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
-
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.
There's been a campaign and agenda to remove meat from the diet that goes back to the McGovern report in 1977 and can't really blame the average person in believing what you believe and it's plain to see the emotional attachment and also feel the need to defend that stance and if there was actual science that supported the hypothesis that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, trust me, I would have found it and the funny thing is, there never was any so called science in 77 and many scientists at that time spoke their mind, but it was a time where intervention appeared to take precedent over debate. It appears beef is the designated escape goat and I'm still trying to figure out why the saturated fat and cholesterol is different in beef to all other meat sources. The last question was rhetorical by the way. Somebody has to defend meat consumption, don't they, or is that somehow looked down upon where even defending or debating it is somehow an issue. Because if it is, it's no longer science and has elevated it's status, to dogma, which is not good. cheers.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »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.
There's been a campaign and agenda to remove meat from the diet that goes back to the McGovern report in 1977 and can't really blame the average person in believing what you believe and it's plain to see the emotional attachment and also feel the need to defend that stance and if there was actual science that supported the hypothesis that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, trust me, I would have found it and the funny thing is, there never was any so called science in 77 and many scientists at that time spoke their mind, but it was a time where intervention appeared to take precedent over debate. It appears beef is the designated escape goat and I'm still trying to figure out why the saturated fat and cholesterol is different in beef to all other meat sources. The last question was rhetorical by the way. Somebody has to defend meat consumption, don't they, or is that somehow looked down upon where even defending or debating it is somehow an issue. Because if it is, it's no longer science and has elevated it's status, to dogma, which is not good. cheers.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2759737
"The study found that people who ate two servings per week of red meat or processed meat had a 3% to 7% higher risk (respectively) of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, and a 3% higher risk of death from all causes."
There are loads of articles/studies like this online. Is this "actual science"? Or something else in your opinion?
I don't eat red or processed meat so it doesn't matter to me, I'm just curious/neutral on the subject. What do you believe the "agenda" is?
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »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.
There's been a campaign and agenda to remove meat from the diet that goes back to the McGovern report in 1977 and can't really blame the average person in believing what you believe and it's plain to see the emotional attachment and also feel the need to defend that stance and if there was actual science that supported the hypothesis that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, trust me, I would have found it and the funny thing is, there never was any so called science in 77 and many scientists at that time spoke their mind, but it was a time where intervention appeared to take precedent over debate. It appears beef is the designated escape goat and I'm still trying to figure out why the saturated fat and cholesterol is different in beef to all other meat sources. The last question was rhetorical by the way. Somebody has to defend meat consumption, don't they, or is that somehow looked down upon where even defending or debating it is somehow an issue. Because if it is, it's no longer science and has elevated it's status, to dogma, which is not good. cheers.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2759737
"The study found that people who ate two servings per week of red meat or processed meat had a 3% to 7% higher risk (respectively) of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, and a 3% higher risk of death from all causes."
There are loads of articles/studies like this online. Is this "actual science"? Or something else in your opinion?
I don't eat red or processed meat so it doesn't matter to me, I'm just curious/neutral on the subject. What do you believe the "agenda" is?
Two major problems with that study (and with most of the studies of the sort):
1. It is based on food questionnaires which are notoriously inaccurate
2. It can establish correlation but it cannot establish causation - i.e. we noticed that people who eat red meat die sooner, but the study cannot show that the consumption of the red meat caused them to die sooner (they cannot exclude other life factors that could also contribute to the early death).
4 -
neanderthin wrote: »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.
There's been a campaign and agenda to remove meat from the diet that goes back to the McGovern report in 1977 and can't really blame the average person in believing what you believe and it's plain to see the emotional attachment and also feel the need to defend that stance and if there was actual science that supported the hypothesis that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, trust me, I would have found it and the funny thing is, there never was any so called science in 77 and many scientists at that time spoke their mind, but it was a time where intervention appeared to take precedent over debate. It appears beef is the designated escape goat and I'm still trying to figure out why the saturated fat and cholesterol is different in beef to all other meat sources. The last question was rhetorical by the way. Somebody has to defend meat consumption, don't they, or is that somehow looked down upon where even defending or debating it is somehow an issue. Because if it is, it's no longer science and has elevated it's status, to dogma, which is not good. cheers.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2759737
"The study found that people who ate two servings per week of red meat or processed meat had a 3% to 7% higher risk (respectively) of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, and a 3% higher risk of death from all causes."
There are loads of articles/studies like this online. Is this "actual science"? Or something else in your opinion?
I don't eat red or processed meat so it doesn't matter to me, I'm just curious/neutral on the subject. What do you believe the "agenda" is?
Two major problems with that study (and with most of the studies of the sort):
1. It is based on food questionnaires which are notoriously inaccurate
2. It can establish correlation but it cannot establish causation - i.e. we noticed that people who eat red meat die sooner, but the study cannot show that the consumption of the red meat caused them to die sooner (they cannot exclude other life factors that could also contribute to the early death).
1. Do you think that a food survey regarding how many servings of meat one eats in general would be that inaccurate though? I am guessing that they aren't asking for specifics but rather a general pattern of eating - I imagine most people would know if they generally eat two or more servings of meat per week.
2. OK I'm not a statistician but it looked to me from a quick read that they accounted for other lifestyle factors in the analysis and still ended up with a negative association. Maybe I'm reading that wrong.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »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.
There's been a campaign and agenda to remove meat from the diet that goes back to the McGovern report in 1977 and can't really blame the average person in believing what you believe and it's plain to see the emotional attachment and also feel the need to defend that stance and if there was actual science that supported the hypothesis that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, trust me, I would have found it and the funny thing is, there never was any so called science in 77 and many scientists at that time spoke their mind, but it was a time where intervention appeared to take precedent over debate. It appears beef is the designated escape goat and I'm still trying to figure out why the saturated fat and cholesterol is different in beef to all other meat sources. The last question was rhetorical by the way. Somebody has to defend meat consumption, don't they, or is that somehow looked down upon where even defending or debating it is somehow an issue. Because if it is, it's no longer science and has elevated it's status, to dogma, which is not good. cheers.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2759737
"The study found that people who ate two servings per week of red meat or processed meat had a 3% to 7% higher risk (respectively) of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, and a 3% higher risk of death from all causes."
There are loads of articles/studies like this online. Is this "actual science"? Or something else in your opinion?
I don't eat red or processed meat so it doesn't matter to me, I'm just curious/neutral on the subject. What do you believe the "agenda" is?
Two major problems with that study (and with most of the studies of the sort):
1. It is based on food questionnaires which are notoriously inaccurate
2. It can establish correlation but it cannot establish causation - i.e. we noticed that people who eat red meat die sooner, but the study cannot show that the consumption of the red meat caused them to die sooner (they cannot exclude other life factors that could also contribute to the early death).
Yeah exactly, plus when there's an inference to risk a controlled study is required, which these, as you pointed out, are not. Also, the risks in these studies are called relative risk, as opposed to absolute risk, which is a totally different measurement.
For example, if the actual absolute risk of someone getting say, bowel cancer in their lifetime represents a 1 in 100 chance or 1% and a study found a 20% increase in risk from eating red meat, it means the absolute risk to that one person is now 1.20%, basically insignificant, so you can see what 3 to 7% would mean especially in this type of study which actually never conducted a controlled study for bowel cancer. Statin manufacturers are famous for this. Most research scientists understand this and because epidemiology have so many confounders attached to these studies they pretty much discount anything under a 200% increase in risk before they even take notice. Smoking and the connection to cancer is the only one that ever came to be true and the RR was 4000% or there about. Makes great media headlines though. cheers
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »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.
There's been a campaign and agenda to remove meat from the diet that goes back to the McGovern report in 1977 and can't really blame the average person in believing what you believe and it's plain to see the emotional attachment and also feel the need to defend that stance and if there was actual science that supported the hypothesis that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, trust me, I would have found it and the funny thing is, there never was any so called science in 77 and many scientists at that time spoke their mind, but it was a time where intervention appeared to take precedent over debate. It appears beef is the designated escape goat and I'm still trying to figure out why the saturated fat and cholesterol is different in beef to all other meat sources. The last question was rhetorical by the way. Somebody has to defend meat consumption, don't they, or is that somehow looked down upon where even defending or debating it is somehow an issue. Because if it is, it's no longer science and has elevated it's status, to dogma, which is not good. cheers.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2759737
"The study found that people who ate two servings per week of red meat or processed meat had a 3% to 7% higher risk (respectively) of cardiovascular disease, including heart attack and stroke, and a 3% higher risk of death from all causes."
There are loads of articles/studies like this online. Is this "actual science"? Or something else in your opinion?
I don't eat red or processed meat so it doesn't matter to me, I'm just curious/neutral on the subject. What do you believe the "agenda" is?
Two major problems with that study (and with most of the studies of the sort):
1. It is based on food questionnaires which are notoriously inaccurate
2. It can establish correlation but it cannot establish causation - i.e. we noticed that people who eat red meat die sooner, but the study cannot show that the consumption of the red meat caused them to die sooner (they cannot exclude other life factors that could also contribute to the early death).
Yeah exactly, plus when there's an inference to risk a controlled study is required, which these, as you pointed out, are not. Also, the risks in these studies are called relative risk, as opposed to absolute risk, which is a totally different measurement.
For example, if the actual absolute risk of someone getting say, bowel cancer in their lifetime represents a 1 in 100 chance or 1% and a study found a 20% increase in risk from eating red meat, it means the absolute risk to that one person is now 1.20%, basically insignificant, so you can see what 3 to 7% would mean especially in this type of study which actually never conducted a controlled study for bowel cancer. Statin manufacturers are famous for this. makes great media headlines though. cheers
Not sure if this is directed at me - but yeah I know what relative vs absolute risk is.
This does answer my question regarding the "agenda" belief though.
Cheers1 -
neanderthin wrote: »There's been a campaign and agenda to remove meat from the diet that goes back to the McGovern report in 1977 and can't really blame the average person in believing what you believe and it's plain to see the emotional attachment and also feel the need to defend that stance and if there was actual science that supported the hypothesis that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, trust me, I would have found it and the funny thing is, there never was any so called science in 77 and many scientists at that time spoke their mind, but it was a time where intervention appeared to take precedent over debate. It appears beef is the designated escape goat and I'm still trying to figure out why the saturated fat and cholesterol is different in beef to all other meat sources. The last question was rhetorical by the way. Somebody has to defend meat consumption, don't they, or is that somehow looked down upon where even defending or debating it is somehow an issue. Because if it is, it's no longer science and has elevated it's status, to dogma, which is not good. cheers.
Yes, I'm sure the country with the highest meat consumption per capita is in danger of becoming totally vegetarian.
2 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »There's been a campaign and agenda to remove meat from the diet that goes back to the McGovern report in 1977 and can't really blame the average person in believing what you believe and it's plain to see the emotional attachment and also feel the need to defend that stance and if there was actual science that supported the hypothesis that saturated fat and cholesterol is the cause of heart disease, trust me, I would have found it and the funny thing is, there never was any so called science in 77 and many scientists at that time spoke their mind, but it was a time where intervention appeared to take precedent over debate. It appears beef is the designated escape goat and I'm still trying to figure out why the saturated fat and cholesterol is different in beef to all other meat sources. The last question was rhetorical by the way. Somebody has to defend meat consumption, don't they, or is that somehow looked down upon where even defending or debating it is somehow an issue. Because if it is, it's no longer science and has elevated it's status, to dogma, which is not good. cheers.
Yes, I'm sure the country with the highest meat consumption per capita is in danger of becoming totally vegetarian.
Don't think any country is in danger of becoming vegetarian. Cheers.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Don't think any country is in danger of becoming vegetarian. Cheers.
Which is why you're freaking out over some supposed government conspiracy "to remove meat from the diet." Yeah the government definitely is trying "to remove meat from the diet," that's why meat consumption per capita in the U.S. increased by 40% between 1961 and 2017.
https://sentientmedia.org/meat-consumption-in-the-us/
0 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Don't think any country is in danger of becoming vegetarian. Cheers.
Which is why you're freaking out over some supposed government conspiracy "to remove meat from the diet." Yeah the government definitely is trying "to remove meat from the diet," that's why meat consumption per capita in the U.S. increased by 40% between 1961 and 2017.
https://sentientmedia.org/meat-consumption-in-the-us/
I know the "I gotcha moment is alluring", but I would suggest you investigate your claim a little further and also vet your source, would be my advice. I also said it was red meat that was the focus. I'm also not freaking out lol, cheers.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »I know the "I gotcha moment is alluring", but I would suggest you investigate your claim a little further and also vet your source, would be my advice. I also said it was red meat that was the focus. I'm also not freaking out lol, cheers.
Nope, you said "remove meat from the diet." If you can find any sources indicating US meat consumption has gone down in the past few decades post them here.
0 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I know the "I gotcha moment is alluring", but I would suggest you investigate your claim a little further and also vet your source, would be my advice. I also said it was red meat that was the focus. I'm also not freaking out lol, cheers.
Nope, you said "remove meat from the diet." If you can find any sources indicating US meat consumption has gone down in the past few decades post them here.
Your right and I stand corrected, I did say meat and I was being a little hyperbolic and should have just focused on red meat, which is what I really meant, and to a lesser degree most products coming from the animal kingdom. Total meat consumption is up slightly almost level really over 40 years . Red meat like beef, lamb and goat is down and chicken consumption has basically made up for that trend. Cheers.
https://pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/13/whats-on-your-table-how-americas-diet-has-changed-over-the-decades/
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »siberiantarragon wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I know the "I gotcha moment is alluring", but I would suggest you investigate your claim a little further and also vet your source, would be my advice. I also said it was red meat that was the focus. I'm also not freaking out lol, cheers.
Nope, you said "remove meat from the diet." If you can find any sources indicating US meat consumption has gone down in the past few decades post them here.
Your right and I stand corrected, I did say meat and I was being a little hyperbolic and should have just focused on red meat, which is what I really meant, and to a lesser degree most products coming from the animal kingdom. Total meat consumption is up slightly almost level really over 40 years . Red meat like beef, lamb and goat is down and chicken consumption has basically made up for that trend. Cheers.
https://pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/13/whats-on-your-table-how-americas-diet-has-changed-over-the-decades/
It doesn't have to be the whole animal kingdom. At some point, we'll get less squeamish about eating an under-utilized form of meat that would be much better for us and for all the organisms that share our planet.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »siberiantarragon wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »I know the "I gotcha moment is alluring", but I would suggest you investigate your claim a little further and also vet your source, would be my advice. I also said it was red meat that was the focus. I'm also not freaking out lol, cheers.
Nope, you said "remove meat from the diet." If you can find any sources indicating US meat consumption has gone down in the past few decades post them here.
Your right and I stand corrected, I did say meat and I was being a little hyperbolic and should have just focused on red meat, which is what I really meant, and to a lesser degree most products coming from the animal kingdom. Total meat consumption is up slightly almost level really over 40 years . Red meat like beef, lamb and goat is down and chicken consumption has basically made up for that trend. Cheers.
https://pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/12/13/whats-on-your-table-how-americas-diet-has-changed-over-the-decades/
It doesn't have to be the whole animal kingdom. At some point, we'll get less squeamish about eating an under-utilized form of meat that would be much better for us and for all the organisms that share our planet.
If you dabble in the stock market which I do, emerging markets like this one it's one to watch. Yeah, no doubt about it and actually there's a decent percentage of people that consume bugs regularly but it's been a long tradition for them and like you say it's probably a pretty big ask for westerners. Personally I've consumed a few bugs in Thailand and India and in the moment they were ok, lol but not something I'm going to get the duck fat out for anytime soon. Cheers0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Your right and I stand corrected, I did say meat and I was being a little hyperbolic and should have just focused on red meat, which is what I really meant, and to a lesser degree most products coming from the animal kingdom. Total meat consumption is up slightly almost level really over 40 years . Red meat like beef, lamb and goat is down and chicken consumption has basically made up for that trend. Cheers.
Both the figures you posted are misleading. The first figure only shows beef and chicken. The second figure talks about meat consumption as a factor of calories. Types and cuts of meat vary a lot in calories and if people are eating less red meat and more poultry you would assume that total calories would go down even if total volume went up.It doesn't have to be the whole animal kingdom. At some point, we'll get less squeamish about eating an under-utilized form of meat that would be much better for us and for all the organisms that share our planet.
I just don't see the point. I can't imagine they taste very good so what's the appeal of eating them?
0 -
siberiantarragon wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Your right and I stand corrected, I did say meat and I was being a little hyperbolic and should have just focused on red meat, which is what I really meant, and to a lesser degree most products coming from the animal kingdom. Total meat consumption is up slightly almost level really over 40 years . Red meat like beef, lamb and goat is down and chicken consumption has basically made up for that trend. Cheers.
Both the figures you posted are misleading. The first figure only shows beef and chicken. The second figure talks about meat consumption as a factor of calories. Types and cuts of meat vary a lot in calories and if people are eating less red meat and more poultry you would assume that total calories would go down even if total volume went up.It doesn't have to be the whole animal kingdom. At some point, we'll get less squeamish about eating an under-utilized form of meat that would be much better for us and for all the organisms that share our planet.
I just don't see the point. I can't imagine they taste very good so what's the appeal of eating them?
It's USDA data, take it up with them.1 -
Anyway getting away from vegetarian conspiracies or whatever, my question for carnivores is, is it really worth it to not enjoy such a fundamental aspect of the human experience? I mean, meat is so boring. You can't enjoy the cuisines of the world, you can't go out to a restaurant (except for a steakhouse I guess, but even then you can't have any of the sides or sauces or drinks or dessert, just meat), you can't really travel. You can't have a nice piece of chocolate at the end of the day or a nice comforting bowl of pasta (as an Italian-American I find that to be horrifying!) You can't even have a piece of fruit if you want something sweet. Your grocery bills must be astronomical. I mean is it really worth it? Do you really think you're going to get that many extra years of life or lose that much more weight?1
-
siberiantarragon wrote: »Anyway getting away from vegetarian conspiracies or whatever, my question for carnivores is, is it really worth it to not enjoy such a fundamental aspect of the human experience? I mean, meat is so boring. You can't enjoy the cuisines of the world, you can't go out to a restaurant (except for a steakhouse I guess, but even then you can't have any of the sides or sauces or drinks or dessert, just meat), you can't really travel. You can't have a nice piece of chocolate at the end of the day or a nice comforting bowl of pasta (as an Italian-American I find that to be horrifying!) You can't even have a piece of fruit if you want something sweet. Your grocery bills must be astronomical. I mean is it really worth it? Do you really think you're going to get that many extra years of life or lose that much more weight?
The sense I get from posters here who have been on carnivore for some time is that they are doing it not so much for weight loss but because it relieves health conditions. The following post from page 1 on this thread is typical of what I mean: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!1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »siberiantarragon wrote: »Anyway getting away from vegetarian conspiracies or whatever, my question for carnivores is, is it really worth it to not enjoy such a fundamental aspect of the human experience? I mean, meat is so boring. You can't enjoy the cuisines of the world, you can't go out to a restaurant (except for a steakhouse I guess, but even then you can't have any of the sides or sauces or drinks or dessert, just meat), you can't really travel. You can't have a nice piece of chocolate at the end of the day or a nice comforting bowl of pasta (as an Italian-American I find that to be horrifying!) You can't even have a piece of fruit if you want something sweet. Your grocery bills must be astronomical. I mean is it really worth it? Do you really think you're going to get that many extra years of life or lose that much more weight?
The sense I get from posters here who have been on carnivore for some time is that they are doing it not so much for weight loss but because it relieves health conditions. The following post from page 1 on this thread is typical of what I mean: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, generally it's a journey that takes people to carnivore. Here's a good example.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=N39o_DI5laI&t=1s0 -
-
Fixed it for you. Knowing the report comes from the AHA says a lot all by itself.
0 -
New report says worst heart-healthy diets include keto, Paleo diets
Yeah, it comes out every year, ad nauseum.
No regulatory agency like any low/er carb diets because well, it basically flies in the face of their recommendation of their long standing opinions on cholesterol, saturated fat and higher fat diets, so they lose by default. I would place a bet this isn't going to change very much mostly because these agencies are seen as "sacred cows" and if they flip flop with their recommendations then people wouldn't take as serious or seriously, which is ironic considering that's what science actually does, gathers research, which effectively adds to the totality of evidence and changes an existing hypothesis, rinse and repeat.
Data used for their recommendations hasn't changed in 50 years and the reason for that is because it's observational population wide data gleaned from the epidemiological data from Food Frequency Questionnaires which that data remains pretty constant year over year, which is pretty low in the hierarchy of evidence and under normal scientific rigger would basically be considered interesting at best and most scientists that study nutrition would agree that it shouldn't be the foundation for nation wide dietary recommendations. It's not only the AHA that use this type of data, they all do including the WHO, USDA, NIH, ADA all of them.
Anyway, Doctors, Dietitians and Scientists that are proponents of a lower carb lifestyle for the treatment of metabolic syndrome, obesity, type 2 diabetes, kidney disease, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure provide evidence and applied pressure for the last 20 years and a low carb diet addresses these with lifestyle modification that show improvement beyond pharmacological therapy and has been somewhat successful at a snails pace. There's a lot of opposition from agents that have a lot of money invested in the status quo not to mention the AHA receives about 35 million dollars a year from various pharmaceutical and food companies.
Anyway, that science that moves forward regardless of opinion and did effect the USDA and in 2015 declared cholesterol was no longer a "nutrient of concern", basically we didn't have to worry how much we ate, but they couldn't help telling us anyway. Also the ADA, the American Diabetes Association has also said that a low carb diet to be included as a dietary intervention for diabetes. And the AHA, American Heart Association has similarly said that a low carb and very low carb (keto) diet would be a good dietary intervention for people with heart related problems and other inflammatory issues (link below) normally found in the population with metabolic dysfunction.
Apparently the AHA has moved from endorsing lucky charms and coco puffs where they use to put the red heart with the check mark on breakfast cereal for kids, based on grain lowers cholesterol and of course they believed cholesterol should be banished, which they did finally stop. It was only a matter of time that egg on their face was probably not a good look going forward, to accepting that reducing some forms of carbohydrates is heart friendly. Basically the AHA is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. These agencies when lower carb is more accepted and mainstream in a decade or so, and imo will be, they'll be able to say, hey we said that a decade ago. lol Cheers
https://ahajournals.org/doi/epdf/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001040
Comprehensive Management of Cardiovascular Risk Factors for Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association
.2 -
From a study by Harvard researchers, published this year:
"Low-carb diet patterns associated with reduction in all-cause mortality among people with type 2 diabetes"
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230228/Low-carb-diet-patterns-associated-with-reduction-in-all-cause-mortality-among-people-with-type-2-diabetes.aspx
The 10,000+ participants were medical professionals who had developed Type 2 Diabetes while participated in another health study.The findings showed a 24% reduction in all-cause mortality among those adhering to a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern. The health benefits were stronger for low-carbohydrate diets that emphasized plant-based foods and high-quality carbohydrates, such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Those diets were also associated with a lower cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality. Low-carbohydrate diets that emphasized animal products and low-quality carbohydrates, such as potatoes, added sugars, and refined grains, were not significantly associated with lower mortality.
This study doesn't really support a strongly carnivore diet, but it sure supports eating less junky carbs and a low carb diet overall.
2 -
From a study by Harvard researchers, published this year:
"Low-carb diet patterns associated with reduction in all-cause mortality among people with type 2 diabetes"
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230228/Low-carb-diet-patterns-associated-with-reduction-in-all-cause-mortality-among-people-with-type-2-diabetes.aspx
The 10,000+ participants were medical professionals who had developed Type 2 Diabetes while participated in another health study.The findings showed a 24% reduction in all-cause mortality among those adhering to a low-carbohydrate dietary pattern. The health benefits were stronger for low-carbohydrate diets that emphasized plant-based foods and high-quality carbohydrates, such as fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. Those diets were also associated with a lower cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality. Low-carbohydrate diets that emphasized animal products and low-quality carbohydrates, such as potatoes, added sugars, and refined grains, were not significantly associated with lower mortality.
This study doesn't really support a strongly carnivore diet, but it sure supports eating less junky carbs and a low carb diet overall.
It's not because saturated fat is “bad” per se imo but because unsaturated fats are particularly healthy and have been shown to protect against heart disease. Other issues are much more worthy of our attention, such as limiting our intake of sugary drinks and processed and ultra processed foods containing refined carbs, refined oils, too much salt and of course sugar, following a predominantly whole food diet and yes that can be a low carb diet, and getting plenty of physical activity in our daily routine.
The study only tries to answers the questions described in the abstract and there was no actual question regarding the carnivore diet, so there will no data to draw from for support or otherwise. I'm trying to punch holes in the whole carnivore concept, because that's what I like to do. I'm trying to find that one or more mechanisms that doesn't work for health and I'm still not entirely convinced that for a select population that it could be life changing, but I'll continue to do the digging, but the data is pretty limited at this time. Cheers0 -
So far, so good! I’m 64 yrs. old, 5’10” and weight 190. I’ve lost 25 lbs. in 3 months on a mostly carnivore diet. My goal is to eat strictly carnivore, but I’m having trouble giving up some of my vices. I’ve been pretty good at keeping my carbs between 10-20 carbs/day. I get most of my information from watching YouTube videos. I follow Dr. Ken Berry, Dr. Anthony Chaffee, Kelly Hogan (My Zero Carb Life), and a few others. I love the way I’m feeling. I haven’t seemed to have lost any muscle. It’s a fairly easy diet to stick to other than the few carbs I’m having trouble getting rid of. The hardest thing for me is not eating the same things my family eats as they’re not eating the way. Other than that, I see no down side to it. I started out doing carnivore (or Ketovore as Dr. Berry calls it) just to see if I could get over a plateau I was stuck at. It worked so well I stuck with it. Now I’m thinking I might make it a permanent part of my life. I also take daily electrolytes mixed with my water intake as well as iodine drops. I’m happy I started down this path and think I’ll stick with it.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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