Carnivore Diet: The Antithesis to Veganism

Options
1…456810

Replies

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    edited December 2018
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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.

    Hmmm... I think the disconnect here is that in general usage, "plant based" is usually whole plant foods like grains, beans, vegetables, legumes, fruit. It may or may not include meat, eggs, and/or dairy. It encompasses a couple of different eating styles. It seems to me that you're defining "plant based" as "anything that isn't meat".

    I'm failing to understand the moralistic angle here, could you expound on that? To me, it's just descriptive. I'm trying to see where you're coming from.

    I think part of the issue is nvmomketo is equating vegan is plant based. So while an oreo is vegan, it is not a plant based food.

    Not really. Vegan and vegetarian are plant based, but I always considered many omnivores to be plant based too.

    I would think Oreos are plant based. There are no animal products in it at all.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited December 2018
    Options
    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.

    Right.

    Vegan is a term that means eating (and using) no animal products, for ethical reasons. Vegetarian means eating no meat, but says nothing about the rest of the diet.

    WFPB, often shortened to just plant-based, means eating a diet that is mostly based on, well, whole foods (or close to whole foods) that are plants. Anywhere from a strict Forks Over Knives kind of thing (which I personally am not pushing) to a Michael Pollan approach or Blue Zones kind of approach (or the typical Med diet, even, or perhaps something like DASH).
  • laurenq1991
    laurenq1991 Posts: 384 Member
    Options
    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.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited December 2018
    Options
    midwesterner85 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    laurenq1991 wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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-1.2965140
    The 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.
  • LiLee2018
    LiLee2018 Posts: 1,389 Member
    Options
    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. /shrugs
  • johnslater461
    johnslater461 Posts: 449 Member
    Options
    AlabasterVerve wrote: »
    "Science is determined by consensus of research."

    Jesus wept.

    But Baphomet grinned.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »

    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.

    QFT
  • T1DCarnivoreRunner
    T1DCarnivoreRunner Posts: 11,502 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    midwesterner85 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    leanjogreen18 wrote: »
    nvmomketo 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.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    psuLemon wrote: »
    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".

    So much this.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited December 2018
    Options
    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.)

Categories