nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Carnivore Diet: The Antithesis to Veganism

ScorpioL1GHT

I always enjoy researching different diets, but the Carnivore Diet in particular stands out to me the most. Maybe because of the menu...

The Carnivore diet is the polar opposite of Veganism and includes meat, seafood, and poultry, but can include other animal products such as eggs and dairy. Many adherents suggest you do not need plants foods to thrive and can even maximize your health through this way of eating by increasing fat and protein consumption and reducing carb intake very close to 0. There are growing communities dedicated to carnivorous eating such as Zero Carb Zen, World Carnivore Tribe, etc.

I don't believe there have been any long-term studies done on a group of people eating a purely animal-based diet. Could this eating lifestyle really be the answer for people? I do believe in individualized nutrition and disagree that one diet works for everyone.

As for my opinion, I am definitely interested in perhaps attempting this way of eating because I always loved eating meat when I was younger and felt more satiated, energized, and healthy every meal it was included. I can't say I ever really craved plant foods such as fruits or vegetables so giving them up wouldn't be the end of the world for me (never had much of a sweet tooth either). I would like to hear anyone's honest opinion on the Carnivore Diet and I am curious if you are interested in trying out this lifestyle!

So...will Carnivore become the new Vegan???

Replies

_aenyeweddien_

ScorpioL1GHT wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but my biggest concern with this way of eating is the risk of cancer. From what I understand the research done on meat consumption as a risk to cancer is somewhat skewed because those studies are done on people who follow an omnivorous diet or the standard american diet. So how can we be sure increasing meat is the cause? What if it is the heavily processed and sugary foods people eat on a daily basis that results in this?

Is there any studies that anybody can direct me to that give clear evidence that more meat = more risk of cancer?

what's important as well is the quality of the meat you buy. Organic 100% grass fed meat will have a completely different effect on your health than factory farmed, grain fed, hormone and antibiotic packed supermarket meat.

johnslater461

_aenyeweddien_ wrote: »

ScorpioL1GHT wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned this yet, but my biggest concern with this way of eating is the risk of cancer. From what I understand the research done on meat consumption as a risk to cancer is somewhat skewed because those studies are done on people who follow an omnivorous diet or the standard american diet. So how can we be sure increasing meat is the cause? What if it is the heavily processed and sugary foods people eat on a daily basis that results in this?

Is there any studies that anybody can direct me to that give clear evidence that more meat = more risk of cancer?

what's important as well is the quality of the meat you buy. Organic 100% grass fed meat will have a completely different effect on your health than factory farmed, grain fed, hormone and antibiotic packed supermarket meat.

Citation needed

wilson10102018

laurenq1991 wrote: »

Posting facts backed up by scientific research is virtue signalling and trolling?

So what do you propose we should do? Say nothing lest someone think we are "virtue signalling and trolling" and allow the temperature to rise 7 degrees C by 2100?

Most everything you have posted here is conjecture - your opinions based on selective readings from the gurus you worship. Don't try to engage me on articles of faith. I don't care. We will never know. And, we can't do anything about it anyway. No one is appointing you or me Supreme Ruler. Meat consumption goes up and down. Probably because of the economy and the weather. Warmer weather, more meat. So, the 20 billion hotdogs are getting eaten next year no matter what you do or say. You and I have no effect whatsoever on these problems. Sorry to break it to you.

Merry Christmas!

psuLemon

johnslater461 wrote: »

psuLemon wrote: »

johnslater461 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

laurenq1991 wrote: »

jgnatca wrote: »

Check mortality rates for communities with a limited diet range.

It’s more than anecdotal or abbreviated studies when we figure out that there are vitamins and minerals we absolutely need. The discovery of the cause of rickets is high up on that list.

You can personally re-learn the lessons of the past but these lessons tend to be self limiting.

Onset of symptoms may not be overnight but if you start getting unexplained bone pain and bleeding gums get thyself to a doctor.

I don’t buy that cattle are bad for the environment. I live smack dab in the middle of the prairies. Grasslands depend on renewal and they are helped along by close cropping and chopping of the roots by ruminants.

The historical pemmican out here on the prairies was made from dried meat, fat, and Saskatoon berries. An omnivore concoction.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Rickets is unlikely in a carnivore diet since many animal products are high in vitamin D, and also is very rare in the general population. Many foods are now fortified with vitamin D for this reason (among other foods, milk and plant milk are directly fortified, and many meats are indirectly fortified by giving these vitamins to the animals). A well-planned carnivore diet that includes organ meats most likely will not cause any nutritional deficiencies. A bigger concern is the increased risk of cancer because higher red meat consumption is associated with a higher risk of cancer (it is classified as a probable carcinogen by the IARC), and higher consumption of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, is associated with a lower risk of cancer. Overall a carnivore diet probably won't kill you in the short term, but there's no evidence that it's better than the balanced diet rich in plant foods that is recommended by most nutritionists.

Only processed meats have a link to cancer and possibly raising your risk of colon cancer from 5 to 6%.

Red meat has not been shown to be cause cancer at all... And they've looked.

Wrong again

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/

The average risk for CRC is 5%. So a 20-30% increase in risk would make it 6-6.5%. Its simple math that is twisted by researchers to make it sound worse. So she was right.

Add in the fact that this is based off ten epidemiological studies which makes them more limited.

It's called relative risk. And the risk increase was found in red meat (not just processed)

So once again she was demonstrably wrong

She was partially wrong. She assumed it was only processed meats. It incorporates all red meat. And a 1% risk is far from big or concerning. And again, if you think epidemiological studies have high validatity, you are fooling yourself to justify an argument.

janejellyroll

nvmomketo wrote: »

happytree923 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.

There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.

A great deal would need to change if we were to grow cows/meat more sustainably. Could it be done? Sure. Will it be done in the near future? Doubtful.

A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy. But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).

Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-10-foods-with-the-biggest-environmental-footprint-2015-9

This article has a chart comparing the carbon footprint of various foods and includes a breakdown of what carbon comes from production vs transportation. Rice barely charts compared to beef. Shelf stable items like rice tend to be transported by freight which has a pretty light footprint all things considered. Your intuition on this is wrong. Flat out wrong.

Yes, ruminants used to be wild in huge numbers, but there were almost no anthropogenic carbon emissions plus a lot more natural vegetation to sequester carbon. We can't support our current massive human population with a world that looks like it did in the 17th century. Cows, even the ' natural' cows your local farmers raise, are a product of human domestication and industrialization and thus must be counted as part of our overall impact. They exist because of us and so they are our responsibility.

If all you are only looking at is carbon emissions, then it may be true. If you look at the bigger picture, with responsibly grown cattle, I think there is less impact in certain areas. I truly doubt that barley farming has less impact on the environment (chemicals going into the water, soil health and quality, soil organisms, carbon sinks, etc) than ruminants grazing on natural pasture land.

This article briefly discusses a book I've read on it some interesting points.
https://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/2018/03/02/cattle-arent-actually-killing-the-planet-says-vegetarian-rancher/

I realize the world does not look like it did in the 1600s. But I do think food production could and should be changed. Cutting down rain forests to provide food for feed lots is just not smart. Destroying pasture land to grow feedlot crops is not smart either. Cattle do better in some areas than others. Raising them there makes sense.

Instead of fields of yellow canola (for a highly processed seed oil) or barley (for feedlots) near my home, I think more cattle ranches would be a smarter choice. Or even bison ranches.

I'm not saying that everyone should eat carnivore. I'm saying that cutting back on meat consumption in order to cut carbon emissions makes much less sense than using sustainable farming practices, and way less sense than reducing industrial, production, and transportation emissions. Going after cattle was a smart move by animal rights activists. IMO, it is the wrong thing to go after... Like going after pipelines to reverse global warming instead of going after reductions in the use of gas and oil by industry - the need for gas.... It makes about as much sense as reducing food production in an effort to get people to eat less.

I eat meat and don't feel bad about the fact that I am meant to eat meat. Domesticated cows may exist because of us, which is fine by me. I'll eat them along with bison and wild pacific salmon we caught while fishing and the geese my boys shot this hunting season. The meat we eat is from a small farm and from hunting. We butcher it. My meat consumption is relatively responsible and local. If you want to avoid eating meat, that is fine by me, it is your choice. You can eat more of the broccoli or Brussel sprouts that man somehow created from mustard plants.

We will need to respectfully disagree. As another poster said, you buy your groceries and I'll buy (or butcher) mine.

But we have no evidence that "sustainable farming practices" (however you define that) will produce enough beef to feed the world. It may be your *belief* that this can somehow happen, but it's more like an article of faith at this point.

kimny72

wilson10102018 wrote: »

laurenq1991 wrote: »

Posting facts backed up by scientific research is virtue signalling and trolling?

So what do you propose we should do? Say nothing lest someone think we are "virtue signalling and trolling" and allow the temperature to rise 7 degrees C by 2100?

Most everything you have posted here is conjecture - your opinions based on selective readings from the gurus you worship. Don't try to engage me on articles of faith. I don't care. We will never know. And, we can't do anything about it anyway. No one is appointing you or me Supreme Ruler. Meat consumption goes up and down. Probably because of the economy and the weather. Warmer weather, more meat. So, the 20 billion hotdogs are getting eaten next year no matter what you do or say. You and I have no effect whatsoever on these problems. Sorry to break it to you.

Merry Christmas!

I get what you're saying, but I would hate to live a life where the only issues I discussed with others were things I had direct control over fixing. I would rather spend some of my time debating big issues that matter whether we control them or not, it's how you learn and expand your mind. And sometimes philosophically debating large issues can help you solve smaller issues.

If you scroll down the Debate forum list, most are issues we can't fix here. And many classic Debate topics are grand issues and ideas. Many people find debate enjoyable, doesn't mean we think we're going to fix this stuff or come to a universally accepted conclusion here in the forums.

lemurcat2

laurenq1991 wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true.

It's in my grocery, using ground beef as an easy comparison, the grass fed (fat percentage not stated or 85% fat) is about 2x the cost of 80% fat ground beef, but very similar in cost to 95% fat ground beef. The grass fed at the farmers market is only marginally more than that at the grocery store (it's local and organic).

At this specific grocery store, there are various fruit and vegetable options that are pre-cut and are about 2x or more the cost of the non pre-cut, and there are egg options that are free range or what not (I don't trust any of these labels at groceries), and people buy the more expensive ones quite often.

So the idea that most have never "seen" these options or cannot possibly afford them seems questionable. Food is actually a much lower percentage of total household budget than it used to be.

Is it grass-fed and grass-finished, or grass-fed and grain-finished?

Grass fed and finished.

I do agree it's not likely to be everywhere.

It's getting more popular over time though (honestly I've always thought 90% of meat was kind of gross so I can't really understand why someone would want to eat like this, but I guess some people love meat). It's also indicative of a growing sub-population of people who are vilifying carbs. Not just carnivores but also a lot of the low-carb and keto adherents are eating way more meat than even the average American (and the average American eats a lot!) and using questionable reasoning about why this is necessary.

I don't disagree (although I like meat -- we established you and I have very different tastes, though!), but I think the number of people who will want to do carnivore or stick to it more than a short length of time is very limited, since the vast majority of people would have no desire to do it (and it's boring, which is actually why I think it works as a diet in large part). I also think demonization of carbs and especially of veg (for the very few who go so far as to demonize even veg, I don't think any are on MFP) is tiresome and wrong, but food trends are just that, trends, and it will turn around.

I think WFPB and veganism are getting more popular, as well as vegetarianism, at the same time -- there's probably greater openness in general to diets that are not the norm that many grew up with (I don't mean simply the SAD, as I certainly did not grow up with that, but the idea that one must eat 3 meals, that dinner isn't dinner without meat, starch, and veg, basically traditional American eating patterns when more people actually cooked). Improving the average diet seems to me a bigger goal than worrying about what carnivores do, although I totally agree that claims that everyone should eat that way or that it's healthier (so all should do it!) should be disputed if made.

janejellyroll

kimny72 wrote: »

wilson10102018 wrote: »

laurenq1991 wrote: »

Posting facts backed up by scientific research is virtue signalling and trolling?

So what do you propose we should do? Say nothing lest someone think we are "virtue signalling and trolling" and allow the temperature to rise 7 degrees C by 2100?

Most everything you have posted here is conjecture - your opinions based on selective readings from the gurus you worship. Don't try to engage me on articles of faith. I don't care. We will never know. And, we can't do anything about it anyway. No one is appointing you or me Supreme Ruler. Meat consumption goes up and down. Probably because of the economy and the weather. Warmer weather, more meat. So, the 20 billion hotdogs are getting eaten next year no matter what you do or say. You and I have no effect whatsoever on these problems. Sorry to break it to you.

Merry Christmas!

I get what you're saying, but I would hate to live a life where the only issues I discussed with others were things I had direct control over fixing. I would rather spend some of my time debating big issues that matter whether we control them or not, it's how you learn and expand your mind. And sometimes philosophically debating large issues can help you solve smaller issues.

If you scroll down the Debate forum list, most are issues we can't fix here. And many classic Debate topics are grand issues and ideas. Many people find debate enjoyable, doesn't mean we think we're going to fix this stuff or come to a universally accepted conclusion here in the forums.

Agreed, some people find that debate serves its own purpose (exposes them to different points of view, forces one to critically evaluate one's own position).

Also, I don't buy into the idea that anyone who has a concern that is larger than their own immediate life is guilty of "virtue signaling." It's okay to have ideas about what is right and wrong and what we should value. Like many things, it's all about how you *act* on those ideas that matters. There are inappropriate ways to express values, but there are also appropriate ways. It isn't all about wanting to the the "Supreme Ruler."

I can't control what other people eat, nor is it a power I'd wish to have. But I can control what I choose to eat and how that reflects my values. I'm not just going to throw up my hands and decide that all decisions are meaningless just because there are a lot of people on earth.

nvmomketo

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

happytree923 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.

There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.

A great deal would need to change if we were to grow cows/meat more sustainably. Could it be done? Sure. Will it be done in the near future? Doubtful.

A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy. But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).

Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-top-10-foods-with-the-biggest-environmental-footprint-2015-9

This article has a chart comparing the carbon footprint of various foods and includes a breakdown of what carbon comes from production vs transportation. Rice barely charts compared to beef. Shelf stable items like rice tend to be transported by freight which has a pretty light footprint all things considered. Your intuition on this is wrong. Flat out wrong.

Yes, ruminants used to be wild in huge numbers, but there were almost no anthropogenic carbon emissions plus a lot more natural vegetation to sequester carbon. We can't support our current massive human population with a world that looks like it did in the 17th century. Cows, even the ' natural' cows your local farmers raise, are a product of human domestication and industrialization and thus must be counted as part of our overall impact. They exist because of us and so they are our responsibility.

If all you are only looking at is carbon emissions, then it may be true. If you look at the bigger picture, with responsibly grown cattle, I think there is less impact in certain areas. I truly doubt that barley farming has less impact on the environment (chemicals going into the water, soil health and quality, soil organisms, carbon sinks, etc) than ruminants grazing on natural pasture land.

This article briefly discusses a book I've read on it some interesting points.
https://www.albertafarmexpress.ca/2018/03/02/cattle-arent-actually-killing-the-planet-says-vegetarian-rancher/

I realize the world does not look like it did in the 1600s. But I do think food production could and should be changed. Cutting down rain forests to provide food for feed lots is just not smart. Destroying pasture land to grow feedlot crops is not smart either. Cattle do better in some areas than others. Raising them there makes sense.

Instead of fields of yellow canola (for a highly processed seed oil) or barley (for feedlots) near my home, I think more cattle ranches would be a smarter choice. Or even bison ranches.

I'm not saying that everyone should eat carnivore. I'm saying that cutting back on meat consumption in order to cut carbon emissions makes much less sense than using sustainable farming practices, and way less sense than reducing industrial, production, and transportation emissions. Going after cattle was a smart move by animal rights activists. IMO, it is the wrong thing to go after... Like going after pipelines to reverse global warming instead of going after reductions in the use of gas and oil by industry - the need for gas.... It makes about as much sense as reducing food production in an effort to get people to eat less.

I eat meat and don't feel bad about the fact that I am meant to eat meat. Domesticated cows may exist because of us, which is fine by me. I'll eat them along with bison and wild pacific salmon we caught while fishing and the geese my boys shot this hunting season. The meat we eat is from a small farm and from hunting. We butcher it. My meat consumption is relatively responsible and local. If you want to avoid eating meat, that is fine by me, it is your choice. You can eat more of the broccoli or Brussel sprouts that man somehow created from mustard plants.

We will need to respectfully disagree. As another poster said, you buy your groceries and I'll buy (or butcher) mine.

But we have no evidence that "sustainable farming practices" (however you define that) will produce enough beef to feed the world. It may be your *belief* that this can somehow happen, but it's more like an article of faith at this point.

But I have never said that all should eat carnivore or even that most should. It is just a valid eating option which has helped some people with their health. It is not my belief that it can or even should happen (all eating carnivore). Most do fine as an omnivore. Most people live in environments that are better suited to other food sources anyways. Technically I am an omnivore still although my diet is heavy in animal products because it improves my health. I eat beef, rather than other meats like salmon, because it is local, affordable and easy to get.

My only arguments here are that the approximately 30% more ruminants we have in North America now are not major drivers of global warming, they have benefits to grassland habitats, and the few people who eat more meat than average, often for their health, are not going to end the world with eating beef on a daily basis.

wilson10102018

kimny72 wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but I would hate to live a life where the only issues I discussed with others were things I had direct control over fixing. I would rather spend some of my time debating big issues that matter whether we control them or not, it's how you learn and expand your mind. And sometimes philosophically debating large issues can help you solve smaller issues.

If you scroll down the Debate forum list, most are issues we can't fix here. And many classic Debate topics are grand issues and ideas. Many people find debate enjoyable, doesn't mean we think we're going to fix this stuff or come to a universally accepted conclusion here in the forums.

Oh, I suppose that it serves a purpose for people who are entertained about pointless debate (who would win, the Germans if they had laser guided bombs, or the Allies with EMP's? Answer: The Bears!)

But, there are actually things that need doing on an individual level. Locally. And, the virtue signalling detracts from that. I have a neighbor who has one of those signs in arabic and english that says something like "we don't care where you are from but we welcome you as our neighbor." But, I have never seen a recycling bin in his driveway, his kids go to a $30k per year per student private school, and he drives a $100,000 car. And, no migrant who reads arabic is moving into our neighborhood unless he is a thoracic surgeon from Dubai.

janejellyroll

wilson10102018 wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but I would hate to live a life where the only issues I discussed with others were things I had direct control over fixing. I would rather spend some of my time debating big issues that matter whether we control them or not, it's how you learn and expand your mind. And sometimes philosophically debating large issues can help you solve smaller issues.

If you scroll down the Debate forum list, most are issues we can't fix here. And many classic Debate topics are grand issues and ideas. Many people find debate enjoyable, doesn't mean we think we're going to fix this stuff or come to a universally accepted conclusion here in the forums.

Oh, I suppose that it serves a purpose for people who are entertained about pointless debate (who would win, the Germans if they had laser guided bombs, or the Allies with EMP's? Answer: The Bears!)

But, there are actually things that need doing on an individual level. Locally. And, the virtue signalling detracts from that. I have a neighbor who has one of those signs in arabic and english that says something like "we don't care where you are from but we welcome you as our neighbor." But, I have never seen a recycling bin in his driveway, his kids go to a $30k per year per student private school, and he drives a $100,000 car. And, no migrant who reads arabic is moving into our neighborhood unless he is a thoracic surgeon from Dubai.

My impression is that most, if not all, of the people in this thread *are* actually following their convictions when it comes to choosing what to eat. This is different than putting a sign in the driveway, it's actually a decision that most of us can decide to live out at least three times a day.

kimny72

wilson10102018 wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but I would hate to live a life where the only issues I discussed with others were things I had direct control over fixing. I would rather spend some of my time debating big issues that matter whether we control them or not, it's how you learn and expand your mind. And sometimes philosophically debating large issues can help you solve smaller issues.

If you scroll down the Debate forum list, most are issues we can't fix here. And many classic Debate topics are grand issues and ideas. Many people find debate enjoyable, doesn't mean we think we're going to fix this stuff or come to a universally accepted conclusion here in the forums.

Oh, I suppose that it serves a purpose for people who are entertained about pointless debate (who would win, the Germans if they had laser guided bombs, or the Allies with EMP's? Answer: The Bears!)

But, there are actually things that need doing on an individual level. Locally. And, the virtue signalling detracts from that. I have a neighbor who has one of those signs in arabic and english that says something like "we don't care where you are from but we welcome you as our neighbor." But, I have never seen a recycling bin in his driveway, his kids go to a $30k per year per student private school, and he drives a $100,000 car. And, no migrant who reads arabic is moving into our neighborhood unless he is a thoracic surgeon from Dubai.

What makes you think we are not taking action on issues we do have power over? I've spent maybe a grand total of 15 minutes total in this thread. I'm not sure why you would assume that in the other 23 hours and 45 minutes of my day, I haven't done anything worthwhile. It's a shame you are wasting time reading a pointless debate and taking the time to tell us it's pointless rather than doing all the stuff out there that needs doing.

One could say suggesting you know "better" ways we could be spending our time is itself virtue signaling.

happytree923

wilson10102018 wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

I get what you're saying, but I would hate to live a life where the only issues I discussed with others were things I had direct control over fixing. I would rather spend some of my time debating big issues that matter whether we control them or not, it's how you learn and expand your mind. And sometimes philosophically debating large issues can help you solve smaller issues.

If you scroll down the Debate forum list, most are issues we can't fix here. And many classic Debate topics are grand issues and ideas. Many people find debate enjoyable, doesn't mean we think we're going to fix this stuff or come to a universally accepted conclusion here in the forums.

Oh, I suppose that it serves a purpose for people who are entertained about pointless debate (who would win, the Germans if they had laser guided bombs, or the Allies with EMP's? Answer: The Bears!)

But, there are actually things that need doing on an individual level. Locally. And, the virtue signalling detracts from that. I have a neighbor who has one of those signs in arabic and english that says something like "we don't care where you are from but we welcome you as our neighbor." But, I have never seen a recycling bin in his driveway, his kids go to a $30k per year per student private school, and he drives a $100,000 car. And, no migrant who reads arabic is moving into our neighborhood unless he is a thoracic surgeon from Dubai.

Based on how sensitive you are over people discussing this issue, I am guessing it is a bit of a sore topic for you. Is there a discrepancy between your values and your diet that you haven't been able to resolve? Because when I see a discussion I feel is useless, I leave. I don't repeatedly come back to the thread and tell people they are virtue signaling and wasting time discussing an issue that is important to them.

kimny72

Lol, alrighty then.

nvmomketo wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

laurenq1991 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or is it just how you feel about it? I and other people posted evidence backing up what we have said.

There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.

Well first of all that's wrong. Peak bison populations were around 60 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting). The US has around 91 million cattle and Canada has around 12 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population). And that's with current meat consumption levels, with only a tiny number of people doing the carnivore diet. Imagine how high it would be if a significant amount of people were on the diet. Also the environment is totally different now than it was back then. A lot of land is now not usable for cattle because people live there, have roads there, have other industries there, it is too polluted, etc. Back when the bison population was 60 million, basically the entire grasslands were free to them, and the human population and number of permanent human structures built was much lower. Back then there were some human emissions from fires and so on, but they were very small. The natural emissions from ruminants were balanced out by the large amount of vegetation (a lot of which has now been cut for buildings, roadways, etc.) so it was not a problem.

As I said, a lot of the agriculture happens in order to grow food FOR animals. If you read the Guardian article I posted you would see that experts estimate animal agriculture takes up 83 percent of all agricultural land use.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth ("The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.")

Yes, industrialization also contributes to climate change, but that's a different issue, we're talking about animal agriculture here.

A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy.

None of those foods are low-impact either.

But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).

Again, "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing."

Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.

If you go on zerocarb on Reddit you will see most people on the carnivore diet think everyone should go on it. Also fixing climate change is not just an ethical reason, but also a reason of increasing your own personal chance of living a full lifespan, not losing everything in a natural disaster, etc.

wilson10102018 wrote: »

I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.

When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.

So just totally ignore the facts on what needs to be done and then, when disaster inevitably strikes, complain "why me?!" and "why didn't anyone do anything about it?!" Judging by the natural disasters lately that's been working out really well.

Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.

Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.

I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.

I mentioned other animals because they tend to be easier on plants. Cattle often rip plants up whereas other grazers will eat off the tops of grasses to varying lengths which could improve grasslands habitat.

And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.

All carnivores do not think alike. Just because someone on reddit said everyone should eat this way does not mean every carnivore thinks that.

I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.

I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.

I feel like you're ignoring the fact that back in the 1700s when the Bison and antelopes freely grazed across the continent, there were less humans. A lot less humans. And there weren't cities and national parks and roads and train tracks and airports. And all those animals, in addition to roaming lands that are no longer unobstructed, were feeding this much smaller population of people.

Again, the sort of setup you are envisioning perhaps would be possible in the frozen plains of rural Canada, I'll take your word for that, but it would be a very geographically limited setup for a small population of people. The majority of the earth's population simply do not have access to affordable grass fed cattle, reasonably fresh organ meat, or the kind of open space that would be required to raise enough animals to be the only source of food without turning to corporate factory style animal production and slaughter.

That's sort of my point. It makes environmental sense to eat local. Those living on the coast will eat more fish than me. Albertans will eat more beef than those living in tropical or subtropical areas. those in tropical areas will eat less lamb or olives than those in the Mediterranean areas. Someone eating less beef in Alberta is an ineffective way to protest clear cutting for cattle in Brazil. Kwim?

Sure. I just don't see how it ties in to supporting a carnivore diet. How many people in the world, when eating strictly local and affordable, would have access to enough nutritious animal products to follow a carnivore diet? In my opinion at least, eating local requires eating an at least omnivorous diet. And for people living in heavily populated (especially urban) regions, I would think it would be very difficult to get affordable "local" meat products at all. It just seems like a niche diet if you are talking about practicality or sustainability. I'm sure there are individuals or select areas where it is practical and sustainable, and you and your corner of the world may be one of them, but I think those are very specific individuals and areas.

I was not so much arguing for carnivore, but rather against the idea that it is bad for environmental reasons.

And yes, only specific pockets in the worlds are suited to raising cattle or other ruminants, so eating a diet based on that may not be practical. That was one of my points.

I do think most people do best as omnivores. It's easy and can be quite healthy. I do not think that the few people who eat carnivore, usually out of a medical necessity, should be encouraged to stop because of global warming. I am healthier when I basically avoid plants. I've discovered that my arthritis and inflammation improves dramatically. I would eat more plants if it did not make me feel less well. I don't eat carnivore because I love the food and variety... it's pretty boring.

Oh okay, that's not at all the gist I was getting from your posts. I've never heard of anyone's arthritis being affected by eating any type of plant foods.

While I do eat meat, I don't eat much. I would imagine it could get boring, as in most areas at least there's just not much variety available.

I think raising animals in a manner closer to their natural habitat and diet would make meat not only more nutritious, but more expensive and lower supply, and I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. But I'm aware my own personal beliefs and ethics color that opinion. And as has been pointed out, my opinion won't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world

laurenq1991

wilson10102018 wrote: »

But, there are actually things that need doing on an individual level. Locally. And, the virtue signalling detracts from that. I have a neighbor who has one of those signs in arabic and english that says something like "we don't care where you are from but we welcome you as our neighbor." But, I have never seen a recycling bin in his driveway, his kids go to a $30k per year per student private school, and he drives a $100,000 car. And, no migrant who reads arabic is moving into our neighborhood unless he is a thoracic surgeon from Dubai.

Why are you assuming that nobody posting on this thread is doing anything else to live a low-impact lifestyle or try to get legislation passed on climate change? But if people listed all the other things they are doing you would say that's "virtue signaling" (it would also be off-topic from the discussion of environmental impact of a meat-based diet).

kshama2001

kimny72 wrote: »

Lol, alrighty then.

nvmomketo wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

laurenq1991 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or is it just how you feel about it? I and other people posted evidence backing up what we have said.

There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.

Well first of all that's wrong. Peak bison populations were around 60 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting). The US has around 91 million cattle and Canada has around 12 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population). And that's with current meat consumption levels, with only a tiny number of people doing the carnivore diet. Imagine how high it would be if a significant amount of people were on the diet. Also the environment is totally different now than it was back then. A lot of land is now not usable for cattle because people live there, have roads there, have other industries there, it is too polluted, etc. Back when the bison population was 60 million, basically the entire grasslands were free to them, and the human population and number of permanent human structures built was much lower. Back then there were some human emissions from fires and so on, but they were very small. The natural emissions from ruminants were balanced out by the large amount of vegetation (a lot of which has now been cut for buildings, roadways, etc.) so it was not a problem.

As I said, a lot of the agriculture happens in order to grow food FOR animals. If you read the Guardian article I posted you would see that experts estimate animal agriculture takes up 83 percent of all agricultural land use.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth ("The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.")

Yes, industrialization also contributes to climate change, but that's a different issue, we're talking about animal agriculture here.

A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy.

None of those foods are low-impact either.

But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).

Again, "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing."

Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.

If you go on zerocarb on Reddit you will see most people on the carnivore diet think everyone should go on it. Also fixing climate change is not just an ethical reason, but also a reason of increasing your own personal chance of living a full lifespan, not losing everything in a natural disaster, etc.

wilson10102018 wrote: »

I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.

When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.

So just totally ignore the facts on what needs to be done and then, when disaster inevitably strikes, complain "why me?!" and "why didn't anyone do anything about it?!" Judging by the natural disasters lately that's been working out really well.

Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.

Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.

I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.

I mentioned other animals because they tend to be easier on plants. Cattle often rip plants up whereas other grazers will eat off the tops of grasses to varying lengths which could improve grasslands habitat.

And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.

All carnivores do not think alike. Just because someone on reddit said everyone should eat this way does not mean every carnivore thinks that.

I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.

I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.

I feel like you're ignoring the fact that back in the 1700s when the Bison and antelopes freely grazed across the continent, there were less humans. A lot less humans. And there weren't cities and national parks and roads and train tracks and airports. And all those animals, in addition to roaming lands that are no longer unobstructed, were feeding this much smaller population of people.

Again, the sort of setup you are envisioning perhaps would be possible in the frozen plains of rural Canada, I'll take your word for that, but it would be a very geographically limited setup for a small population of people. The majority of the earth's population simply do not have access to affordable grass fed cattle, reasonably fresh organ meat, or the kind of open space that would be required to raise enough animals to be the only source of food without turning to corporate factory style animal production and slaughter.

That's sort of my point. It makes environmental sense to eat local. Those living on the coast will eat more fish than me. Albertans will eat more beef than those living in tropical or subtropical areas. those in tropical areas will eat less lamb or olives than those in the Mediterranean areas. Someone eating less beef in Alberta is an ineffective way to protest clear cutting for cattle in Brazil. Kwim?

Sure. I just don't see how it ties in to supporting a carnivore diet. How many people in the world, when eating strictly local and affordable, would have access to enough nutritious animal products to follow a carnivore diet? In my opinion at least, eating local requires eating an at least omnivorous diet. And for people living in heavily populated (especially urban) regions, I would think it would be very difficult to get affordable "local" meat products at all. It just seems like a niche diet if you are talking about practicality or sustainability. I'm sure there are individuals or select areas where it is practical and sustainable, and you and your corner of the world may be one of them, but I think those are very specific individuals and areas.

I was not so much arguing for carnivore, but rather against the idea that it is bad for environmental reasons.

And yes, only specific pockets in the worlds are suited to raising cattle or other ruminants, so eating a diet based on that may not be practical. That was one of my points.

I do think most people do best as omnivores. It's easy and can be quite healthy. I do not think that the few people who eat carnivore, usually out of a medical necessity, should be encouraged to stop because of global warming. I am healthier when I basically avoid plants. I've discovered that my arthritis and inflammation improves dramatically. I would eat more plants if it did not make me feel less well. I don't eat carnivore because I love the food and variety... it's pretty boring.

Oh okay, that's not at all the gist I was getting from your posts. I've never heard of anyone's arthritis being affected by eating any type of plant foods.

While I do eat meat, I don't eat much. I would imagine it could get boring, as in most areas at least there's just not much variety available.

I think raising animals in a manner closer to their natural habitat and diet would make meat not only more nutritious, but more expensive and lower supply, and I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. But I'm aware my own personal beliefs and ethics color that opinion. And as has been pointed out, my opinion won't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world

Mom thinks limiting nightshade vegetables helps her arthritis but according to this, the science does not support that.

https://www.arthritis.org/living-with-arthritis/arthritis-diet/best-foods-for-arthritis/best-vegetables-for-arthritis.php

...Should You Avoid Nightshade Vegetables?

Eggplants, peppers, tomatoes and potatoes are all members of the nightshade family. These vegetables contain the chemical solanine, which some people claim aggravates arthritis pain and inflammation. Are nightshades worth avoiding?

“It is anecdotal, and it certainly might be true for some people, but there are no scientific studies done to prove that they actually cause inflammation or make symptoms worse,” Larson says. Nightshade vegetables are rich in nutrients, making them a worthy addition to your diet. But if you find they trigger arthritis pain, don’t eat them, Larson suggests.

nvmomketo

kimny72 wrote: »

Lol, alrighty then.

nvmomketo wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

laurenq1991 wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

I know cows create methane but I'm not convinced that problem is worse than flying or trucking in rice or bananas, or the loss of carbon sinks by changing grasslands and forests to modern agriculture, or just the damage to the soil by turning it over every year.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertions or is it just how you feel about it? I and other people posted evidence backing up what we have said.

There used to be millions of bison here. The only reason they are mostly gone is because Europeans needed a way to control the indigenous people, and decimating their food supply was an easy way to do it. From what I have read, and I could be wrong, there is not more cows in North America today than there was bison a few hundred years ago. There's a lot more agriculture and industrialization though, and I think they should be considered more when pointing fingers on global warming contributors.

Well first of all that's wrong. Peak bison populations were around 60 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_bison#Hunting). The US has around 91 million cattle and Canada has around 12 million (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle#Population). And that's with current meat consumption levels, with only a tiny number of people doing the carnivore diet. Imagine how high it would be if a significant amount of people were on the diet. Also the environment is totally different now than it was back then. A lot of land is now not usable for cattle because people live there, have roads there, have other industries there, it is too polluted, etc. Back when the bison population was 60 million, basically the entire grasslands were free to them, and the human population and number of permanent human structures built was much lower. Back then there were some human emissions from fires and so on, but they were very small. The natural emissions from ruminants were balanced out by the large amount of vegetation (a lot of which has now been cut for buildings, roadways, etc.) so it was not a problem.

As I said, a lot of the agriculture happens in order to grow food FOR animals. If you read the Guardian article I posted you would see that experts estimate animal agriculture takes up 83 percent of all agricultural land use.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth ("The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.")

Yes, industrialization also contributes to climate change, but that's a different issue, we're talking about animal agriculture here.

A carnivorous diet is usually high in beef but it can include other animas like fish, pigs, deer, elk, eggs and dairy.

None of those foods are low-impact either.

But please note that I am not saying it is the best diet for all, or even doable for all. I do think a more carnivorous diet (more animal heavy than plant heavy) may be more appropriate to certain areas. My area has fewer than 4 months of frost free days - we don't have the growing season for many fruits and veggies. That will be different than tropical and subtropical climates (where we get our produce shipped in from).

Again, "The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing."

Should more people switch to carnivore? I don't know. I doubt it is usually needed. Should people limit or avoid meat? IMO, only for financial or ethical reasons. Most do well as omnivores and should probably continue eating that way. I eat that way, but with an animal heavy diet. I think omnivore is usually the way to go.

If you go on zerocarb on Reddit you will see most people on the carnivore diet think everyone should go on it. Also fixing climate change is not just an ethical reason, but also a reason of increasing your own personal chance of living a full lifespan, not losing everything in a natural disaster, etc.

wilson10102018 wrote: »

I am always amazed that otherwise powerless people want to control what everyone in the World chooses to eat. Although, it is interesting to note the choices people have made after millions of personal decision points in an environment of billions of climate and demographic facts, but debate is utterly pointless.

When you get to the grocery, folks, put the stuff in your cart that you would like to eat. I'll do the same.

So just totally ignore the facts on what needs to be done and then, when disaster inevitably strikes, complain "why me?!" and "why didn't anyone do anything about it?!" Judging by the natural disasters lately that's been working out really well.

Okay. So wild bison populations was about 60 million, give or take millions There may well be more cows now. My point was that there is supposed to be ruminants here. If there are more while being managed, cared for and protected by farmers and medicine, that makes sense to me.

Most of the vegetation around here was cut for farming, and not roads and human structures. Sure roads and cities take up space but it isn't much up here. I agree that leaving the vegetation, instead of plotting it under, would help manage emissions. Soil fauna and flora has a large impact on that in the prairies, and it is greatly depleted by agriculture.... Whether for human or animal. Grazing would help with that.

I know you are talking about agriculture here, but I think it is the lesser evil compared to industrial, production and transportation emissions.

I mentioned other animals because they tend to be easier on plants. Cattle often rip plants up whereas other grazers will eat off the tops of grasses to varying lengths which could improve grasslands habitat.

And again, I think the animal activists tend to twist the facts so that it looks like it is the animals fault that the environment us impacted rather than it being the fault of people who made poor farming choices, among other poor choices that have not helped the environment.

All carnivores do not think alike. Just because someone on reddit said everyone should eat this way does not mean every carnivore thinks that.

I think many natural disasters are man made. Giant fires tend to come from natural fire prevention, then there is too much tinder and you get an inferno. Mudslides seem to happen most in areas that are built onto slopes where vegetation has been removed. Flooding tends to happen along rivers and coasts - on flood plains. These disasters are unfortunate but hardly due to global warming - more poor human planning.

I have bever said to ignore the facts. But I don't think eating tofu or beans instead of fish or steak is the best answer. I respectfully disagree.

I feel like you're ignoring the fact that back in the 1700s when the Bison and antelopes freely grazed across the continent, there were less humans. A lot less humans. And there weren't cities and national parks and roads and train tracks and airports. And all those animals, in addition to roaming lands that are no longer unobstructed, were feeding this much smaller population of people.

Again, the sort of setup you are envisioning perhaps would be possible in the frozen plains of rural Canada, I'll take your word for that, but it would be a very geographically limited setup for a small population of people. The majority of the earth's population simply do not have access to affordable grass fed cattle, reasonably fresh organ meat, or the kind of open space that would be required to raise enough animals to be the only source of food without turning to corporate factory style animal production and slaughter.

That's sort of my point. It makes environmental sense to eat local. Those living on the coast will eat more fish than me. Albertans will eat more beef than those living in tropical or subtropical areas. those in tropical areas will eat less lamb or olives than those in the Mediterranean areas. Someone eating less beef in Alberta is an ineffective way to protest clear cutting for cattle in Brazil. Kwim?

Sure. I just don't see how it ties in to supporting a carnivore diet. How many people in the world, when eating strictly local and affordable, would have access to enough nutritious animal products to follow a carnivore diet? In my opinion at least, eating local requires eating an at least omnivorous diet. And for people living in heavily populated (especially urban) regions, I would think it would be very difficult to get affordable "local" meat products at all. It just seems like a niche diet if you are talking about practicality or sustainability. I'm sure there are individuals or select areas where it is practical and sustainable, and you and your corner of the world may be one of them, but I think those are very specific individuals and areas.

I was not so much arguing for carnivore, but rather against the idea that it is bad for environmental reasons.

And yes, only specific pockets in the worlds are suited to raising cattle or other ruminants, so eating a diet based on that may not be practical. That was one of my points.

I do think most people do best as omnivores. It's easy and can be quite healthy. I do not think that the few people who eat carnivore, usually out of a medical necessity, should be encouraged to stop because of global warming. I am healthier when I basically avoid plants. I've discovered that my arthritis and inflammation improves dramatically. I would eat more plants if it did not make me feel less well. I don't eat carnivore because I love the food and variety... it's pretty boring.

Oh okay, that's not at all the gist I was getting from your posts. I've never heard of anyone's arthritis being affected by eating any type of plant foods.

While I do eat meat, I don't eat much. I would imagine it could get boring, as in most areas at least there's just not much variety available.

I think raising animals in a manner closer to their natural habitat and diet would make meat not only more nutritious, but more expensive and lower supply, and I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. But I'm aware my own personal beliefs and ethics color that opinion. And as has been pointed out, my opinion won't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world

Growth in carnivore diets seem to often be linked to health issues like autoimmune problems and arthritis. It's taken me a few years to discover what works.

TBH, I have been eating a lot more carbs than usual over the last few days, including some desserts. It took a couple of days but my arthritis is flaring up again and sleep is hard without painkillers. Once I drop carbs, the pain starts to fall off within a few days. It's unfortunate because carbs taste great, but that's the way it is for me. It's mostly meat or a lot of meds....

amorfati601070

Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.

nvmomketo

amorfati601070 wrote: »

Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.

Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.

The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.

janejellyroll

nvmomketo wrote: »

amorfati601070 wrote: »

Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.

Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.

The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.

Given that we know diet can play an important role in overall health, it seems completely bizarre to dismiss the diet styles of the longest lived cultures as mere "correlation," as if they could abandon their diet patterns and still enjoy the same health benefits. We know from health statistics of populations who have come to the US that changing dietary patterns does make a difference in health outcomes. The way people eat can have meaningful consequences for health, something you have no problem acknowledging when it seems to support your favorite way of eating.

nvmomketo

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

amorfati601070 wrote: »

Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.

Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.

The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.

Given that we know diet can play an important role in overall health, it seems completely bizarre to dismiss the diet styles of the longest lived cultures as mere "correlation," as if they could abandon their diet patterns and still enjoy the same health benefits. We know from health statistics of populations who have come to the US that changing dietary patterns does make a difference in health outcomes. The way people eat can have meaningful consequences for health, something you have no problem acknowledging when it seems to support your favorite way of eating.

If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.

Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..

Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too.

janejellyroll

nvmomketo wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

amorfati601070 wrote: »

Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.

Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.

The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.

Given that we know diet can play an important role in overall health, it seems completely bizarre to dismiss the diet styles of the longest lived cultures as mere "correlation," as if they could abandon their diet patterns and still enjoy the same health benefits. We know from health statistics of populations who have come to the US that changing dietary patterns does make a difference in health outcomes. The way people eat can have meaningful consequences for health, something you have no problem acknowledging when it seems to support your favorite way of eating.

If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.

Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..

Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too.

When you say that plant-based diets aren't helping with longevity for people in the US, what is that claim based on? In fact, one of the blue zones is in the US (Loma Linda, CA) and, like the other blue zone diets, it features a lot of plants (it's the blue zone that is actually known for a high rate of vegetarianism). So there is nothing about being geographically on US soil that seems to cancel out dietary choices that are associated with longer and healthier lives.

Keep in mind that it's a collection of dietary choices that includes eating plants. Nobody is proposing that eating Doritos and Twinkies, in and of itself, is a dietary pattern that is associated with longer life. I think you know that. If you don't, now you do so let's keep the conversation in the realm of what people are actually saying instead of the argument you're prefer they make.

Since there are no large studies on carnivore groups, it is appropriate to refrain from claims that it will lead to a longer or healthier life. You're be right in concluding that we don't have the information to do that.

But we do have data on the people who live in the blue zones and their common dietary patterns. We also have access to large scale studies on other groups, studies that show over and over again that eating plants isn't just not harmful, it's actually associated with many positive outcomes (one that can still be cancelled out by other choices, but still capable of making a significant impact). To dismiss all this as irrelevant is just wishful thinking. To suggest people in the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet and consumed more animal products is so completely unfounded I can't even imagine how you would support it as a proposal. Is this based on anything concrete or are you just throwing it out there?

laurenq1991

nvmomketo wrote: »

If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.

Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..

Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too.

The plant-based diet that is recommended by nutritionists and was eaten as a traditional diet in most parts of the world throughout human history is "whole foods plant based." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662288/ Obviously everyone knows that eating Doritos, Twinkies, and gingerbread cookies is not the key to nutrition, so that is a strawman argument.

Is there evidence that plant-based diets are not helping longevity? Studies have shown that such diets do in fact reduce the risk of certain "lifestyle diseases." But whole foods plant-based diets have also not been popular for long enough among a large enough segment of the population to have an effect on overall US longevity, especially considering that other segments of the population are eating less healthy than ever before and becoming more obese. Even a lot of people who have whole foods plant based diets now, ate the Standard American Diet growing up. Plus other factors are influencing lowered longevity such as drug and alcohol use and increased environmental pollutants.

nvmomketo

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

amorfati601070 wrote: »

Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.

Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.

The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.

Given that we know diet can play an important role in overall health, it seems completely bizarre to dismiss the diet styles of the longest lived cultures as mere "correlation," as if they could abandon their diet patterns and still enjoy the same health benefits. We know from health statistics of populations who have come to the US that changing dietary patterns does make a difference in health outcomes. The way people eat can have meaningful consequences for health, something you have no problem acknowledging when it seems to support your favorite way of eating.

If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.

Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..

Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too.

When you say that plant-based diets aren't helping with longevity for people in the US, what is that claim based on? In fact, one of the blue zones is in the US (Loma Linda, CA) and, like the other blue zone diets, it features a lot of plants (it's the blue zone that is actually known for a high rate of vegetarianism). So there is nothing about being geographically on US soil that seems to cancel out dietary choices that are associated with longer and healthier lives.

Keep in mind that it's a collection of dietary choices that includes eating plants. Nobody is proposing that eating Doritos and Twinkies, in and of itself, is a dietary pattern that is associated with longer life. I think you know that. If you don't, now you do so let's keep the conversation in the realm of what people are actually saying instead of the argument you're prefer they make.

Since there are no large studies on carnivore groups, it is appropriate to refrain from claims that it will lead to a longer or healthier life. You're be right in concluding that we don't have the information to do that.

But we do have data on the people who live in the blue zones and their common dietary patterns. We also have access to large scale studies on other groups, studies that show over and over again that eating plants isn't just not harmful, it's actually associated with many positive outcomes (one that can still be cancelled out by other choices, but still capable of making a significant impact). To dismiss all this as irrelevant is just wishful thinking. To suggest people in the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet and consumed more animal products is so completely unfounded I can't even imagine how you would support it as a proposal. Is this based on anything concrete or are you just throwing it out there?

People are not living longer in the U.S. And plant based diets are growing in popularity. Many are trying to reduce the amount of meat they eat all the time or for some meals each week. If plant based diets are a direct cause of longevity, and are not just correlated with longevity, then life expectancy should be showing this. Medicine has improved, fewer people smoke now, people make a point to exercise now, medical access has improved, but life expectancy has not.

I am aware a blue zone is in the U.S. but those 7th day Adventist are hardly typical I what they eat and how they live. It isn't just the food they eat, although I am sure it can contribute.

I did not say the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet. Not sure where you got that. I was pointing out that all plant based foods are not equal so saying a plant based diet is the reason they live longer is wrong. Just like bacon is not equal to wild salmon, an Oreo is not equal to a few olives.

I did not dismis the role that the blue zones' Diets may play in their longevity, but saying their longevity is due to eating foods from plants is a huge leap, IMO. They are doing something right, or many things right, or they live in the right place if have the right genetics or something. We don't know what it is yet though. It's all speculation at this point.

happytree923

nvmomketo wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

amorfati601070 wrote: »

Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.

Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.

The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.

Given that we know diet can play an important role in overall health, it seems completely bizarre to dismiss the diet styles of the longest lived cultures as mere "correlation," as if they could abandon their diet patterns and still enjoy the same health benefits. We know from health statistics of populations who have come to the US that changing dietary patterns does make a difference in health outcomes. The way people eat can have meaningful consequences for health, something you have no problem acknowledging when it seems to support your favorite way of eating.

If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.

Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..

Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too.

When you say that plant-based diets aren't helping with longevity for people in the US, what is that claim based on? In fact, one of the blue zones is in the US (Loma Linda, CA) and, like the other blue zone diets, it features a lot of plants (it's the blue zone that is actually known for a high rate of vegetarianism). So there is nothing about being geographically on US soil that seems to cancel out dietary choices that are associated with longer and healthier lives.

Keep in mind that it's a collection of dietary choices that includes eating plants. Nobody is proposing that eating Doritos and Twinkies, in and of itself, is a dietary pattern that is associated with longer life. I think you know that. If you don't, now you do so let's keep the conversation in the realm of what people are actually saying instead of the argument you're prefer they make.

Since there are no large studies on carnivore groups, it is appropriate to refrain from claims that it will lead to a longer or healthier life. You're be right in concluding that we don't have the information to do that.

But we do have data on the people who live in the blue zones and their common dietary patterns. We also have access to large scale studies on other groups, studies that show over and over again that eating plants isn't just not harmful, it's actually associated with many positive outcomes (one that can still be cancelled out by other choices, but still capable of making a significant impact). To dismiss all this as irrelevant is just wishful thinking. To suggest people in the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet and consumed more animal products is so completely unfounded I can't even imagine how you would support it as a proposal. Is this based on anything concrete or are you just throwing it out there?

People are not living longer in the U.S. And plant based diets are growing in popularity. Many are trying to reduce the amount of meat they eat all the time or for some meals each week. If plant based diets are a direct cause of longevity, and are not just correlated with longevity, then life expectancy should be showing this. Medicine has improved, fewer people smoke now, people make a point to exercise now, medical access has improved, but life expectancy has not.

I am aware a blue zone is in the U.S. but those 7th day Adventist are hardly typical I what they eat and how they live. It isn't just the food they eat, although I am sure it can contribute.

I did not say the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet. Not sure where you got that. I was pointing out that all plant based foods are not equal so saying a plant based diet is the reason they live longer is wrong. Just like bacon is not equal to wild salmon, an Oreo is not equal to a few olives.

I did not dismis the role that the blue zones' Diets may play in their longevity, but saying their longevity is due to eating foods from plants is a huge leap, IMO. They are doing something right, or many things right, or they live in the right place if have the right genetics or something. We don't know what it is yet though. It's all speculation at this point.

While it is true that interest in plant based diets is growing and many Americans are shifting to eating more poultry than red meat, Americans on the balance are NOT eating plant based diets. This article has a chart showing meat consumption in the US. The amount eaten is dropping slightly but is still well above what it was just a few decades ago.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/06/27/155527365/visualizing-a-nation-of-meat-eaters

nowine4me

Sounds expensive and boring. I’ll pass.

jgnatca

The US diet patterns are not homogenous. The way people eat in California is different than the Deep South, the Ozarks, the Midwest and the East Coast. Very different regions.

laurenq1991

nvmomketo wrote: »

People are not living longer in the U.S. And plant based diets are growing in popularity. Many are trying to reduce the amount of meat they eat all the time or for some meals each week. If plant based diets are a direct cause of longevity, and are not just correlated with longevity, then life expectancy should be showing this.

I am aware a blue zone is in the U.S. but those 7th day Adventist are hardly typical I what they eat and how they live. It isn't just the food they eat, although I am sure it can contribute.

I did not say the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet. Not sure where you got that. I was pointing out that all plant based foods are not equal so saying a plant based diet is the reason they live longer is wrong. Just like bacon is not equal to wild salmon, an Oreo is not equal to a few olives.

I did not dismis the role that the blue zones' Diets may play in their longevity, but saying their longevity is due to eating foods from plants is a huge leap, IMO. They are doing something right, or many things right, or they live in the right place if have the right genetics or something. We don't know what it is yet though. It's all speculation at this point.

That is a minority of people. The Standard American Diet is still the typical diet. If you have any evidence indicating that the Standard American Diet is not the typical diet in the US anymore, and that the percentage of Americans following the recommended nutritional guidelines is skyrocketing, now is the time to present it. That doesn't necessarily mean a plant-based diet BTW but it does mean a whole-foods diet with fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, etc. and a low to moderate amount of animal products. There is plenty of research out there indicating such a diet and/or a whole foods plant-based diet is linked to better health outcomes, including the article I posted.

Medicine has improved, fewer people smoke now, people make a point to exercise now, medical access has improved, but life expectancy has not.

Obesity is at all-time highs and, while some people may exercise occasionally, the average American has a very sedentary lifestyle consisting largely of sitting at a desk, sitting in a car, and sitting at home. Also, according to this study, only 23% of Americans get the recommended amount of exercise, varying widely by state.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/06/28/cdc-report-only-23-americans-get-enough-exercise/741433002/

amorfati601070

nvmomketo wrote: »

amorfati601070 wrote: »

Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.

Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.

The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.

That's the most hilarious pseudoscience post I've seen yet!.

Seriously..if we evolved to be carnivores our heads would look like this...

johnslater461

nvmomketo wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

amorfati601070 wrote: »

Sounds like an awesome way to get scurvy. The longest living populations eat mainly plant based. The truth is that calorie restricting diets improve longevity.

Scurvy is not an issue for those eating meat, possibly because carbs raise C needs. Meat, and no refined carbs, U.S. An effective treatment for scurvy- especially if you include organ meat in your diet.

The fact that some of the longest lived cultures eat a mainly plant based diet is a correlation and not a causation. Eating food from plants may play a role, or it may not.

Given that we know diet can play an important role in overall health, it seems completely bizarre to dismiss the diet styles of the longest lived cultures as mere "correlation," as if they could abandon their diet patterns and still enjoy the same health benefits. We know from health statistics of populations who have come to the US that changing dietary patterns does make a difference in health outcomes. The way people eat can have meaningful consequences for health, something you have no problem acknowledging when it seems to support your favorite way of eating.

If there were any studies on carnivore groups, then it might be comparable. All that I have seen is that about 200-400 years ago, when Europeans were arriving in North America, there were more centenarians in the very tall and healthy First Nations populations than there was among the Europeans. I think there are still some Masai men out there who eat mainly as a carnivore, but they are not as long lived as those who live a remarkably different lifestyle with a higher socioeconomic status and health and education that the Masai typically are not able to access. There are basically no carnivore, or mostly carnivore, cultures to study anymore. They have adopted western diets and vices.

Regardless, it is a correlation only. You know that. The blue zones' diet (I assume you are talking about them) may be part of the cause, and probably is, but the fact that they eat plant based foods may not hugely factor into it. Plant based diets are growing in popularity in N. America, and it isn't apparently helping longevity here. Perhaps in is whole foods, freshness, different strains of plains that are not as altered and what most people get, portion size, lack of sugars, reduced exposure to problem foods so they are further back on epidemic changes, lack of alcohol, tobacco, drugs, or avoidance of highly refined and processed foods? We can't dismis location, social structure and support, stress or other factors either.... It's all just correlation. If those cultures had access to more animal products, or they weren't worried about meat affecting ...urges, perhaps they would live even longer. Who knows..

Obviously you can be very long lived eating mostly plantbased foods. There is little evidence that plant based foods are the reason for it. Doritos, twinkies, and gingerbread cookies are plant based too.

When you say that plant-based diets aren't helping with longevity for people in the US, what is that claim based on? In fact, one of the blue zones is in the US (Loma Linda, CA) and, like the other blue zone diets, it features a lot of plants (it's the blue zone that is actually known for a high rate of vegetarianism). So there is nothing about being geographically on US soil that seems to cancel out dietary choices that are associated with longer and healthier lives.

Keep in mind that it's a collection of dietary choices that includes eating plants. Nobody is proposing that eating Doritos and Twinkies, in and of itself, is a dietary pattern that is associated with longer life. I think you know that. If you don't, now you do so let's keep the conversation in the realm of what people are actually saying instead of the argument you're prefer they make.

Since there are no large studies on carnivore groups, it is appropriate to refrain from claims that it will lead to a longer or healthier life. You're be right in concluding that we don't have the information to do that.

But we do have data on the people who live in the blue zones and their common dietary patterns. We also have access to large scale studies on other groups, studies that show over and over again that eating plants isn't just not harmful, it's actually associated with many positive outcomes (one that can still be cancelled out by other choices, but still capable of making a significant impact). To dismiss all this as irrelevant is just wishful thinking. To suggest people in the blue zones would live longer if they eliminated plants from their diet and consumed more animal products is so completely unfounded I can't even imagine how you would support it as a proposal. Is this based on anything concrete or are you just throwing it out there?

People are not living longer in the U.S. And plant based diets are growing in popularity. Many are trying to reduce the amount of meat they eat all the time or for some meals each week. If plant based diets are a direct cause of longevity, and are not just correlated with longevity, then life expectancy should be showing this. Medicine has improved, fewer people smoke now, people make a point to exercise now, medical access has improved, but life expectancy has not.

Making *kitten* up again, I see.

Life expectancy has been growing steadily since 1900, with a dip in the early 20th century due to WWI and a slight dip in the last few years due to increased suicide rates and drug overdoses.