Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Carnivore diet

positiveyou1
positiveyou1 Posts: 10 Member
edited January 2023 in Debate Club
I have started the carnivore diet, of eating all and anything animal products, some root veg and nuts, and losing weight doing so in the 2 weeks IV been doing it. Has anyone else started the diet ? And how are you finding it ?
«13

Replies

  • LiveOnceBeHappy
    LiveOnceBeHappy Posts: 448 Member
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    As long as you’re in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight. How you get there is up to you.

    THIS!
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    edited January 2023
    tabithasalyer1970 wrote: »
    Hello, Carnivore community!
    I Love how I feel for the first time in ALL my life. Since July of 2022, I decided to fully commit. With the exception of a Christmas party food nibble, which I wholly regret, I have no more bathroom issues since childhood, stomach issues, no more bloating, gas, heartburn, joint problems, random bouts of feeling unwell...I now have mental clarity, cleaner teeth, etc...I could go on and on. Why would I want to go back?! My typical day is bacon in the morning with coffee and whipping cream and meat in the afternoon. Tea with stevia throughout the day. It has changed my life for the better.
    My YouTube go-to’s are Dr Sean Baker, Kelly Hogan, Dr. Ken Berry, Laura Spath.
    Don’t knock it until you try it.
    It’s a lifestyle for me. And weight loss was a
    PLUS!

    Yeah, it appears this is a common theme among carnivores with 10's of thousands of antidotal stories. Harvard did a study in 2022 that also shows similar results. I've gone down this rabbit hole for the last few years and actually tried it for 60 days while I was in contact with my doctor and had blood drawn before and after, with no ill effects with a few health markers improving. I personally found it a tough go and I also like some plant food, but then again I'm not really affected by ill health, which appears what happens with quite a few of the people that eventually are drawn to carnivore after trying everything to try and feel better. I'm still trying to figure this diet out on a nutritional front, and really don't know what to think. Hope you continue to exhibit good health, Cheers and welcome, keep us posted.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    edited January 2023
    LiveOnceBeHappy wrote: »
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    As long as you’re in a caloric deficit, you will lose weight. How you get there is up to you.

    THIS!

    One must keep this in mind when chomping down on a ribeye. Apparently most carnivores from my research have an extremely hard time gaining weight. Of course if a person eats too many calories they will gain weight. The initial phase was more prevalent but longer term carnivores found it difficult to almost impossible, which I found a really interesting factoid. Personally I lost 3kg's over 60 days and I didn't want to do that, I just couldn't eat enough. I think fat has an important link to this and maybe if I was eating less fat I might have been more hungry, not sure. Cheers.
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,207 Member
    The only diet that will work on a long term basis, past the weight loss phase is one that you can adhere to.

    It’s tough though to beat a healthy balanced diet rather than one that stresses certain adherences must be in place.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    edited January 2023
    What is a healthy balanced diet? I know that might sound weird but I've had this conversation with lots of people and been given some pretty strange answers. Obviously the Standard American Diet as dictated by the USDA isn't, so it kind of begs the question.

    Nobody thinks in these terms, but since the advent of civilization as we know it, at the beginning of the Holocene, we were H-G'ers where the food supply during a 12 month period for the most part was not very balanced at all, and rather harsh and we obviously thrived to populate all geographic areas under most conditions, with very little comforts. Since the advent of civilization our health took a hit pretty much from the very beginning to now where only 12% of the American people for example have what would be considered a healthy metabolism, where is the balance, I'm wondering. Just throwing this out there. Cheers
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,207 Member
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    edited January 2023
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Obviously the Standard American Diet as dictated by the USDA isn't, so it kind of begs the question.

    What I see in the USDA guidelines doesn't sound like SAD! :wink: Maybe you should have a look? :lol:https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf

    By the way, if you ever want to look at nutritional guidelines till the cows come home, here is one AWESOME aggregation of the world's tax dollars at work: https://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-dietary-guidelines/regions/en/

    Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,207 Member
    neanderthin wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png
    lol

  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    edited January 2023
    neanderthin wrote: »
    What is a healthy balanced diet? I know that might sound weird but I've had this conversation with lots of people and been given some pretty strange answers. Obviously the Standard American Diet as dictated by the USDA isn't, so it kind of begs the question.

    Nobody thinks in these terms, but since the advent of civilization as we know it, at the beginning of the Holocene, we were H-G'ers where the food supply during a 12 month period for the most part was not very balanced at all, and rather harsh and we obviously thrived to populate all geographic areas under most conditions, with very little comforts. Since the advent of civilization our health took a hit pretty much from the very beginning to now where only 12% of the American people for example have what would be considered a healthy metabolism, where is the balance, I'm wondering. Just throwing this out there. Cheers

    The "Standard American Diet," also known as "average American diet" and "Western Diet" isn't something dictated by the USDA but is rather what average Americans actually eat, DESPITE governmental recommendations.

    https://www.uab.edu/inquiro/issues/past-issues/volume-9/the-effects-of-an-american-diet-on-health

    "...The Dietary Guidelines for Americans states that the average American diet consists of excess sodium, saturated fat, refined grains, and calories from solid fats and added sugars1. Furthermore, the guidelines state that Americans eat less vegetables, fruits, whole grains, dairy products, and oils than recommended."
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    edited January 2023
    neanderthin wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png

    What's that from? I need context. If https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2021-03/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans-2020-2025.pdf, that's 164 pages - what page? I couldn't find it by searching "encourage."
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 28,052 Member
    edited January 2023
    Back on the Carnivore topic, I enjoy the Buff Guys types of diet reviews and here they are on carnivore:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4OmsKEWC10&t=286s

    There are probably a lot more people and robust threads about carnivore in the Low Carb group: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    What is a healthy balanced diet? I know that might sound weird but I've had this conversation with lots of people and been given some pretty strange answers. Obviously the Standard American Diet as dictated by the USDA isn't, so it kind of begs the question.

    Nobody thinks in these terms, but since the advent of civilization as we know it, at the beginning of the Holocene, we were H-G'ers where the food supply during a 12 month period for the most part was not very balanced at all, and rather harsh and we obviously thrived to populate all geographic areas under most conditions, with very little comforts. Since the advent of civilization our health took a hit pretty much from the very beginning to now where only 12% of the American people for example have what would be considered a healthy metabolism, where is the balance, I'm wondering. Just throwing this out there. Cheers

    The "Standard American Diet," also known as "average American diet" and "Western Diet" isn't something dictated by the USDA but is rather what average Americans actually eat, DESPITE governmental recommendations.

    https://www.uab.edu/inquiro/issues/past-issues/volume-9/the-effects-of-an-american-diet-on-health

    "...The Dietary Guidelines for Americans states that the average American diet consists of excess sodium, saturated fat, refined grains, and calories from solid fats and added sugars1. Furthermore, the guidelines state that Americans eat less vegetables, fruits, whole grains, dairy products, and oils than recommended."

    Which foods and in what percentages can be debated, but generally it's a lot of energy and people are consuming more than ever before.
  • ghrmj
    ghrmj Posts: 86 Member
    neanderthin wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png

    Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    edited January 2023
    ghrmj wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png

    Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.
    ghrmj wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png

    Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.

    It was mentioned that Lucky Charms was more nutritious than steak, and I couldn't find that quote in the USDA but I do remember the Lucky Charm being referenced in this manner and remember Joe Rogan talking about it. It's really just bad algorithms and it's called the Food Compass.

    Led by Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, the Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, the Tufts researchers spent three years developing the new NPS. These ranking systems are used, they note, to “supply the science for local and national policies such as package labeling, taxation, warning labels and restrictions on marketing to children.”

    Called “Food Compass,” the new ranking system uses 54 different nutrient characteristics such as vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein, lipids, phytochemicals etc. to score the “healthfulness” of specific foods, beverages, and mixed meals. They applied this ranking to 8032 common foods and beverages consumed by average Americans. The end result is a numbered ranking on a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).


    Anyway diet doctor talked about it.
    https://dietdoctor.com/are-lucky-charms-and-cheerios-healthier-than-beef-and-eggs

    Snopes
    https://snopes.com/news/2023/01/16/lucky-charms-healthier-than-steak-food-pyramid/
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    ghrmj wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png

    Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.
    ghrmj wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png

    Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.

    It was mentioned that Lucky Charms was more nutritious than steak, and I couldn't find that quote in the USDA but I do remember the Lucky Charm being referenced in this manner and remember Joe Rogan talking about it. It's really just bad algorithms and it's called the Food Compass.

    Led by Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, the Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, the Tufts researchers spent three years developing the new NPS. These ranking systems are used, they note, to “supply the science for local and national policies such as package labeling, taxation, warning labels and restrictions on marketing to children.”

    Called “Food Compass,” the new ranking system uses 54 different nutrient characteristics such as vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein, lipids, phytochemicals etc. to score the “healthfulness” of specific foods, beverages, and mixed meals. They applied this ranking to 8032 common foods and beverages consumed by average Americans. The end result is a numbered ranking on a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).


    Anyway diet doctor talked about it.
    https://dietdoctor.com/are-lucky-charms-and-cheerios-healthier-than-beef-and-eggs

    Snopes
    https://snopes.com/news/2023/01/16/lucky-charms-healthier-than-steak-food-pyramid/

    From Snopes:

    "...We found, in short, that there is not, in fact, a new U.S. government-funded food pyramid chart that promotes to the general public the idea that the children's breakfast cereal Lucky Charms is healthier than steak. Despite how it was described, the chart was actually put together to demonstrate the shortcomings of systems used to rank the healthfulness of foods."
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    ghrmj wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png

    Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.
    ghrmj wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    tomcustombuilder wrote: »
    Lol I think I read the USDA just said Lucky Charms are more nutritious than steak, so yeah good to follow their guidelines.

    y82skxjzunho.png

    Where is this chart from (link?) I am trying to determine the context.

    It was mentioned that Lucky Charms was more nutritious than steak, and I couldn't find that quote in the USDA but I do remember the Lucky Charm being referenced in this manner and remember Joe Rogan talking about it. It's really just bad algorithms and it's called the Food Compass.

    Led by Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, the Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, the Tufts researchers spent three years developing the new NPS. These ranking systems are used, they note, to “supply the science for local and national policies such as package labeling, taxation, warning labels and restrictions on marketing to children.”

    Called “Food Compass,” the new ranking system uses 54 different nutrient characteristics such as vitamins, minerals, fiber, protein, lipids, phytochemicals etc. to score the “healthfulness” of specific foods, beverages, and mixed meals. They applied this ranking to 8032 common foods and beverages consumed by average Americans. The end result is a numbered ranking on a scale of 1 (worst) to 100 (best).


    Anyway diet doctor talked about it.
    https://dietdoctor.com/are-lucky-charms-and-cheerios-healthier-than-beef-and-eggs

    Snopes
    https://snopes.com/news/2023/01/16/lucky-charms-healthier-than-steak-food-pyramid/

    From Snopes:

    "...We found, in short, that there is not, in fact, a new U.S. government-funded food pyramid chart that promotes

    the general public the idea that the children's breakfast cereal Lucky Charms is healthier than steak    . Despite how it was described, the chart was actually put together to demonstrate the shortcomings of systems used to rank the
    of foods."

    Yeah, it really exposes the shortcomings in algorithms when it comes to what is expected to be better than something else. cheers

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member

    Tufts University came up with the Food Compass.

    https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/

    https://now.tufts.edu/2021/10/14/ranking-healthfulness-foods-first-worst


    Here's the original study.

    https://nature.com/articles/s41467-022-34195-8[/url
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 14,234 Member
    edited January 2023
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.

    Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
    But so are the USDA ones.
    Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.

    I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.

    Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.

    Not saying that people aren't doing so.
    Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it! :wink:
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    edited January 2023
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.

    Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
    But so are the USDA ones.
    Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.

    I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.

    Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.
    Not saying that people aren't doing so.
    Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it! :wink:

    I didn't say the guidelines were asking people to eat excess energy, that would be kinda strange, no? I meant, and obviously should have been more clear, was, and again this is only my opinion, the protein to energy ratio is off balance in favor of energy, upwards of 88% are fuel sources. Generally speaking free living animals which include humans will eat until their protein needs have been met. If protein is in short supply or consumed animals will continue to consume energy sources until their protein needs are met which is basic to thrive and reproduce. Cheers.
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,754 Member
    neanderthin wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.

    Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
    But so are the USDA ones.
    Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.

    I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.

    Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.
    Not saying that people aren't doing so.
    Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it! :wink:

    I didn't say the guidelines were asking people to eat excess energy, that would be kinda strange, no? I meant, and obviously should have been more clear, was, and again this is only my opinion, the protein to energy ratio is off balance in favor of energy, upwards of 88% are fuel sources. Generally speaking free living animals which include humans will eat until their protein needs have been met. If protein is in short supply or consumed animals will continue to consume energy sources until their protein needs are met which is basic to thrive and reproduce. Cheers.

    The protein hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis. It has never been studied, proven, or really even demonstrated that an animal will eat until they reach a certain amount of protein. It's a thought, nothing more.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.

    Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
    But so are the USDA ones.
    Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.

    I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.

    Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.
    Not saying that people aren't doing so.
    Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it! :wink:

    I didn't say the guidelines were asking people to eat excess energy, that would be kinda strange, no? I meant, and obviously should have been more clear, was, and again this is only my opinion, the protein to energy ratio is off balance in favor of energy, upwards of 88% are fuel sources. Generally speaking free living animals which include humans will eat until their protein needs have been met. If protein is in short supply or consumed animals will continue to consume energy sources until their protein needs are met which is basic to thrive and reproduce. Cheers.

    The protein hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis. It has never been studied, proven, or really even demonstrated that an animal will eat until they reach a certain amount of protein. It's a thought, nothing more.

    Here's a couple studies that tested it.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22634200/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121382/


    What peaked my interest in thinking about this whole concept was from my research into low carb diets, which is the diet I'm on and have been on for a while. An interesting aspect of the methodology kept coming up over and over again which was, the low carb arm of the study was told to eat ad libitum while the other arm was to reduce calories. These were comparing weight loss and lean mass. Generally speaking, the low carb diet either had similar weight loss or better and lean mass was retained better. So while first world countries continue to consume too many calories for reasons that apparently are unknown, I'm throwing my hat into this research until I find a better answer. Do you have any thoughts as to reasons why?



  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,754 Member
    edited January 2023
    neanderthin wrote: »
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Yeah, familiar with both those links. I always thought Brazil's was interesting. Cheers.

    Brazil's guidelines ARE very interesting actually.
    But so are the USDA ones.
    Which, based on my understanding of SAD, they are neither dictating nor suggesting.

    I provided the links because you used the word "dictate" in conjunction with the USDA guidelines.

    Furthermore the USDA guidelines do NOT suggest ingesting more energy than is needed.
    Not saying that people aren't doing so.
    Just saying that the current guidelines are not the ones suggesting it! :wink:

    I didn't say the guidelines were asking people to eat excess energy, that would be kinda strange, no? I meant, and obviously should have been more clear, was, and again this is only my opinion, the protein to energy ratio is off balance in favor of energy, upwards of 88% are fuel sources. Generally speaking free living animals which include humans will eat until their protein needs have been met. If protein is in short supply or consumed animals will continue to consume energy sources until their protein needs are met which is basic to thrive and reproduce. Cheers.

    The protein hypothesis is only that, a hypothesis. It has never been studied, proven, or really even demonstrated that an animal will eat until they reach a certain amount of protein. It's a thought, nothing more.

    Here's a couple studies that tested it.

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22634200/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28121382/


    What peaked my interest in thinking about this whole concept was from my research into low carb diets, which is the diet I'm on and have been on for a while. An interesting aspect of the methodology kept coming up over and over again which was, the low carb arm of the study was told to eat ad libitum while the other arm was to reduce calories. These were comparing weight loss and lean mass. Generally speaking, the low carb diet either had similar weight loss or better and lean mass was retained better. So while first world countries continue to consume too many calories for reasons that apparently are unknown, I'm throwing my hat into this research until I find a better answer. Do you have any thoughts as to reasons why?



    Because we've learned that if you mix fat, sugar, and salt together, it tastes awfully good. So good, in fact, that people will eat it to excess. This is why whole food plant based and low carb both elicit weight loss even when people eat as much as they want. They both keep you from mixing fat, sugar, and salt together.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    edited January 2023
    I've talked about this quite a bit here, and agree, no doubt about it. Why a whole food diet, and it doesn't necessarily have to be just plant based and a low carb/ketogenic diet seems to mitigate or lessen those effects is where we'll find some answers and there's no doubt macronutrients do affect hormones that effect satiety and hunger signaling. Cheers
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 2,207 Member
    At some point these threads end up being one big yawn…

Categories