to force myself to eat much. Not because I can't overeat meat in the context of a normal diet (I most certainly can), but because 1800 (or whatever) calories of meat is A LOT, and even if I started eating lots and lots I'd get so bored with it (especially since I'm not even that into bacon, heh).
The difficulty would be not deciding you can't take it any more and burying yourself in the first non meat option you see after reaching that point, but if super motivated to lose a lot I can see that not happening (or for a shorter period of time, I guess, although I'd say not worth it and quit, I imagine, unless there was some reward like money or bragging rights). I do think that for some the fact that you can't even think about other foods, they are just not what you eat, might make it easier. I enjoy food too much for that to be worthwhile for me, though. I wouldn't want to stop enjoying food, even if it made weight control easier.0 -
Interestingly, this article popped up while I was reading the morning news. An excerpt: "...Why is it that some people can stay healthy only by sticking to a strict vegetarian diet? Why is it that others can eat a steak a day, remain slim, avoid heart disease and feel like a million dollars? The answers may lie in your heritage. Cornell University researchers have found a fascinating genetic variation that they said appears to have evolved in populations that favored vegetarian diets over hundreds of generations....this new study, funded by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, shows that different people may need radically different ratios of the substances in their diet depending on their genes, and it supports the growing evidence against a one-size-fits-all approach to nutrition and for highly personalized advice..."
The entire article is quite interesting: news.nationalpost.com/health/some-people-are-born-vegetarians-and-ignoring-genetic-preference-imperils-their-health-study-finds
ETA: the article also references the meat-centred diet of the Inuit1 -
SarcasmIsMyLoveLanguage wrote: »Interestingly, this article popped up while I was reading the morning news. An excerpt: "...Why is it that some people can stay healthy only by sticking to a strict vegetarian diet? Why is it that others can eat a steak a day, remain slim, avoid heart disease and feel like a million dollars? The answers may lie in your heritage. Cornell University researchers have found a fascinating genetic variation that they said appears to have evolved in populations that favored vegetarian diets over hundreds of generations....this new study, funded by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, shows that different people may need radically different ratios of the substances in their diet depending on their genes, and it supports the growing evidence against a one-size-fits-all approach to nutrition and for highly personalized advice..."
The entire article is quite interesting: news.nationalpost.com/health/some-people-are-born-vegetarians-and-ignoring-genetic-preference-imperils-their-health-study-finds
ETA: the article also references the meat-centred diet of the Inuit
Pretty useless if the article does not put a single link to any of the studies it's talking about and instead looked for 5 stock photos and a youtube video titled "Is Arnold Schwarzenegger going vegan?".1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions