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
Replies
-
tomcustombuilder wrote: »At some point these threads end up being one big yawn…
Really? I find the links and research very interesting. Maybe it's just me but the whole search for the "perfect" diet I find very intriguing.
(I mean I would never eat a carnivore diet even if it was found to be the best (because eww). But I would never eat Lucky Charms either.
I tend to lean towards the belief that humans can thrive on various (whole food) diets in various circumstances - but I still enjoy the research and even the debate.) 4 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »At some point these threads end up being one big yawn…
Really? I find the links and research very interesting. Maybe it's just me but the whole search for the "perfect" diet I find very intriguing.
(I mean I would never eat a carnivore diet even if it was found to be the best (because eww). But I would never eat Lucky Charms either. I tend to lean towards the belief that humans can thrive on various (whole food) diets in various circumstances - but I still enjoy the research and even the debate.)
Yeah, it's about as restrictive a diet can get and all animal products to boot. I did a carnivore diet for 60 days and there's no possible way I could just eat meat either. I will say that mental clarity and energy was noticeably better and my nagging arthritis in one hand and knee disappeared after about 3 weeks but generally speaking, that was about it and the pain in both joins are back, but to a leaser degree. If a person has few or no health issues, then like the video that was linked earlier doing it for 30 or 60 days really doesn't mean very much and I agree, within that context.
I suspect the more visible carnivore gets going forward that we'll see more people try it just for weight loss and fail a lot, simply because of the restrictions and to be quite honest I expected to see more posts here professing CICO is all you need to lose weight and even though that is a true statement it doesn't address health issues or anything else associated with food.
Most people that have actually adopted the carnivore lifestyle and are sticking with it are people that have had numerous health issues most of their lives and have struggled physically and mentally just getting out of bed. Eventually from the simple lack of improvement of their health or getting worse and the medications these people have to take just to make life barrable, eventually some will seek to investigate lifestyle alternatives. Generally speaking that road leads to lifestyles changes like vegetarian, mediterranean, vegan, keto, atkins, low carb and all will show some improvements and the operative word is some. Almost all the people that I've watched or heard, their stories pretty much tell this story. The fodmap diet works very well but again it doesn't address all the health issues.
The primary driver from what I can glean from my investigations and interest are, that a carnivore diet is the most restrictive diet a person can be on and apparently red meat specifically is the least allergenic food source there is, so it's basically a fodmap diet on steroids'. I suspect that the nagging arthritis that I have is an inflammatory response from something and because it came back after I stopped carnivore it might be a compound in a food I went back to, and yes just an n:1 observation but adding up thousands of n:1's from the community that are on the carnivore diet has some reason to not discount it, in my opinion. Cheers
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »<snip>
The primary driver from what I can glean from my investigations and interest are, that a carnivore diet is the most restrictive diet a person can be on and apparently red meat specifically is the least allergenic food source there is, so it's basically a fodmap diet on steroids'. I suspect that the nagging arthritis that I have is an inflammatory response from something and because it came back after I stopped carnivore it might be a compound in a food I went back to, and yes just an n:1 observation but adding up thousands of n:1's from the community that are on the carnivore diet has some reason to not discount it, in my opinion. Cheers
Unless you are unfortunate enough to develop AGS.
1 -
That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.1 -
Thanks, interesting, I never heard of this.neanderthin wrote: »<snip>
The primary driver from what I can glean from my investigations and interest are, that a carnivore diet is the most restrictive diet a person can be on and apparently red meat specifically is the least allergenic food source there is, so it's basically a fodmap diet on steroids'. I suspect that the nagging arthritis that I have is an inflammatory response from something and because it came back after I stopped carnivore it might be a compound in a food I went back to, and yes just an n:1 observation but adding up thousands of n:1's from the community that are on the carnivore diet has some reason to not discount it, in my opinion. Cheers
Unless you are unfortunate enough to develop AGS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-gal_allergy
Alpha-gal allergy has been reported in 17 countries on all six continents where humans are bitten by ticks, particularly the United States and Australia.[6] As of November 2019 Australia has the highest rate of mammalian meat allergy and tick anaphylaxis in the world.[7]
It's apparently the transfer of a carbohydrate molecule from a tick that humans then react too and not so much something that people are allergic too that is specifically found in meat, or at least that is what science believe is the cause. Also it's apparently the first time an allergy was caused by a carbohydrate instead of a protein, interesting stuff. Cheers0 -
There's a show I sometimes listen to on NPR called Radio Lab. It's produced by WNYC (New York Public Radio). They did a show on Alpha-Gal about five years ago that they repeat from time to time. Weirs stuff for sure.1
-
That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.0 -
There's a show I sometimes listen to on NPR called Radio Lab. It's produced by WNYC (New York Public Radio). They did a show on Alpha-Gal about five years ago that they repeat from time to time. Weirs stuff for sure.
Thanks, I'll definitely take a listen. cheers.0 -
.neanderthin wrote: »That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.
That's the thing: The Snopes article you linked, including the videos included, suggest that that's not "filtering down from USDA" in any deeply meaningful way. We're talking about a chart cherry-picked by an advocacy group, looks like misleadingly so about the big picture, from an academic paper on a research tool to assess individual foods, one of whose developers says that the tool usefully considers some factors that other tools don't consider, but that still needs improvement, and seemingly agrees that that chart (in its original academic critique context) makes good points.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've poked around beyond the surface in USDA "My Plate", and I'm seeing mostly encouragement to eat whole foods (yes, including whole grains), to get plenty of veggies/fruits, etc. Yeah, it lowballs protein for my taste, but IMO it's not terrible. Yeah, I think there's a mild tinge of "meet people where they are" in things like "make half of your grains whole grains", rather than going all the way. But overall the stuff that many of its casual critics say about that USDA guidance doesn't match up with what I'm seeing actually in that guidance, especially when going beyond the cartoon-simple plate picture that's basically logo-like.
As far as the advocacy-rag article that mis-used the chart from an academic critique of the still-research-y food assessment tool, talking about a "new food pyramid" that's absolutely imaginary as far as an reasonable evidence suggests . . . I don't see how we should take anything they say seriously, TBH. Joe Rogan and others going off on it based on that article . . . well, jeez. Vet your sources, grown ups.2 -
0 -
.neanderthin wrote: »That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.
That's the thing: The Snopes article you linked, including the videos included, suggest that that's not "filtering down from USDA" in any deeply meaningful way. We're talking about a chart cherry-picked by an advocacy group, looks like misleadingly so about the big picture, from an academic paper on a research tool to assess individual foods, one of whose developers says that the tool usefully considers some factors that other tools don't consider, but that still needs improvement, and seemingly agrees that that chart (in its original academic critique context) makes good points.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've poked around beyond the surface in USDA "My Plate", and I'm seeing mostly encouragement to eat whole foods (yes, including whole grains), to get plenty of veggies/fruits, etc. Yeah, it lowballs protein for my taste, but IMO it's not terrible. Yeah, I think there's a mild tinge of "meet people where they are" in things like "make half of your grains whole grains", rather than going all the way. But overall the stuff that many of its casual critics say about that USDA guidance doesn't match up with what I'm seeing actually in that guidance, especially when going beyond the cartoon-simple plate picture that's basically logo-like.
As far as the advocacy-rag article that mis-used the chart from an academic critique of the still-research-y food assessment tool, talking about a "new food pyramid" that's absolutely imaginary as far as an reasonable evidence suggests . . . I don't see how we should take anything they say seriously, TBH. Joe Rogan and others going off on it based on that article . . . well, jeez. Vet your sources, grown ups.
Yeah, this was only to show shortcomings, nothing more. Here's some of the real data they derived their chart from.
The data is derived from NHANES at the CDC.
https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/
0 -
and all of a sudden if one uses the "crazy" food compass to compare "like" items WITHIN categories, as opposed to cherry picking across categories, it sort of starts to make sense...
At this point in my life I am not sure that I want or need someone telling me what choices to make (like weight watchers for example)... but I guess it is helpful to have starting points to experiment from!2 -
.neanderthin wrote: ».neanderthin wrote: »That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.
That's the thing: The Snopes article you linked, including the videos included, suggest that that's not "filtering down from USDA" in any deeply meaningful way. We're talking about a chart cherry-picked by an advocacy group, looks like misleadingly so about the big picture, from an academic paper on a research tool to assess individual foods, one of whose developers says that the tool usefully considers some factors that other tools don't consider, but that still needs improvement, and seemingly agrees that that chart (in its original academic critique context) makes good points.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've poked around beyond the surface in USDA "My Plate", and I'm seeing mostly encouragement to eat whole foods (yes, including whole grains), to get plenty of veggies/fruits, etc. Yeah, it lowballs protein for my taste, but IMO it's not terrible. Yeah, I think there's a mild tinge of "meet people where they are" in things like "make half of your grains whole grains", rather than going all the way. But overall the stuff that many of its casual critics say about that USDA guidance doesn't match up with what I'm seeing actually in that guidance, especially when going beyond the cartoon-simple plate picture that's basically logo-like.
As far as the advocacy-rag article that mis-used the chart from an academic critique of the still-research-y food assessment tool, talking about a "new food pyramid" that's absolutely imaginary as far as an reasonable evidence suggests . . . I don't see how we should take anything they say seriously, TBH. Joe Rogan and others going off on it based on that article . . . well, jeez. Vet your sources, grown ups.
Yeah, this was only to show shortcomings, nothing more. Here's some of the real data they derived their chart from.
The data is derived from NHANES at the CDC.
https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/
But it is not a US government finding or recommendation simply because it uses input data from NHANES. It's an academic/research thing at this point, misrepresented (unattributed in this thread at first, actually) to be an official USDA guidance.
I'm out now. I'm part of taking this thread off topic, and that's wrong.0 -
.neanderthin wrote: ».neanderthin wrote: »That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.
That's the thing: The Snopes article you linked, including the videos included, suggest that that's not "filtering down from USDA" in any deeply meaningful way. We're talking about a chart cherry-picked by an advocacy group, looks like misleadingly so about the big picture, from an academic paper on a research tool to assess individual foods, one of whose developers says that the tool usefully considers some factors that other tools don't consider, but that still needs improvement, and seemingly agrees that that chart (in its original academic critique context) makes good points.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've poked around beyond the surface in USDA "My Plate", and I'm seeing mostly encouragement to eat whole foods (yes, including whole grains), to get plenty of veggies/fruits, etc. Yeah, it lowballs protein for my taste, but IMO it's not terrible. Yeah, I think there's a mild tinge of "meet people where they are" in things like "make half of your grains whole grains", rather than going all the way. But overall the stuff that many of its casual critics say about that USDA guidance doesn't match up with what I'm seeing actually in that guidance, especially when going beyond the cartoon-simple plate picture that's basically logo-like.
As far as the advocacy-rag article that mis-used the chart from an academic critique of the still-research-y food assessment tool, talking about a "new food pyramid" that's absolutely imaginary as far as an reasonable evidence suggests . . . I don't see how we should take anything they say seriously, TBH. Joe Rogan and others going off on it based on that article . . . well, jeez. Vet your sources, grown ups.
Yeah, this was only to show shortcomings, nothing more. Here's some of the real data they derived their chart from.
The data is derived from NHANES at the CDC.
https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/
But it is not a US government finding or recommendation simply because it uses input data from NHANES. It's an academic/research thing at this point, misrepresented (unattributed in this thread at first, actually) to be an official USDA guidance.
I'm out now. I'm part of taking this thread off topic, and that's wrong..neanderthin wrote: ».neanderthin wrote: »That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.
That's the thing: The Snopes article you linked, including the videos included, suggest that that's not "filtering down from USDA" in any deeply meaningful way. We're talking about a chart cherry-picked by an advocacy group, looks like misleadingly so about the big picture, from an academic paper on a research tool to assess individual foods, one of whose developers says that the tool usefully considers some factors that other tools don't consider, but that still needs improvement, and seemingly agrees that that chart (in its original academic critique context) makes good points.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've poked around beyond the surface in USDA "My Plate", and I'm seeing mostly encouragement to eat whole foods (yes, including whole grains), to get plenty of veggies/fruits, etc. Yeah, it lowballs protein for my taste, but IMO it's not terrible. Yeah, I think there's a mild tinge of "meet people where they are" in things like "make half of your grains whole grains", rather than going all the way. But overall the stuff that many of its casual critics say about that USDA guidance doesn't match up with what I'm seeing actually in that guidance, especially when going beyond the cartoon-simple plate picture that's basically logo-like.
As far as the advocacy-rag article that mis-used the chart from an academic critique of the still-research-y food assessment tool, talking about a "new food pyramid" that's absolutely imaginary as far as an reasonable evidence suggests . . . I don't see how we should take anything they say seriously, TBH. Joe Rogan and others going off on it based on that article . . . well, jeez. Vet your sources, grown ups.
Yeah, this was only to show shortcomings, nothing more. Here's some of the real data they derived their chart from.
The data is derived from NHANES at the CDC.
https://sites.tufts.edu/foodcompass/research/data/
But it is not a US government finding or recommendation simply because it uses input data from NHANES. It's an academic/research thing at this point, misrepresented (unattributed in this thread at first, actually) to be an official USDA guidance.
I'm out now. I'm part of taking this thread off topic, and that's wrong.
Yes I know, it gathered data from more than one source and is not actual USDA guidance. To actually see the results from the USDA you would need to examine food availability in institutions like hospitals, schools etc to then be able to understand how that might influence for better or worse. Yes back on topic. Cheers.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »At some point these threads end up being one big yawn…
Really? I find the links and research very interesting. Maybe it's just me but the whole search for the "perfect" diet I find very intriguing.
(I mean I would never eat a carnivore diet even if it was found to be the best (because eww). But I would never eat Lucky Charms either. I tend to lean towards the belief that humans can thrive on various (whole food) diets in various circumstances - but I still enjoy the research and even the debate.)
Yeah, it's about as restrictive a diet can get and all animal products to boot. I did a carnivore diet for 60 days and there's no possible way I could just eat meat either. I will say that mental clarity and energy was noticeably better and my nagging arthritis in one hand and knee disappeared after about 3 weeks but generally speaking, that was about it and the pain in both joins are back, but to a leaser degree. If a person has few or no health issues, then like the video that was linked earlier doing it for 30 or 60 days really doesn't mean very much and I agree, within that context.
I suspect the more visible carnivore gets going forward that we'll see more people try it just for weight loss and fail a lot, simply because of the restrictions and to be quite honest I expected to see more posts here professing CICO is all you need to lose weight and even though that is a true statement it doesn't address health issues or anything else associated with food.
Most people that have actually adopted the carnivore lifestyle and are sticking with it are people that have had numerous health issues most of their lives and have struggled physically and mentally just getting out of bed. Eventually from the simple lack of improvement of their health or getting worse and the medications these people have to take just to make life barrable, eventually some will seek to investigate lifestyle alternatives. Generally speaking that road leads to lifestyles changes like vegetarian, mediterranean, vegan, keto, atkins, low carb and all will show some improvements and the operative word is some. Almost all the people that I've watched or heard, their stories pretty much tell this story. The fodmap diet works very well but again it doesn't address all the health issues.
The primary driver from what I can glean from my investigations and interest are, that a carnivore diet is the most restrictive diet a person can be on and apparently red meat specifically is the least allergenic food source there is, so it's basically a fodmap diet on steroids'. I suspect that the nagging arthritis that I have is an inflammatory response from something and because it came back after I stopped carnivore it might be a compound in a food I went back to, and yes just an n:1 observation but adding up thousands of n:1's from the community that are on the carnivore diet has some reason to not discount it, in my opinion. Cheers
I'm not discounting it, I just wouldn't do it myself. I did an ultra low carb diet (not carnivore) for 6 weeks and my knee arthritis also improved noticeably. It was not easy to stick with though.
Anecdotally I've heard people say the same thing about a vegan, or really any whole food diet, though. I tend to think that when people try a restrictive diet for health reasons they generally cut out low nutrient value foods and replace them with higher value whole foods. Then they feel better and attribute that to the new *specific* way of eating, rather than the fact that they cut out a lot of junk. (Not saying that is the case with your experience, just what I have seen happen in general.)
I try to use my experience to inform my choices going forward, but with a diet that is a bit less restrictive.
3 -
tomcustombuilder wrote: »
Interesting... so these threads are boring and make you yawn, yet here we are, still lurking in the thread reading the comments. 🤣😂 Nah, I don't blame you. I come for the nutrition advice, and stay for the drama.5 -
neanderthin wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »At some point these threads end up being one big yawn…
Really? I find the links and research very interesting. Maybe it's just me but the whole search for the "perfect" diet I find very intriguing.
(I mean I would never eat a carnivore diet even if it was found to be the best (because eww). But I would never eat Lucky Charms either. I tend to lean towards the belief that humans can thrive on various (whole food) diets in various circumstances - but I still enjoy the research and even the debate.)
Yeah, it's about as restrictive a diet can get and all animal products to boot. I did a carnivore diet for 60 days and there's no possible way I could just eat meat either. I will say that mental clarity and energy was noticeably better and my nagging arthritis in one hand and knee disappeared after about 3 weeks but generally speaking, that was about it and the pain in both joins are back, but to a leaser degree. If a person has few or no health issues, then like the video that was linked earlier doing it for 30 or 60 days really doesn't mean very much and I agree, within that context.
I suspect the more visible carnivore gets going forward that we'll see more people try it just for weight loss and fail a lot, simply because of the restrictions and to be quite honest I expected to see more posts here professing CICO is all you need to lose weight and even though that is a true statement it doesn't address health issues or anything else associated with food.
Most people that have actually adopted the carnivore lifestyle and are sticking with it are people that have had numerous health issues most of their lives and have struggled physically and mentally just getting out of bed. Eventually from the simple lack of improvement of their health or getting worse and the medications these people have to take just to make life barrable, eventually some will seek to investigate lifestyle alternatives. Generally speaking that road leads to lifestyles changes like vegetarian, mediterranean, vegan, keto, atkins, low carb and all will show some improvements and the operative word is some. Almost all the people that I've watched or heard, their stories pretty much tell this story. The fodmap diet works very well but again it doesn't address all the health issues.
The primary driver from what I can glean from my investigations and interest are, that a carnivore diet is the most restrictive diet a person can be on and apparently red meat specifically is the least allergenic food source there is, so it's basically a fodmap diet on steroids'. I suspect that the nagging arthritis that I have is an inflammatory response from something and because it came back after I stopped carnivore it might be a compound in a food I went back to, and yes just an n:1 observation but adding up thousands of n:1's from the community that are on the carnivore diet has some reason to not discount it, in my opinion. Cheers
I'm not discounting it, I just wouldn't do it myself. I did an ultra low carb diet (not carnivore) for 6 weeks and my knee arthritis also improved noticeably. It was not easy to stick with though.
Anecdotally I've heard people say the same thing about a vegan, or really any whole food diet, though. I tend to think that when people try a restrictive diet for health reasons they generally cut out low nutrient value foods and replace them with higher value whole foods. Then they feel better and attribute that to the new *specific* way of eating, rather than the fact that they cut out a lot of junk. (Not saying that is the case with your experience, just what I have seen happen in general.)
I try to use my experience to inform my choices going forward, but with a diet that is a bit less restrictive.
Oh, I wasn't suggesting you try it, I wouldn't be interested either. I meant that people that are on it are seeing some pretty crazy health improvements and people should basically have an open mind. Yeah, most carnivores had different levels of improved health when they changed their diets to vegan, keto, etc and like yourself, I did as well. Most of that improvement was from removing ultra and most processed foods, no doubt about it, which is pretty much a guarantee that health markers improve and a person feels better.0 -
There's a show I sometimes listen to on NPR called Radio Lab. It's produced by WNYC (New York Public Radio). They did a show on Alpha-Gal about five years ago that they repeat from time to time. Weirs stuff for sure.
It's funny that after you familiarized myself with Alpha-Gal today that by coincidence I was watching Dr. Shawn Baker interview a woman who was on the carnivore diet and Alpha-Gal came up and they chatted about it for a few minutes.
https://youtu.be/7eDDxLccu20
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »There's a show I sometimes listen to on NPR called Radio Lab. It's produced by WNYC (New York Public Radio). They did a show on Alpha-Gal about five years ago that they repeat from time to time. Weirs stuff for sure.
It's funny that after you familiarized myself with Alpha-Gal today that by coincidence I was watching Dr. Shawn Baker interview a woman who was on the carnivore diet and Alpha-Gal came up and they chatted about it for a few minutes.
https://youtu.be/7eDDxLccu20
Coincidences are EVERYWHERE.1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »tomcustombuilder wrote: »
Interesting... so these threads are boring and make you yawn, yet here we are, still lurking in the thread reading the comments. 🤣😂 Nah, I don't blame you. I come for the nutrition advice, and stay for the drama.
2 -
.neanderthin wrote: »That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.
That's the thing: The Snopes article you linked, including the videos included, suggest that that's not "filtering down from USDA" in any deeply meaningful way. We're talking about a chart cherry-picked by an advocacy group, looks like misleadingly so about the big picture, from an academic paper on a research tool to assess individual foods, one of whose developers says that the tool usefully considers some factors that other tools don't consider, but that still needs improvement, and seemingly agrees that that chart (in its original academic critique context) makes good points.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've poked around beyond the surface in USDA "My Plate", and I'm seeing mostly encouragement to eat whole foods (yes, including whole grains), to get plenty of veggies/fruits, etc. Yeah, it lowballs protein for my taste, but IMO it's not terrible. Yeah, I think there's a mild tinge of "meet people where they are" in things like "make half of your grains whole grains", rather than going all the way. But overall the stuff that many of its casual critics say about that USDA guidance doesn't match up with what I'm seeing actually in that guidance, especially when going beyond the cartoon-simple plate picture that's basically logo-like.
As far as the advocacy-rag article that mis-used the chart from an academic critique of the still-research-y food assessment tool, talking about a "new food pyramid" that's absolutely imaginary as far as an reasonable evidence suggests . . . I don't see how we should take anything they say seriously, TBH. Joe Rogan and others going off on it based on that article . . . well, jeez. Vet your sources, grown ups.
In college, I had a statistics class with a segment on misleading statistics and one literature and one business class that touched on critical thinking, but that was really it for all my many years of school.
With the explosion of misleading information on the internet, I wonder if vetting sources and critical thinking is being taught much earlier.
[There's a comment I'd like to make about a certain state but am censoring myself as it could be deemed political.]2 -
kshama2001 wrote: ».neanderthin wrote: »That ranked ratings of individual foods come out wonky just seems to me like more support for the idea that it's mostly not individual foods that are healthy or unhealthy, but rather a person's overall way of eating, on average.
Context and dosage matters, too.
Some Lucky Charms for breakfast on your long run training day might be a good thing, if it doesn't cause digestive distress on the run (and you like them), or even if you might happen to be low on the micro supplements that are pumped into the stuff to justify various claims. OTOH, less extreme experiences make me believe that a nice steak would make me feel pretty darned sick, because I haven't eaten one since 1974, and there is some issue of gut microbiome adaptation, typically . . . even though I agree that a steak can be a healthful thing to eat, in the abstract.
No charts, AIs, cites, or famous doctor/researcher quote, though: Just my opinion.
I don't like unattributed charts or quotes in threads, either, but that's just an opinion, too.
To de-digress a bit from the main topic here: If the OP finds the carnivore diet relatively easy to stick with, sees good health markers from following it longer term, has good energy and feels well, more power to him/her, IMO.
Personally, I generally don't like strict rules much (in areas beyond diet, even), and either carnivore or low carb would eliminate or unacceptably reduce too many foods I love (beans, corn, dairy, etc.). (Before you even ask: I never much liked meat, except the side pork my momma put on top of baked beans.)
I expect that if I eventually move to assisted living (I'm 67, after all), I'll want to start eating meat in order to get adequate nutrition in an institutional context. I'll do it, but I don't look forward with glee to what I'd expect will be a couple of weeks of digestive distress, even if I phase into it.
One of the main drivers for lucky charms and other dubious products coming out ahead of all animal sources is in the algorithm when any product contain saturated fat and cholesterol, even the preference of 0% fat dairy is based on that. It shows and egg substitute cooked vegetable oil to be better than a whole egg fried in butter or even a poached egg. For me, that is a problem that filters down from the USDA to institutions like the military, hospitals, schools, old age/assisted living homes, where guidelines must be met. Of course generally speaking anybody can eat whatever they like including lucky charms and like you said it's mostly in the context and dosage that creates problems. cheers.
That's the thing: The Snopes article you linked, including the videos included, suggest that that's not "filtering down from USDA" in any deeply meaningful way. We're talking about a chart cherry-picked by an advocacy group, looks like misleadingly so about the big picture, from an academic paper on a research tool to assess individual foods, one of whose developers says that the tool usefully considers some factors that other tools don't consider, but that still needs improvement, and seemingly agrees that that chart (in its original academic critique context) makes good points.
I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've poked around beyond the surface in USDA "My Plate", and I'm seeing mostly encouragement to eat whole foods (yes, including whole grains), to get plenty of veggies/fruits, etc. Yeah, it lowballs protein for my taste, but IMO it's not terrible. Yeah, I think there's a mild tinge of "meet people where they are" in things like "make half of your grains whole grains", rather than going all the way. But overall the stuff that many of its casual critics say about that USDA guidance doesn't match up with what I'm seeing actually in that guidance, especially when going beyond the cartoon-simple plate picture that's basically logo-like.
As far as the advocacy-rag article that mis-used the chart from an academic critique of the still-research-y food assessment tool, talking about a "new food pyramid" that's absolutely imaginary as far as an reasonable evidence suggests . . . I don't see how we should take anything they say seriously, TBH. Joe Rogan and others going off on it based on that article . . . well, jeez. Vet your sources, grown ups.
In college, I had a statistics class with a segment on misleading statistics and one literature and one business class that touched on critical thinking, but that was really it for all my many years of school.
With the explosion of misleading information on the internet, I wonder if vetting sources and critical thinking is being taught much earlier.
[There's a comment I'd like to make about a certain state but am censoring myself as it could be deemed political.]
There's a wonderful very small (144 pages) book by Darrell Huff, How to Lie with Statistics, in print since its 1954 publication because it's that good. It's amusingly written, and aimed at non-statistician regular people who don't want to be bamboozled. Recommended.
Apologies for the digression, OP. It will help you evaluate studies, and especially popular press or blogosphere statements about data from those studies, if you don't have stats education.1 -
There's another book I read in my Philosophy of Science class in grad school called "Shark Attack" (H. David Baldridge). It's out of print, but if you can find a copy, it's a good look into how we make inference. It was an analysis by data collected by the US Navy to explore what we thought we know about shark "attacks."
Examples are: Sharks usually attack within 100 yards of shore. As it turns out, most people who are swimming in that zone. Sharks usually attack in water around 82 degrees. As it turns out, that's where people are swimming. It is an analysis of misplaced inference.
Another one we read that you should still be able to find is, "To Know a Fly." Three bucks on Kindle if you do e-books. It explores how a scientist used "If, then" reasoning to design experiments to answer questions about flies. It's a good exploration about how to DESIGN experiments so that you can collect data that will actually allow you to make inferences about what is true.2 -
The carnivore diet - it may help you lose weight (short-term) if you are in a calorie deficit, but will it really help your arteries stay unclogged? Atkins died of a coronary . it was later suggested his arteries were totally clogged.... My position is more meat = more fat = more cholesterol. Healthy long term? I don't think so, but thats up for debate.0
-
The carnivore diet - it may help you lose weight (short-term) if you are in a calorie deficit, but will it really help your arteries stay unclogged? Atkins died of a coronary . it was later suggested his arteries were totally clogged.... My position is more meat = more fat = more cholesterol. Healthy long term? I don't think so, but thats up for debate.
Yeah, Atkins didn't die of coronary artery disease.
Anyway, the main causes of heart disease is obesity, diabetes, insulin resistance, a sedentary lifestyle, high blood pressure, smoking, genetics. Considering 75% of the population in the US is overweight and obese with around 50% actually obese and the fact that most Americans consume most of their calories from ultra processed foods, around 70%, and in excess, it shouldn't need the assistance of 221B Baker St to figure out what might be highly correlated to
heart disease. Also a low carb diet/ketogenic diet when compared to the standard north American diet improves all health markers that are actually associated with heart disease, with the exception but not always of increased LDL, which is a different conversation. And the fact that people that do transition to low carb or keto actually increase their red meat consumption from the standard 2.5 oz that the average American is consuming. Cheers2 -
neanderthin wrote: »Since the advent of civilization our health took a hit pretty much from the very beginning to now
This is demonstrably false, prior to the advent of civilization life expectancy was only 20 to 35 years and people were at constant risk of dying of malnutrition, most notably iron-deficiency anemia.
Also if meat is the solution to obesity then why are the obesity rates of domestic cats, which are obligate carnivores, rising in parallel to the obesity rate of humans -- could it be the problem is the availability of food rather than the specific composition of that food?
2 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Since the advent of civilization our health took a hit pretty much from the very beginning to now
This is demonstrably false, prior to the advent of civilization life expectancy was only 20 to 35 years and people were at constant risk of dying of malnutrition, most notably iron-deficiency anemia.
Also if meat is the solution to obesity then why are the obesity rates of domestic cats, which are obligate carnivores, rising in parallel to the obesity rate of humans -- could it be the problem is the availability of food rather than the specific composition of that food?
People confuse the difference between life expectancy and life span a lot, especially in these kinds of debates.
I never said meat is the solution to obesity, your making a strawman argument. I thought my post above would have made it clear what I though to be the cause of obesity. Not sure what your point is about cats. Also if you have any data on anemia in H-G populations that would be great.
Life expectancy between 1865-2020 in the USA. It got as low as 35yrs in 1865. It also dipped in 2020, first time that has happened in 100 years.
https://statista.com/statistics/1040079/life-expectancy-united-states-all-time/
Anemia is still a thing, especially in the older population.
The overall prevalence of anemia is 17% in older adults (7% to 11% of community-dwelling older adults, 47% of those in nursing homes, and 40% in hospitalized patients).3,4 Most of these patients have mild anemia (hemoglobin level of 11 g per dL [110 g per L] or greater), but even mild anemia is independently associated with increased morbidity and mortality.
https://aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2018/1001/p437.html
2 -
neanderthin wrote: »People confuse the difference between life expectancy and life span a lot, especially in these kinds of debates.
No, I know the difference between the two, either way a person born in ancient times could be expected to live for a much shorter period of time than a person born today.Also if you have any data on anemia in H-G populations that would be great.
It was in the book Human Errors by Nathan Lents.It got as low as 35yrs in 1865.
It's almost like there was a civil war going on that year.first time that has happened in 100 years.
You just proved my point....Anemia is still a thing, especially in the older population.
Yes but now it can be easily solved with a single bowl of cereal a day.
Anyway, time to eat some delicious ice cream. I feel sad for anyone who is so restricted they won't even eat ice cream, not even the keto kind.0 -
My go to cereal was count chocula. Cheers.0
-
my mistake - Atkins died of a fall. I will continue to believe his arteries were messed up due to excessive meat consumption though. (And yes, while I can see so conclusive proof of HIS failed arteries, my opinion is based upon studies that show excessive meat consumption is failing us as a society in our quest to be healthy).
I agree that moving to a low-carb / ketogenic diet does have health benefits , however these are benefits related to the good that comes out of losing weight, and exercising on a regular basis. Following a high-consumption meat based diet (low carb/keto/carnivore, call it what you want), long-term will be causal in cholesterol-related issues.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions