Carnivore Diet: The Antithesis to Veganism
Replies
-
AlabasterVerve wrote: »"Science is determined by consensus of research."
Jesus wept.
If you disagree with that then clearly you have never heard of the concept of a meta-analysis or confidence intervals.4 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Plant-based is not ambiguous, unless you misinterpret it. It is *not* food made from plants. It is whole plant foods.
It's also no more moralistic than carnivore is. It's simply descriptive of foods that comprise a way of eating.
Wouldn't that be whole food plant based? WFPB differs from plant based? Difference of a few words.
It does sound moralistic to me. Your opinion differs from mine. I thought clean eating was a fine term until MFP too. Apparently many find it ambiguous and moralistic. Ymmv.
Do you think it sounds moralistic to you because you think people on a plant based diet are judging you becasue you eat animal products? It sounds descriptive to me, do you think maybe you are assigning an intent?
That could be. Meat eaters are judged. In this thread I have been judged for eating animal heavy - I am apparently damaging the environment with little regard for others, and damaging my health (Lthough my diet has seemed to improve my health). It is quite possible that I am interpreting WFPB from quite a different angle than others.
Any other heavy meat eaters feel this?
Yes, I absolutely get the "moral superiority" vibe from vegans. To some degree also from vegetarians without much for differences from vegetarians in different sub-classes.
SAD dieters occasionally give me the "you are destroying the environment" response, but usually start with the "OMG, you are going to die by tomorrow" type of reactions.
I eat lots of meat, more than I really think I should, although I don't worry about it (I do personally care about source and also make sure about half of it is fish, which luckily for me I adore). As noted above, I think having a satisfying diet and healthy lifestyle and not being overweight is more important (although I would add eating veg and a decent amount of whole foods next).
I absolutely never get flak about what I eat, especially not due to meat consumption.
I live in a major city (Chicago) with more than average # of vegans and vegetarians. I have one close friend who is a vegan, and several who are vegetarians or have had a vegetarian spell (I was vegetarian for a while), and the vegetarians get lots of joking but also kind of annoying comments, even now, whereas none of the vegans/vegetarians say anything about how others eat. My vegan friend gets comments all the time and also (unlike being vegetarian) it's really hard to find a restaurant that works for her (which is one reason for the comments), even though, again, this is one of the more likely to be vegan friendly places in the country.
Another (decidedly unvegan) friend notes that any place that is vegan or vegetarian or has multiple vegan options prominently promoted tends to be overrated on YELP, since vegans are so desperate for good options and restaurants to encourage. A few ethnic options (Ethiopian, Indian) are good for vegan options and also likely to be good.
Given how difficult it can be to be vegan here, in one of the largest and most vegan-friendly cities in the US, I'm extremely skeptical that superior-seeming vegans are an issue in the rest of the country. Aren't you in Iowa, midwesterner? I have relatives in Iowa and don't buy it, they think a day without meat is unreasonable.2 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »looked at it. It was not compelling or strong. The links you posted were for possible associations, and I already discussed how processed red meat can raise colorectal cancer risk from 5 to 6%. I've seen it before. It's nothing new and its weak associations, IMO.
If you think you know more about this subject than the World Health Organization and researchers who have spent years studying this topic, then there's likely no study anyone could show you that would change your mind.I've researched the effect of meat on health. It's generally a positive effect as long as one is not living in bacon and wieners. There are noncompliers out there who could skew the results- those who eat lots of meat, sugar and do other behaviours that the authorities advice against, but more time will tell.
I realize that the nutritional dogma of today advises against much meat consumption. I just don't see enough evidence for them to back that up.
Citation needed.If you are interested in the other side, I recommend reading Big Fat Surprise and Defending Beef.
Excerpted from the copy for The Big Fat Surprise:
"For decades, we have been told that the best possible diet involves cutting back on fat, especially saturated fat, and that if we are not getting healthier or thinner it must be because we are not trying hard enough. But what if the low-fat diet is itself the problem? What if those exact foods we’ve been denying ourselves — the creamy cheeses, the sizzling steaks — are themselves the key to reversing the epidemics of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease?"
And yet based on what you yourself posted about US dietary intake on this very thread, the average American is not cutting back on fat and is eating more fat than ever before (and much more than most traditional diets...I think I read the typical fat percentage in the US diet is 35%). Remember this image you posted one page ago?
https://us.v-cdn.net/5021879/uploads/editor/79/3brxunf4fhsm.png
"Science shows that we have been needlessly avoiding meat, cheese, whole milk and eggs for decades and that we can, guilt-free, welcome these “whole fats” back into our lives."
And again, based on the image that you posted and the statistics I posted on vegetarianism, Americans have not been avoiding these foods, especially not for decades. In fact meat and egg consumption went up (dairy consumption went down but my guess is that probably has more to do with increase in US population groups with genetic predisposition to lactose intolerance, and increase in dairy allergies, since if it was for ethical or environmental reasons there would also be a reduction in meat and eggs).
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/don-t-be-fooled-by-big-fat-surprises-fat-is-still-bad-for-you-1.2965140The problem with focusing on fat, or on any one nutrient, as a diet strategy is that it distracts us from what is really important, says Dr. David Katz, director of the Yale University Prevention Research Centre and president of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine.
He says that when Keys and others initially recommended a low-fat diet, what they meant was eat less fatty food and more fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans and lentils.
[sound familiar?]These are all nutritious foods that also happen to be low in fat. But that was not what happened.
"We just invented low-fat junk food," Katz told me.
As consumers sought out low-fat alternatives to their favorite snacks, companies simply took out the fat and added more sugar. Thus they were able to preserve the taste while still being able to label their food fat-free, which was a brilliant marketing strategy.
The public ate it up — literally — and never ate those healthy fruits and vegetables.
Consequently, the low-fat diet, as it was being practised in North America, was not associated with any health benefits.
That doesn't surprise Katz. He says that if you invent new ways to eat badly, your health won't improve.
The new movement to redeem fat was fuelled by a 2014 study in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
This review of 32 studies is often cited as proof that saturated fats are good for you.
However, that is not what the study actually showed, says Katz.
The study found no difference between high-fat and high-sugar diets when it came to cardiovascular disease.
But that does not mean that saturated fat is good for you, says Katz. "Whether it was low-sugar, high-fat or high-sugar, low-fat, the rates of heart disease were basically the same and really high. Everybody lost."
You can cut the fat and eat badly, just like you can cut carbs and eat badly.
"There's a simple shortcut that's even better," Katz says. That's eating wholesome foods — things like fruits, vegetables, nuts, seeds, lentils and fish — in sensible combinations.
Also, eating more fat doesn't necessarily equal eating a diet of nothing but animal products. Fruits and vegetables are healthy but that doesn't mean we should eat a diet of nothing but fruits and vegetables either. It's called moderation. And it's what dietary experts generally advocate.
And again, both of the books you mentioned present outlier theories. Science is determined by consensus of research. There are always a few outliers. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily correct just because you want them to be correct. The most probable scientific conclusion is based on what the majority of evidence points to.
If you look back at what I wrote, I said animal product intake us down as a percentage of total calorie. The chart I linked supports that observation. The rise in fats is most likely due to increased use of refined vegetable oils - not something I would recommend eating a lot of.
And again, I respectfully disagree with your opinions and the opinions of those you have quoted.
I also disagree with your description of big fat surprise. Teicholtz collected a lot of data for that book and did not present any personal outlier theories; just a history of the reduced fat movement. It was an excellent book and her summary has been printed in peer reviewed journals.3 -
I'm part of a couple of carnivore groups and some folks will give vegans a run for their money in terms of how annoying they are about the diet. lol
I mostly eat meat, but I consider myself keto since I still have some veggies and use sugar free creamer/almond milk in my coffee.
Carnivore seems to be helping a lot of people. /shrugs4 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »"Science is determined by consensus of research."
Jesus wept.
But Baphomet grinned.0 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »"Science is determined by consensus of research."
Jesus wept.
If you disagree with that then clearly you have never heard of the concept of a meta-analysis or confidence intervals.
Unfortunately, if the recommendations of every major medical institute in the world doesn't align to their personal believe or weight loss journey, than they are incline to disagree with decades of research. And arguing against personal biased makes it even more difficult to have a coherent argument because the sides will never agree.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that the battle is always low fat vs low carb when there is a huge middle ground. What we do know from the research is regardless of lifestyle/diet, weight loss and exercise have the greatest impact on metabolic health. If the diet you are following doesn't drive that, than there will be little change. Layne Norton, PhD put it a good way during an interview with Dom D'agistino, PhD on Joe Rogan's show. It essentially was, "people spend so much time chasing the 5% benefit when the 95% benefit comes from weight loss and exercise".
And before the argument can be made, yes, there is significant research regarding the benefits of blood glucose/insulin control with those with diabetes, PCOS or insulin resistance. But that is specific to that population. And that population should absolution have a more controlled approach to carbs. But that other 90% of people, just need to find what foods and macro combo helps adherence/compliance be the greatest.12 -
Furthermore, I find it interesting that the battle is always low fat vs low carb when there is a huge middle ground. What we do know from the research is regardless of lifestyle/diet, weight loss and exercise have the greatest impact on metabolic health. If the diet you are following doesn't drive that, than there will be little change.
QFT0 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Plant-based is not ambiguous, unless you misinterpret it. It is *not* food made from plants. It is whole plant foods.
It's also no more moralistic than carnivore is. It's simply descriptive of foods that comprise a way of eating.
Wouldn't that be whole food plant based? WFPB differs from plant based? Difference of a few words.
It does sound moralistic to me. Your opinion differs from mine. I thought clean eating was a fine term until MFP too. Apparently many find it ambiguous and moralistic. Ymmv.
Do you think it sounds moralistic to you because you think people on a plant based diet are judging you becasue you eat animal products? It sounds descriptive to me, do you think maybe you are assigning an intent?
That could be. Meat eaters are judged. In this thread I have been judged for eating animal heavy - I am apparently damaging the environment with little regard for others, and damaging my health (Lthough my diet has seemed to improve my health). It is quite possible that I am interpreting WFPB from quite a different angle than others.
Any other heavy meat eaters feel this?
Yes, I absolutely get the "moral superiority" vibe from vegans. To some degree also from vegetarians without much for differences from vegetarians in different sub-classes.
SAD dieters occasionally give me the "you are destroying the environment" response, but usually start with the "OMG, you are going to die by tomorrow" type of reactions.
I eat lots of meat, more than I really think I should, although I don't worry about it (I do personally care about source and also make sure about half of it is fish, which luckily for me I adore). As noted above, I think having a satisfying diet and healthy lifestyle and not being overweight is more important (although I would add eating veg and a decent amount of whole foods next).
I absolutely never get flak about what I eat, especially not due to meat consumption.
I live in a major city (Chicago) with more than average # of vegans and vegetarians. I have one close friend who is a vegan, and several who are vegetarians or have had a vegetarian spell (I was vegetarian for a while), and the vegetarians get lots of joking but also kind of annoying comments, even now, whereas none of the vegans/vegetarians say anything about how others eat. My vegan friend gets comments all the time and also (unlike being vegetarian) it's really hard to find a restaurant that works for her (which is one reason for the comments), even though, again, this is one of the more likely to be vegan friendly places in the country.
Another (decidedly unvegan) friend notes that any place that is vegan or vegetarian or has multiple vegan options prominently promoted tends to be overrated on YELP, since vegans are so desperate for good options and restaurants to encourage. A few ethnic options (Ethiopian, Indian) are good for vegan options and also likely to be good.
Given how difficult it can be to be vegan here, in one of the largest and most vegan-friendly cities in the US, I'm extremely skeptical that superior-seeming vegans are an issue in the rest of the country. Aren't you in Iowa, midwesterner? I have relatives in Iowa and don't buy it, they think a day without meat is unreasonable.
Yes, in Iowa. Whether you believe or not, that is my experience.
As a carnivore, I also have a really tough time eating at restaurants. Steakhouses (both Outback and Longhorn for chain examples) do not sell steak a la carte. No sides fit a carnivore diet, so I end up paying a really high price for just a steak. One might think a steakhouse to be a carnivore friendly restaurant, but it is not because the menu is designed with bread, potato, and other planta for sides. In fact, the best is McDonald's. I can order beef patties, just patties, and pay for just the patties. Many fast food places will make me pay for a whole burger and have them make it with no bun and plain, so I just get the meat anyway (I do eat cheese occasionally, so will have that too if otherwise on such burger). Then there is the issue of food quantity. I may have to actually buy 2 or more whole meals at restaurants because I only eat 1/2 (often less) of the total food in each meal. This is a big part of why I rarely eat at restaurants anymore, but that gets tougher when traveling or have a meeting at a restaurant.0 -
Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)4 -
Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually.
I typically avoid restaurants except in the circumstances described. Sometimes cooking at home is not an option. Example - last week, I had a meeting with a political group at a small local restaurant. I paid quite a bit for a piece of beef brisket as I asked for the sandwich plain, no bun, and no sides... no discount for that either, and I ate more when I came home afterwards. The next day, I had a work lunch at a local restaurant (work paid, so my issue was more about food quantity). Grilled chicken breasts, no fries or bread. I had a tuna pouch I keep stashed at my desk in the afternoon, which helped a bit. The next day, work catered lunch for everyone and had its annual drawing. 2 years ago, I happened to get drawn for the big prize - a TV. I had gone home (I live about 5 min. drive from work). Until my name was drawn, nobody noticed I had skipped. But one need not be present to win. So when my manager was giving me a hard time about skipping, I pointed out that the menu didn't work for me. I didn't make a fuss or ask them to change anything for me, but that is just the facts. This year, I skipped and nobody said anything (they probably didn't notice), nor did I say anything.
Last week was 3 days where I wasn't traveling, but had potential restaurant challenges. Of those 3 days, I made do with restaurants on 2 that were not as easy to skip. When traveling by car, I can carry some amounts of meat that doesn't require cooking and eat McDonald's beef patties mostly otherwise. When traveling for work, I care less about the cost side, but end up buying snacks to supplement the relatively smaller food amount. The exception is when I travel to our corp. office that is in an area with a lot of vegetarians and vegans. I normally don't have time to go anywhere for lunch and the on-site cafeteria caters to the common interest. In that case, I stop at a Wal-Mart between the airport and the hotel/destination town to get meat snacks that don't require refrigeration and I just eat that for lunches.
I don't eat carnivore to be bland nor to limit intake, though both end up being true whether intended or not. I eat it for better BG management and because I feel so much better (less GI distress, more alert).7 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually.
I typically avoid restaurants except in the circumstances described. Sometimes cooking at home is not an option. Example - last week, I had a meeting with a political group at a small local restaurant. I paid quite a bit for a piece of beef brisket as I asked for the sandwich plain, no bun, and no sides... no discount for that either, and I ate more when I came home afterwards. The next day, I had a work lunch at a local restaurant (work paid, so my issue was more about food quantity). Grilled chicken breasts, no fries or bread. I had a tuna pouch I keep stashed at my desk in the afternoon, which helped a bit. The next day, work catered lunch for everyone and had its annual drawing. 2 years ago, I happened to get drawn for the big prize - a TV. I had gone home (I live about 5 min. drive from work). Until my name was drawn, nobody noticed I had skipped. But one need not be present to win. So when my manager was giving me a hard time about skipping, I pointed out that the menu didn't work for me. I didn't make a fuss or ask them to change anything for me, but that is just the facts. This year, I skipped and nobody said anything (they probably didn't notice), nor did I say anything.
Last week was 3 days where I wasn't traveling, but had potential restaurant challenges. Of those 3 days, I made do with restaurants on 2 that were not as easy to skip. When traveling by car, I can carry some amounts of meat that doesn't require cooking and eat McDonald's beef patties mostly otherwise. When traveling for work, I care less about the cost side, but end up buying snacks to supplement the relatively smaller food amount. The exception is when I travel to our corp. office that is in an area with a lot of vegetarians and vegans. I normally don't have time to go anywhere for lunch and the on-site cafeteria caters to the common interest. In that case, I stop at a Wal-Mart between the airport and the hotel/destination town to get meat snacks that don't require refrigeration and I just eat that for lunches.
I don't eat carnivore to be bland nor to limit intake, though both end up being true whether intended or not. I eat it for better BG management and because I feel so much better (less GI distress, more alert).
You're following a niche diet. I had the exact same issues when I was vegan, plus a lot of ribbing and some family bullying on top of it. Don't go out of your way to tell people you're carnivore and they won't say anything (no thank you is fine the explanation is inviting commentary). Also most of the cost of a meal is the meat, you would not be getting a big discount because you didn't eat extremely cheap ingredients like bread and potatoes. It sucks but nothing you're describing is particularly bad or out of the ordinary for anyone who is veg or has a major allergy, nor is it a sign that carnivores are being judged and ostracized en mass.9 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually...
I'm confused because on the last page you mentioned 'the "moral superiority" vibe from vegans' but your example here is of omnivores, with no undertones of moral superiority whatsoever. They are simply sharing their utterly unsurprising belief that a healthy diet includes plants.6 -
laurenq1991 wrote: »AlabasterVerve wrote: »"Science is determined by consensus of research."
Jesus wept.
If you disagree with that then clearly you have never heard of the concept of a meta-analysis or confidence intervals.
Unfortunately, if the recommendations of every major medical institute in the world doesn't align to their personal believe or weight loss journey, than they are incline to disagree with decades of research. And arguing against personal biased makes it even more difficult to have a coherent argument because the sides will never agree.
Furthermore, I find it interesting that the battle is always low fat vs low carb when there is a huge middle ground. What we do know from the research is regardless of lifestyle/diet, weight loss and exercise have the greatest impact on metabolic health. If the diet you are following doesn't drive that, than there will be little change. Layne Norton, PhD put it a good way during an interview with Dom D'agistino, PhD on Joe Rogan's show. It essentially was, "people spend so much time chasing the 5% benefit when the 95% benefit comes from weight loss and exercise".
And before the argument can be made, yes, there is significant research regarding the benefits of blood glucose/insulin control with those with diabetes, PCOS or insulin resistance. But that is specific to that population. And that population should absolution have a more controlled approach to carbs. But that other 90% of people, just need to find what foods and macro combo helps adherence/compliance be the greatest.
I agree. I would have liked to have kept this as animal based vs plant based since there are LCHF and LFHC vegans and vegetarians out there. Those who are animal based will have lower carbs, of course.
But it's more like the other 50% of the population may need to ( or should) watch macros for health reasons.
I get your gist though. Not everyone needs to watch their macros. 
2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually...
I'm confused because on the last page you mentioned 'the "moral superiority" vibe from vegans' but your example here is of omnivores, with no undertones of moral superiority whatsoever. They are simply sharing their utterly unsurprising belief that a healthy diet includes plants.
I'm sorry you are confused. Yes, the example given is from an omnivore. Omnivores are more often arguing against this diet for supposed health reasons, not for moral/ethical reasons. Yes, vegans give off the "moral superiority" vibe. Both are true. I get different responses from different people depending on whether they eat vegan, vegetarian (except all sub-sets of vegetarians give similar responses as each other), or omnivore - I thought I explained that previously, but must not have been clear enough.2 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Plant-based is not ambiguous, unless you misinterpret it. It is *not* food made from plants. It is whole plant foods.
It's also no more moralistic than carnivore is. It's simply descriptive of foods that comprise a way of eating.
Wouldn't that be whole food plant based? WFPB differs from plant based? Difference of a few words.
It does sound moralistic to me. Your opinion differs from mine. I thought clean eating was a fine term until MFP too. Apparently many find it ambiguous and moralistic. Ymmv.
Do you think it sounds moralistic to you because you think people on a plant based diet are judging you becasue you eat animal products? It sounds descriptive to me, do you think maybe you are assigning an intent?
That could be. Meat eaters are judged. In this thread I have been judged for eating animal heavy - I am apparently damaging the environment with little regard for others, and damaging my health (Lthough my diet has seemed to improve my health). It is quite possible that I am interpreting WFPB from quite a different angle than others.
Any other heavy meat eaters feel this?
Yes, I absolutely get the "moral superiority" vibe from vegans. To some degree also from vegetarians without much for differences from vegetarians in different sub-classes.
SAD dieters occasionally give me the "you are destroying the environment" response, but usually start with the "OMG, you are going to die by tomorrow" type of reactions.
This is basically what I experience. I mostly hear concerns for my health. It makes sense. It shows that the people who care enough to notice what I eat are thinking of me (although their concerns are based on unproven hypothesis from the mid century). Then I get some concerns about animal quality of life and the environment. When I tell them that we typically butcher our own pasture fed beef or have wild game, they often let that go. Those concerned about grain fed meat often back off when they hear we eat wild game which I find funny because much of our game is living off the grain in fields too.
When someone says, "I eat a plant based diet" as an omnivore or vegetarian or vegan it just has a ring to my ear like they are pointing out something special. As though they get extra points for having eaten their broccoli. I know it is my perception and most did not mean it that way.... Except when it gets mentioned after they have noticed how I eat. Lol
If I declare that I eat an animal based diet, I never expect the same approval that the statement of a plant based diet might illicit. It's something I mostly keep to myself because I want to avoid the judgement that follows most of the time.
If someone says they have cut back their meat consumption to three times a week they will often hear a "good for you". If I mention that I eat meat at every meal, the best I would hope for is an awkward silence. Or "why?" 5 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually.
I typically avoid restaurants except in the circumstances described. Sometimes cooking at home is not an option. Example - last week, I had a meeting with a political group at a small local restaurant. I paid quite a bit for a piece of beef brisket as I asked for the sandwich plain, no bun, and no sides... no discount for that either, and I ate more when I came home afterwards. The next day, I had a work lunch at a local restaurant (work paid, so my issue was more about food quantity). Grilled chicken breasts, no fries or bread. I had a tuna pouch I keep stashed at my desk in the afternoon, which helped a bit. The next day, work catered lunch for everyone and had its annual drawing. 2 years ago, I happened to get drawn for the big prize - a TV. I had gone home (I live about 5 min. drive from work). Until my name was drawn, nobody noticed I had skipped. But one need not be present to win. So when my manager was giving me a hard time about skipping, I pointed out that the menu didn't work for me. I didn't make a fuss or ask them to change anything for me, but that is just the facts. This year, I skipped and nobody said anything (they probably didn't notice), nor did I say anything.
Last week was 3 days where I wasn't traveling, but had potential restaurant challenges. Of those 3 days, I made do with restaurants on 2 that were not as easy to skip. When traveling by car, I can carry some amounts of meat that doesn't require cooking and eat McDonald's beef patties mostly otherwise. When traveling for work, I care less about the cost side, but end up buying snacks to supplement the relatively smaller food amount. The exception is when I travel to our corp. office that is in an area with a lot of vegetarians and vegans. I normally don't have time to go anywhere for lunch and the on-site cafeteria caters to the common interest. In that case, I stop at a Wal-Mart between the airport and the hotel/destination town to get meat snacks that don't require refrigeration and I just eat that for lunches.
I don't eat carnivore to be bland nor to limit intake, though both end up being true whether intended or not. I eat it for better BG management and because I feel so much better (less GI distress, more alert).
TBH, I will often use my celiac disease as an excuse to avoid eating out. It simplifies things so much. I'll have a coffee or whiskey if there is company that I want to visit with, and that's it. People mostly get that but I still get eye rolls from those who believe a little bit won't hurt.
I'm another who eats animal based for health issues although I include a bit of plant here and there with greater ease because I don't have the same concerns that T1D puts upon you. That also makes it so that I can eat a bit off plan once in a while - like taking a small serving of a GF meat lasagne which a relative made special for me; I skipped the salad and added meat and cheese appetizers to my plate too. I brought crustless sugar free cheesecake with whipped cream for dessert so no problem there. 0 -
happytree923 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually.
I typically avoid restaurants except in the circumstances described. Sometimes cooking at home is not an option. Example - last week, I had a meeting with a political group at a small local restaurant. I paid quite a bit for a piece of beef brisket as I asked for the sandwich plain, no bun, and no sides... no discount for that either, and I ate more when I came home afterwards. The next day, I had a work lunch at a local restaurant (work paid, so my issue was more about food quantity). Grilled chicken breasts, no fries or bread. I had a tuna pouch I keep stashed at my desk in the afternoon, which helped a bit. The next day, work catered lunch for everyone and had its annual drawing. 2 years ago, I happened to get drawn for the big prize - a TV. I had gone home (I live about 5 min. drive from work). Until my name was drawn, nobody noticed I had skipped. But one need not be present to win. So when my manager was giving me a hard time about skipping, I pointed out that the menu didn't work for me. I didn't make a fuss or ask them to change anything for me, but that is just the facts. This year, I skipped and nobody said anything (they probably didn't notice), nor did I say anything.
Last week was 3 days where I wasn't traveling, but had potential restaurant challenges. Of those 3 days, I made do with restaurants on 2 that were not as easy to skip. When traveling by car, I can carry some amounts of meat that doesn't require cooking and eat McDonald's beef patties mostly otherwise. When traveling for work, I care less about the cost side, but end up buying snacks to supplement the relatively smaller food amount. The exception is when I travel to our corp. office that is in an area with a lot of vegetarians and vegans. I normally don't have time to go anywhere for lunch and the on-site cafeteria caters to the common interest. In that case, I stop at a Wal-Mart between the airport and the hotel/destination town to get meat snacks that don't require refrigeration and I just eat that for lunches.
I don't eat carnivore to be bland nor to limit intake, though both end up being true whether intended or not. I eat it for better BG management and because I feel so much better (less GI distress, more alert).
You're following a niche diet. I had the exact same issues when I was vegan, plus a lot of ribbing and some family bullying on top of it. Don't go out of your way to tell people you're carnivore and they won't say anything (no thank you is fine the explanation is inviting commentary). Also most of the cost of a meal is the meat, you would not be getting a big discount because you didn't eat extremely cheap ingredients like bread and potatoes. It sucks but nothing you're describing is particularly bad or out of the ordinary for anyone who is veg or has a major allergy, nor is it a sign that carnivores are being judged and ostracized en mass.
^This. When I'm offered meat, I simply say "no thank you", I don't add that I'm a vegetarian, because that's the remark that invites a discussion.
Announcing that one doesn't eat plants is opening oneself up for comments. Just quietly going about eating meat and tactfully saying "no thank you" doesn't.9 -
kshama2001 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually...
I'm confused because on the last page you mentioned 'the "moral superiority" vibe from vegans' but your example here is of omnivores, with no undertones of moral superiority whatsoever. They are simply sharing their utterly unsurprising belief that a healthy diet includes plants.
Which, I will reiterate, was a somewhat asked for comment due to it being announced that he doesn't eat plants. It's the same as vegans announcing they don't eat meat. There's no need to any announcements about personal dietary choices unless life-threatening food allergies are involved.7 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
Not at many steakhouses around here, and I noted that some do it the other way too, which is why I said you could just ask for them not to include the sides. If you pay, why would they care? It's analogous to eating only half of the meal.
As for "wrong," as if no steakhouses do it like I said, that's just silly. Here's one example: http://gibsons.gibsonsprivatedining.com/wp-content/uploads/gibchi-dinner.pdfOmnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
This doesn't surprise me too much, but has 0 to do with claims about self-righteous vegans or with what I said, so it doesn't prove me "wrong."
What I said is that I don't think vegans or even vegetarians judging people is likely to be some major issue in Iowa. Nothing you've said contradicts that.5 -
I think it is a bit easier to eat vegetarian than as carnivore.
When I ate at a family members house the other day, it was a meat lasagne and salad. No other options. If eating 100% carnivore, one is out of luck. Your options then are to say why you are not eating the food, or lie.
When I ate at a friend's house last week it was potatoes, veggies, wine and ribs in bbq sauce, and dessert. Nothing there is carnivore either unless you wash off the ribs. Lol. Last time I went out to eat at a restaurant, I just had prawns and butter (I am GF too).
I'm avoiding a work dinner tonight (meatballs in sauce with rice and a salad) because it is not GF or animal. I'll arrive after dinner for drinks or coffee.... Although neither are really carnivore either.
If one is a vegetarian, you could still have the sides and salad, plus any dessert.
Eating breakfast out is often the easiest - bacon and eggs.
I imagine that eating vegan could be just as difficult knowing how many dishes have butter or eggs.2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually.
I typically avoid restaurants except in the circumstances described. Sometimes cooking at home is not an option. Example - last week, I had a meeting with a political group at a small local restaurant. I paid quite a bit for a piece of beef brisket as I asked for the sandwich plain, no bun, and no sides... no discount for that either, and I ate more when I came home afterwards. The next day, I had a work lunch at a local restaurant (work paid, so my issue was more about food quantity). Grilled chicken breasts, no fries or bread. I had a tuna pouch I keep stashed at my desk in the afternoon, which helped a bit. The next day, work catered lunch for everyone and had its annual drawing. 2 years ago, I happened to get drawn for the big prize - a TV. I had gone home (I live about 5 min. drive from work). Until my name was drawn, nobody noticed I had skipped. But one need not be present to win. So when my manager was giving me a hard time about skipping, I pointed out that the menu didn't work for me. I didn't make a fuss or ask them to change anything for me, but that is just the facts. This year, I skipped and nobody said anything (they probably didn't notice), nor did I say anything.
Last week was 3 days where I wasn't traveling, but had potential restaurant challenges. Of those 3 days, I made do with restaurants on 2 that were not as easy to skip. When traveling by car, I can carry some amounts of meat that doesn't require cooking and eat McDonald's beef patties mostly otherwise. When traveling for work, I care less about the cost side, but end up buying snacks to supplement the relatively smaller food amount. The exception is when I travel to our corp. office that is in an area with a lot of vegetarians and vegans. I normally don't have time to go anywhere for lunch and the on-site cafeteria caters to the common interest. In that case, I stop at a Wal-Mart between the airport and the hotel/destination town to get meat snacks that don't require refrigeration and I just eat that for lunches.
I don't eat carnivore to be bland nor to limit intake, though both end up being true whether intended or not. I eat it for better BG management and because I feel so much better (less GI distress, more alert).
You're following a niche diet. I had the exact same issues when I was vegan, plus a lot of ribbing and some family bullying on top of it. Don't go out of your way to tell people you're carnivore and they won't say anything (no thank you is fine the explanation is inviting commentary). Also most of the cost of a meal is the meat, you would not be getting a big discount because you didn't eat extremely cheap ingredients like bread and potatoes. It sucks but nothing you're describing is particularly bad or out of the ordinary for anyone who is veg or has a major allergy, nor is it a sign that carnivores are being judged and ostracized en mass.
^This. When I'm offered meat, I simply say "no thank you", I don't add that I'm a vegetarian, because that's the remark that invites a discussion.
Announcing that one doesn't eat plants is opening oneself up for comments. Just quietly going about eating meat and tactfully saying "no thank you" doesn't.
I did paleo for a while, and even after that I'd usually not want to waste calories on bread or rice, since I just don't care about it enough to justify the calories. We have an every other Friday work lunch, and I'd go and if there were sandwiches or rice I'd remove the bread/ignore the rice and eat more of the other options (meat/veg) so as to make up for it. Very few people even noticed I was doing this, because I didn't make a big thing of it.
I have found that sometimes people will start talking about what they don't eat, but usually because they want to discuss it, many do like talking about their food issues and special diets.3 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Plant-based is not ambiguous, unless you misinterpret it. It is *not* food made from plants. It is whole plant foods.
It's also no more moralistic than carnivore is. It's simply descriptive of foods that comprise a way of eating.
Wouldn't that be whole food plant based? WFPB differs from plant based? Difference of a few words.
It does sound moralistic to me. Your opinion differs from mine. I thought clean eating was a fine term until MFP too. Apparently many find it ambiguous and moralistic. Ymmv.
Do you think it sounds moralistic to you because you think people on a plant based diet are judging you becasue you eat animal products? It sounds descriptive to me, do you think maybe you are assigning an intent?
That could be. Meat eaters are judged. In this thread I have been judged for eating animal heavy - I am apparently damaging the environment with little regard for others, and damaging my health (Lthough my diet has seemed to improve my health). It is quite possible that I am interpreting WFPB from quite a different angle than others.
Any other heavy meat eaters feel this?
Yes, I absolutely get the "moral superiority" vibe from vegans. To some degree also from vegetarians without much for differences from vegetarians in different sub-classes.
SAD dieters occasionally give me the "you are destroying the environment" response, but usually start with the "OMG, you are going to die by tomorrow" type of reactions.
This is basically what I experience. I mostly hear concerns for my health. It makes sense. It shows that the people who care enough to notice what I eat are thinking of me (although their concerns are based on unproven hypothesis from the mid century). Then I get some concerns about animal quality of life and the environment. When I tell them that we typically butcher our own pasture fed beef or have wild game, they often let that go. Those concerned about grain fed meat often back off when they hear we eat wild game which I find funny because much of our game is living off the grain in fields too.
When someone says, "I eat a plant based diet" as an omnivore or vegetarian or vegan it just has a ring to my ear like they are pointing out something special. As though they get extra points for having eaten their broccoli. I know it is my perception and most did not mean it that way.... Except when it gets mentioned after they have noticed how I eat. Lol
If I declare that I eat an animal based diet, I never expect the same approval that the statement of a plant based diet might illicit. It's something I mostly keep to myself because I want to avoid the judgement that follows most of the time.
If someone says they have cut back their meat consumption to three times a week they will often hear a "good for you". If I mention that I eat meat at every meal, the best I would hope for is an awkward silence. Or "why?"
I'm sorry, but I simply must point out that butchering your own pasture fed beef and wild game as a diet is inconsistent with statements you made earlier in this very thread regarding your diet. You talked about a diet of cheap supermarket beef then.
Look, I personally don't care how you eat, but it seems that trying to play victim here is disingenuous on your part considering inconsistencies like this.
It's fine that you possibly feel outside the mainstream because science supports the health benefits of an omnivorous diet that includes whole plant foods and you don't eat that. IMO, that comes across as an undertone in your posts more than anything else. It's also fine that you don't personally feel your best eating that way.
So? Own your choices.
Me? I don't like meat. I'm not an ethical vegetarian, I just don't like the stuff. So I don't eat it. That's a wobbly stance, but there it is. I'm a grown woman, owning it.13 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually.
I typically avoid restaurants except in the circumstances described. Sometimes cooking at home is not an option. Example - last week, I had a meeting with a political group at a small local restaurant. I paid quite a bit for a piece of beef brisket as I asked for the sandwich plain, no bun, and no sides... no discount for that either, and I ate more when I came home afterwards. The next day, I had a work lunch at a local restaurant (work paid, so my issue was more about food quantity). Grilled chicken breasts, no fries or bread. I had a tuna pouch I keep stashed at my desk in the afternoon, which helped a bit. The next day, work catered lunch for everyone and had its annual drawing. 2 years ago, I happened to get drawn for the big prize - a TV. I had gone home (I live about 5 min. drive from work). Until my name was drawn, nobody noticed I had skipped. But one need not be present to win. So when my manager was giving me a hard time about skipping, I pointed out that the menu didn't work for me. I didn't make a fuss or ask them to change anything for me, but that is just the facts. This year, I skipped and nobody said anything (they probably didn't notice), nor did I say anything.
Last week was 3 days where I wasn't traveling, but had potential restaurant challenges. Of those 3 days, I made do with restaurants on 2 that were not as easy to skip. When traveling by car, I can carry some amounts of meat that doesn't require cooking and eat McDonald's beef patties mostly otherwise. When traveling for work, I care less about the cost side, but end up buying snacks to supplement the relatively smaller food amount. The exception is when I travel to our corp. office that is in an area with a lot of vegetarians and vegans. I normally don't have time to go anywhere for lunch and the on-site cafeteria caters to the common interest. In that case, I stop at a Wal-Mart between the airport and the hotel/destination town to get meat snacks that don't require refrigeration and I just eat that for lunches.
I don't eat carnivore to be bland nor to limit intake, though both end up being true whether intended or not. I eat it for better BG management and because I feel so much better (less GI distress, more alert).
You're following a niche diet. I had the exact same issues when I was vegan, plus a lot of ribbing and some family bullying on top of it. Don't go out of your way to tell people you're carnivore and they won't say anything (no thank you is fine the explanation is inviting commentary). Also most of the cost of a meal is the meat, you would not be getting a big discount because you didn't eat extremely cheap ingredients like bread and potatoes. It sucks but nothing you're describing is particularly bad or out of the ordinary for anyone who is veg or has a major allergy, nor is it a sign that carnivores are being judged and ostracized en mass.
^This. When I'm offered meat, I simply say "no thank you", I don't add that I'm a vegetarian, because that's the remark that invites a discussion.
Announcing that one doesn't eat plants is opening oneself up for comments. Just quietly going about eating meat and tactfully saying "no thank you" doesn't.
That's true in some situations, but when we are talking about co-workers where there is food brought in fairly regularly, there is a benefit to explaining. By answering the way I do, people have finally learned to stop coming around and offering such foods to me. It took a long time for people to believe me (not sure why), but I finally don't have people stopping by with cookies, donuts, fruit, or whatever other plant products they happened to bring in that day.1 -
I think it is a bit easier to eat vegetarian than as carnivore.
When I ate at a family members house the other day, it was a meat lasagne and salad. No other options. If eating 100% carnivore, one is out of luck. Your options then are to say why you are not eating the food, or lie.
When I ate at a friend's house last week it was potatoes, veggies, wine and ribs in bbq sauce, and dessert. Nothing there is carnivore either unless you wash off the ribs. Lol. Last time I went out to eat at a restaurant, I just had prawns and butter (I am GF too).
I'm avoiding a work dinner tonight (meatballs in sauce with rice and a salad) because it is not GF or animal. I'll arrive after dinner for drinks or coffee.... Although neither are really carnivore either.
If one is a vegetarian, you could still have the sides and salad, plus any dessert.
Eating breakfast out is often the easiest - bacon and eggs.
I imagine that eating vegan could be just as difficult knowing how many dishes have butter or eggs.
Eating as a GF vegetarian isn't easy. Not easy at all. Cross contamination in other people's homes even on supposedly safe vegetable sides has gotten me one time too many. I don't really trust anything.1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »leanjogreen18 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Plant-based is not ambiguous, unless you misinterpret it. It is *not* food made from plants. It is whole plant foods.
It's also no more moralistic than carnivore is. It's simply descriptive of foods that comprise a way of eating.
Wouldn't that be whole food plant based? WFPB differs from plant based? Difference of a few words.
It does sound moralistic to me. Your opinion differs from mine. I thought clean eating was a fine term until MFP too. Apparently many find it ambiguous and moralistic. Ymmv.
Do you think it sounds moralistic to you because you think people on a plant based diet are judging you becasue you eat animal products? It sounds descriptive to me, do you think maybe you are assigning an intent?
That could be. Meat eaters are judged. In this thread I have been judged for eating animal heavy - I am apparently damaging the environment with little regard for others, and damaging my health (Lthough my diet has seemed to improve my health). It is quite possible that I am interpreting WFPB from quite a different angle than others.
Any other heavy meat eaters feel this?
Yes, I absolutely get the "moral superiority" vibe from vegans. To some degree also from vegetarians without much for differences from vegetarians in different sub-classes.
SAD dieters occasionally give me the "you are destroying the environment" response, but usually start with the "OMG, you are going to die by tomorrow" type of reactions.
This is basically what I experience. I mostly hear concerns for my health. It makes sense. It shows that the people who care enough to notice what I eat are thinking of me (although their concerns are based on unproven hypothesis from the mid century). Then I get some concerns about animal quality of life and the environment. When I tell them that we typically butcher our own pasture fed beef or have wild game, they often let that go. Those concerned about grain fed meat often back off when they hear we eat wild game which I find funny because much of our game is living off the grain in fields too.
When someone says, "I eat a plant based diet" as an omnivore or vegetarian or vegan it just has a ring to my ear like they are pointing out something special. As though they get extra points for having eaten their broccoli. I know it is my perception and most did not mean it that way.... Except when it gets mentioned after they have noticed how I eat. Lol
If I declare that I eat an animal based diet, I never expect the same approval that the statement of a plant based diet might illicit. It's something I mostly keep to myself because I want to avoid the judgement that follows most of the time.
If someone says they have cut back their meat consumption to three times a week they will often hear a "good for you". If I mention that I eat meat at every meal, the best I would hope for is an awkward silence. Or "why?"
I'm sorry, but I simply must point out that butchering your own pasture fed beef and wild game as a diet is inconsistent with statements you made earlier in this very thread regarding your diet. You talked about a diet of cheap supermarket beef then.
The beginning of this thread was months before hunting season. We did not have venison our geese in the freezer at that time. Those animals are small and won't last a year.
I realize non hunters would not know that.Look, I personally don't care how you eat, but it seems that trying to play victim here is disingenuous on your part considering inconsistencies like this.
Victim? How? By noticing judgement? How would that make anyone a victim? I have no idea where you got that from.
It's fine that you possibly feel outside the mainstream because science supports the health benefits of an omnivorous diet that includes whole plant foods and you don't eat that. IMO, that comes across as an undertone in your posts more than anything else. It's also fine that you don't personally feel your best eating that way.
What? I feel outside the mainstream and that "undertone" comes across in my posts? I am outside the mainstream. LOL The undertone probably only shows up in response to some peoples' posts....So? Own your choices.
Me? I don't like meat. I'm not an ethical vegetarian, I just don't like the stuff. So I don't eat it. That's a wobbly stance, but there it is. I'm a grown woman, owning it.
I don't own it? I'm too wishy washy on my stance? I let others sway me from my beliefs too much?
6 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I think it is a bit easier to eat vegetarian than as carnivore.
When I ate at a family members house the other day, it was a meat lasagne and salad. No other options. If eating 100% carnivore, one is out of luck. Your options then are to say why you are not eating the food, or lie.
When I ate at a friend's house last week it was potatoes, veggies, wine and ribs in bbq sauce, and dessert. Nothing there is carnivore either unless you wash off the ribs. Lol. Last time I went out to eat at a restaurant, I just had prawns and butter (I am GF too).
I'm avoiding a work dinner tonight (meatballs in sauce with rice and a salad) because it is not GF or animal. I'll arrive after dinner for drinks or coffee.... Although neither are really carnivore either.
If one is a vegetarian, you could still have the sides and salad, plus any dessert.
Eating breakfast out is often the easiest - bacon and eggs.
I imagine that eating vegan could be just as difficult knowing how many dishes have butter or eggs.
Eating as a GF vegetarian isn't easy. Not easy at all. Cross contamination in other people's homes even on supposedly safe vegetable sides has gotten me one time too many. I don't really trust anything.
I understand and empathize. I am in a similar boat.1 -
midwesterner85 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »happytree923 wrote: »midwesterner85 wrote: »Steakhouse, IME, is easy for low carb or keto.
I would not think that there was any point to going to a restaurant if one were carnivore. How many steakhouses are organized is that you choose your meat and then the table gets various sides. Bread may well be on the table (as in most restaurants, I generally don't eat it either). I
So the issue for a carnivore would be that they can't eat the sides. If not being able to eat the whole meal bothers you (I frequently go to restaurants before the theater or symphony so can't take leftovers and half of it gets wasted sometimes. Bummer but hardly unique to carnivores, and if it were a personal side you could ask them not to add it to the plate, even though it would not lower the cost.)
I wouldn't be surprised if you get comments (from others chomping away at the meat) like "are you sure you don't want these delicious brussels with bacon" or whatever the side is -- creamed spinach, asparagus. That's hardly "vegans being superior," it's people being people.
Same with those Brazilian places -- lots of meat to fill up on, but you'd have to ignore all the sides.
If the point of carnivore (which I think it really is in many cases) to have a boring but satisfying enough diet where you won't really ever want to overeat, tempting yourself with a bunch of sides you like might make it harder, which is why I'd think restaurants would be disfavored. Also, assuming you know how to cook meat and get good quality meat, most of the benefit and interest of a restaurant would be gone, as anything interesting they do in preparing a meal or combining flavors would be something you don't want, as most cuisines do include a wide variety of ingredients. Most I go to certainly do have many dishes featuring vegetables, which is why I think people who slam restaurants as unhealthy don't pay attention to the choices or have a narrow view of the restaurants that are out there. (But in any case the restaurants are going to be higher cal than a typical meal, even if they come with lots of veg.)
Wrong on all accounts. Steakhouse meals are structured so that a steak meal comes with sides and one cannot buy the steak a la carte. I am not talking about appetizers for the whole table, which are a separate item to purchase.
The responses I get are most often from omnivores, but that is the most populous group. It often goes something like this:
Omnivore co-worker, fellow member of various groups, etc: "Would you like a donut, grapes, etc.?
Me: "No thanks, I don't eat plants."
Omnivore: "You don't eat plants?! That is really unhealthy. You need plants to live."
And so on... yes, this conversation happens even in Iowa. You can call me a liar if it helps you feel better, but I have had this conversation almost in those exact words many more times than I can remember each conversation individually.
I typically avoid restaurants except in the circumstances described. Sometimes cooking at home is not an option. Example - last week, I had a meeting with a political group at a small local restaurant. I paid quite a bit for a piece of beef brisket as I asked for the sandwich plain, no bun, and no sides... no discount for that either, and I ate more when I came home afterwards. The next day, I had a work lunch at a local restaurant (work paid, so my issue was more about food quantity). Grilled chicken breasts, no fries or bread. I had a tuna pouch I keep stashed at my desk in the afternoon, which helped a bit. The next day, work catered lunch for everyone and had its annual drawing. 2 years ago, I happened to get drawn for the big prize - a TV. I had gone home (I live about 5 min. drive from work). Until my name was drawn, nobody noticed I had skipped. But one need not be present to win. So when my manager was giving me a hard time about skipping, I pointed out that the menu didn't work for me. I didn't make a fuss or ask them to change anything for me, but that is just the facts. This year, I skipped and nobody said anything (they probably didn't notice), nor did I say anything.
Last week was 3 days where I wasn't traveling, but had potential restaurant challenges. Of those 3 days, I made do with restaurants on 2 that were not as easy to skip. When traveling by car, I can carry some amounts of meat that doesn't require cooking and eat McDonald's beef patties mostly otherwise. When traveling for work, I care less about the cost side, but end up buying snacks to supplement the relatively smaller food amount. The exception is when I travel to our corp. office that is in an area with a lot of vegetarians and vegans. I normally don't have time to go anywhere for lunch and the on-site cafeteria caters to the common interest. In that case, I stop at a Wal-Mart between the airport and the hotel/destination town to get meat snacks that don't require refrigeration and I just eat that for lunches.
I don't eat carnivore to be bland nor to limit intake, though both end up being true whether intended or not. I eat it for better BG management and because I feel so much better (less GI distress, more alert).
You're following a niche diet. I had the exact same issues when I was vegan, plus a lot of ribbing and some family bullying on top of it. Don't go out of your way to tell people you're carnivore and they won't say anything (no thank you is fine the explanation is inviting commentary). Also most of the cost of a meal is the meat, you would not be getting a big discount because you didn't eat extremely cheap ingredients like bread and potatoes. It sucks but nothing you're describing is particularly bad or out of the ordinary for anyone who is veg or has a major allergy, nor is it a sign that carnivores are being judged and ostracized en mass.
^This. When I'm offered meat, I simply say "no thank you", I don't add that I'm a vegetarian, because that's the remark that invites a discussion.
Announcing that one doesn't eat plants is opening oneself up for comments. Just quietly going about eating meat and tactfully saying "no thank you" doesn't.
That's true in some situations, but when we are talking about co-workers where there is food brought in fairly regularly, there is a benefit to explaining. By answering the way I do, people have finally learned to stop coming around and offering such foods to me. It took a long time for people to believe me (not sure why), but I finally don't have people stopping by with cookies, donuts, fruit, or whatever other plant products they happened to bring in that day.
Why is it a problem to be offered things in the first place? I'm not following how this is a problem.5 -
The beginning of this thread was months before hunting season. We did not have venison our geese in the freezer at that time. Those animals are small and won't last a year.
I realize non hunters would not know that.
You're painting an incomplete picture of the source of your food when trying to make a counterpoint to the people who give you flak about the environmental impact of it. That incomplete portrait is disingenuous on your part and suits your narrative at the time.Victim? How? By noticing judgement? How would that make anyone a victim? I have no idea where you got that from.
By inferring judgement. You eat a diet that's outside the mainstream, and outside the mainstream of nutritional guidance. People are going to comment on it because it's different. Commenting != judgement.What? I feel outside the mainstream and that "undertone" comes across in my posts? I am outside the mainstream. LOL The undertone probably only shows up in response to some peoples' posts....
I don't understand where you're coming from, truly. If you are happy with your diet, and secure in your choices, there's no need for undertone at all. There's no need to paint incomplete pictures. There's no need to try for silly reaches like trying to make the point that growing plant crops is bad environmentally to counter the argument that cattle farming is bad for the environment. There's no need to try to "prove" universal benefits to how you eat. There's no need to validate anything beyond your own n=1.I don't own it? I'm too wishy washy on my stance? I let others sway me from my beliefs too much?
I said *my* stance as a vegetarian was wishy washy considering the stances of other vegetarians. Wasn't implying anything about you. I was trying to demonstrate that it's okay to sit comfortably in n=1 just because it works for you for whatever reason you're happy with.
8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »The beginning of this thread was months before hunting season. We did not have venison our geese in the freezer at that time. Those animals are small and won't last a year.
I realize non hunters would not know that.
You're painting an incomplete picture of the source of your food when trying to make a counterpoint to the people who give you flak about the environmental impact of it. That incomplete portrait is disingenuous on your part and suits your narrative at the time.
We had no game in the freezer in July. He struck out hunting last year. I should have mentioned that?
I also eat dairy, lamb, fish, shellfish, crustaceans, pig, chicken, turkey, and various types of eggs. I mostly eat beef.Victim? How? By noticing judgement? How would that make anyone a victim? I have no idea where you got that from.
By inferring judgement. You eat a diet that's outside the mainstream, and outside the mainstream of nutritional guidance. People are going to comment on it because it's different. Commenting != judgement.
I still don't see how noticing judgement makes me a victim.What? I feel outside the mainstream and that "undertone" comes across in my posts? I am outside the mainstream. LOL The undertone probably only shows up in response to some peoples' posts....
I don't understand where you're coming from, truly. If you are happy with your diet, and secure in your choices, there's no need for undertone at all. There's no need to paint incomplete pictures. There's no need to try for silly reaches like trying to make the point that growing plant crops is bad environmentally to counter the argument that cattle farming is bad for the environment. There's no need to try to "prove" universal benefits to how you eat. There's no need to validate anything beyond your own n=1.
I am disingenuous because I did not mention the lack of venison in my freezer? And that relates to someone saying that plant growing is bad for the environment?
As mentioned, the undertone is probably in response to some members and their posts.I don't own it? I'm too wishy washy on my stance? I let others sway me from my beliefs too much?
I said *my* stance as a vegetarian was wishy washy considering the stances of other vegetarians. Wasn't implying anything about you. I was trying to demonstrate that it's okay to sit comfortably in n=1 just because it works for you for whatever reason you're happy with.
I know you said that. I should have typed loosey goosey to avoid confusion.
I'm fine with my n=1. Completely.
Edited for quotes0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions