Carnivore or Keto
Replies
-
@mrbretmaye thanks for you story. A familiar motif for pretty much all that end up doing carnivore.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »@robertw486I'm aware there is Vitamin C in some meats. Almost all organ meats, brain, and a few other parts actually contain more Vit C than liver does IIRC. A few seafoods contain it as well. And though I will gladly concede that most of us will survive just fine without RDA's of all nutrients, that 25-40 mg only brings me to about 1/3 of RDA. So in this case about 12-13 ounces of beef liver per day would get me to the RDA levels.
I didn't address this, sorry about that. Only 10mg's of vit C is necessary to protect against scurvy. Also it appears from the anecdotal evidence from my research most carnivores, males mostly and some females are eating about 2 lbs of animal protein a day and so that basically covers the scurvy concerns, imo.
I'm sorry, but here is another example of why certain styles of eating get a bad rap.
Are you really going to try to tell people that only 10mg of vitamin C is sufficient? That is only about 10-12% of most recommendations. If it was sufficient, why are there examples of people eating extreme diet styles that end up with scurvy? Did they not read the correct blog from a supporter telling them they won't get ill even if their diet only provides a number of nutrients in only tiny amounts?
Beyond that, the same types of statements regarding elite athletes have been made, and most easily disproven, for years. Of the ones you mentioned, I've seen info stating many of them only eat low or no carb some of the time, usually during certain training evolutions. As with many, they often carb up for races and such. Two of the names I didn't recognize were easy enough to search and find just this as a result.
Personally, when it reaches this level I consider most of what is stated to be based on confirmation bias, not reality, and certainly not science.
And the sad thing is, in this day and age multivitamin supplements and such are dirt cheap. One could easily suggest they go on one of these extreme diets of (pick a flavor) but log it and watch for any nutritional or other shortages and adjust as needed. But then it's harder to tell people how simple it is.... after all it takes no effort.2 -
The 10mg to avoid scurvy is pretty well known, studies (science) looking at carnivores and Vit C go back to the 1940's and it's also in that 20 year old study you provided.robertw486 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »@robertw486I'm aware there is Vitamin C in some meats. Almost all organ meats, brain, and a few other parts actually contain more Vit C than liver does IIRC. A few seafoods contain it as well. And though I will gladly concede that most of us will survive just fine without RDA's of all nutrients, that 25-40 mg only brings me to about 1/3 of RDA. So in this case about 12-13 ounces of beef liver per day would get me to the RDA levels.
I didn't address this, sorry about that. Only 10mg's of vit C is necessary to protect against scurvy. Also it appears from the anecdotal evidence from my research most carnivores, males mostly and some females are eating about 2 lbs of animal protein a day and so that basically covers the scurvy concerns, imo.
I'm sorry, but here is another example of why certain styles of eating get a bad rap.
Are you really going to try to tell people that only 10mg of vitamin C is sufficient? That is only about 10-12% of most recommendations. If it was sufficient, why are there examples of people eating extreme diet styles that end up with scurvy? Did they not read the correct blog from a supporter telling them they won't get ill even if their diet only provides a number of nutrients in only tiny amounts?
Beyond that, the same types of statements regarding elite athletes have been made, and most easily disproven, for years. Of the ones you mentioned, I've seen info stating many of them only eat low or no carb some of the time, usually during certain training evolutions. As with many, they often carb up for races and such. Two of the names I didn't recognize were easy enough to search and find just this as a result.
Personally, when it reaches this level I consider most of what is stated to be based on confirmation bias, not reality, and certainly not science.
And the sad thing is, in this day and age multivitamin supplements and such are dirt cheap. One could easily suggest they go on one of these extreme diets of (pick a flavor) but log it and watch for any nutritional or other shortages and adjust as needed. But then it's harder to tell people how simple it is.... after all it takes no effort.
I'm sure all the people that are on the carnivore diet that aren't dead from scurvy have gathered together to create this elaborate conspiracy just to mess with people and make their brains fall out. Looks like it's working. 0 -
I read up on carnivore. For some reason I thought it was simpler than Keto.
I sincerely applaud you for making one of the other work for you, but when I read the carnivore guidelines to my meat eating husband, even he was like “hell no”. He thought I was pulling his leg.
That’s a helluva a commitment y'all are making.
0 -
springlering62 wrote: »I read up on carnivore. For some reason I thought it was simpler than Keto.
I sincerely applaud you for making one of the other work for you, but when I read the carnivore guidelines to my meat eating husband, even he was like “hell no”. He thought I was pulling his leg.
That’s a helluva a commitment y'all are making.
Hey springer, The guideline for carnivore are pretty basic, eat only animal derived foods, eat until your full, rinse and repeat. The only concern is not getting enough fat because of the decades saying to avoid them, so that is real and a concern.
Keto on the other hand is to make sure the carb sources don't exceed 20g's a day, which is complicated lately by the industrial food complex that is producing all these "keto treats" that when you read the labels many from just one serving are more than 20g's. Testing to ensure ketones are with a certain range. Also there's a few different keto protocols which will depend on lifestyle and other factors and the need to pick one. I guess my point is carnivore is as basic as it gets.
Also most, actually pretty much all that eventually find carnivore had the same initial thoughts about just eating meat and as an example @mrbretmaye said " Initially I thought that they were mad" and he also though keto wasn't much better so he kept looking but eventually after trying different diet strategies and not seeing any progress carnivore is going to keep coming up in their algorithm and when you continually hear from people actually on the diet and finding a lot of success with story and story then that is generally when you give it a go and most start with the 30 or 60 day test and most never look back, that's how it works 95% of the time.
Keep in mind and like I said this is a diet for people with a lot of metabolic dysfunction that are engaged in looking for a solution and if not and it's just to lose weight, well that's just not enough to justify something this radical, because it is radical, except for the people where it's changed their lives and I've been saying keto and carnivore are not for most people and if just for weight loss then that isn't actually a good idea and I'm not saying everyone should do it, never said that, but I think most people believe that is my stance, oh well, what can you do.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »springlering62 wrote: »I read up on carnivore. For some reason I thought it was simpler than Keto.
I sincerely applaud you for making one of the other work for you, but when I read the carnivore guidelines to my meat eating husband, even he was like “hell no”. He thought I was pulling his leg.
That’s a helluva a commitment y'all are making.
Hey springer, The guideline for carnivore are pretty basic, eat only animal derived foods, eat until your full, rinse and repeat. The only concern is not getting enough fat because of the decades saying to avoid them, so that is real and a concern.
Aren't there also guidelines around including organ meat so you get vitamins? I can see a lot of people reading what you've just said about and going "woohoo, eggs, steak and chicken drums for life!"0 -
That’s another thing. Mom was a horrible cook. I had liver once in my life. One bite and I was done.
Maybe it’s wonderful and delicious but I personally see that as punishment if the very worst kind.
@neanderthin you are a doll and one of the most helpful people around here. I certainly don’t take it that your way is the only way.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »springlering62 wrote: »I read up on carnivore. For some reason I thought it was simpler than Keto.
I sincerely applaud you for making one of the other work for you, but when I read the carnivore guidelines to my meat eating husband, even he was like “hell no”. He thought I was pulling his leg.
That’s a helluva a commitment y'all are making.
Hey springer, The guideline for carnivore are pretty basic, eat only animal derived foods, eat until your full, rinse and repeat. The only concern is not getting enough fat because of the decades saying to avoid them, so that is real and a concern.
Aren't there also guidelines around including organ meat so you get vitamins? I can see a lot of people reading what you've just said about and going "woohoo, eggs, steak and chicken drums for life!"
Consuming offal is not an American thing but carnivores from other Countries do partake. Personally I would consume liver and do and yes it certainly would help in certain vit & minerals for example Vit A, C, folate, copper and choline are better served consuming liver. Saying that, many people have been consuming pretty much the muscle meat of rudiment animals for years and decades with no ill health, or at least it's not something that seems to be of concern in the general landscape of carnivore and not mentioned at all, basically.
People on carnivore are not ideologically driven, it's not a religion and they don't get on each others case for not doing carnivore a certain way so there are variation of carnivore or some foods that wouldn't be considered carnivore but like I said nobody gives anyone grief simply because what drives this demographic is health and everyone has unique dysfunction that requires different solutions and the aim for a lot of people is seeing what they can eat or add back in so that it doesn't effect their particular progress, if that makes sense. Saying that some carnivores consume berries. Many include some form of condiment like hot sauces for example and some also include garlic and onions. Also a few people have mentioned honey, so that as well, but not as frequently used. 0 -
springlering62 wrote: »@neanderthin you are a doll and one of the most helpful people around here. I certainly don’t take it that your way is the only way.
Thanks springer and very nice of you to say. cheers. 0 -
Interesting listen form Paul Saladin
Who wrote the book on the carnivore diet
https://youtu.be/PzX_NS7EwF0?si=B7sqIjvzCrAz_R-A 0 -
neanderthin wrote: »
The 10mg to avoid scurvy is pretty well known, studies (science) looking at carnivores and Vit C go back to the 1940's and it's also in that 20 year old study you provided.robertw486 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »@robertw486I'm aware there is Vitamin C in some meats. Almost all organ meats, brain, and a few other parts actually contain more Vit C than liver does IIRC. A few seafoods contain it as well. And though I will gladly concede that most of us will survive just fine without RDA's of all nutrients, that 25-40 mg only brings me to about 1/3 of RDA. So in this case about 12-13 ounces of beef liver per day would get me to the RDA levels.
I didn't address this, sorry about that. Only 10mg's of vit C is necessary to protect against scurvy. Also it appears from the anecdotal evidence from my research most carnivores, males mostly and some females are eating about 2 lbs of animal protein a day and so that basically covers the scurvy concerns, imo.
I'm sorry, but here is another example of why certain styles of eating get a bad rap.
Are you really going to try to tell people that only 10mg of vitamin C is sufficient? That is only about 10-12% of most recommendations. If it was sufficient, why are there examples of people eating extreme diet styles that end up with scurvy? Did they not read the correct blog from a supporter telling them they won't get ill even if their diet only provides a number of nutrients in only tiny amounts?
Beyond that, the same types of statements regarding elite athletes have been made, and most easily disproven, for years. Of the ones you mentioned, I've seen info stating many of them only eat low or no carb some of the time, usually during certain training evolutions. As with many, they often carb up for races and such. Two of the names I didn't recognize were easy enough to search and find just this as a result.
Personally, when it reaches this level I consider most of what is stated to be based on confirmation bias, not reality, and certainly not science.
And the sad thing is, in this day and age multivitamin supplements and such are dirt cheap. One could easily suggest they go on one of these extreme diets of (pick a flavor) but log it and watch for any nutritional or other shortages and adjust as needed. But then it's harder to tell people how simple it is.... after all it takes no effort.
I'm sure all the people that are on the carnivore diet that aren't dead from scurvy have gathered together to create this elaborate conspiracy just to mess with people and make their brains fall out. Looks like it's working.
If you really think that pointing out false claims or flaws in what is stated is going to make anyones brains fall out, you might want to consider just how easy it is.
In this case avoiding scurvy and suggesting amounts that meet this mark are sufficient is just plain ignoring what we know are optimal nutrient levels in humans. Even with examples given that this suboptimal level has happened with such an extreme diet, you attempt to move the goalposts rather than accept alternate ways to avoid the lack of nutrients.
As with any other way of eating, people should supplement when needed, and in some extreme diets we know the needs will be greater. A well rounded diet avoids some of these problems, but even then is not without possible nutrient issues. To claim that adjusting levels to suit ones point of view rather than strive for known optimal levels is simply not responsible promotion of a way of eating.
A more responsible approach would be to suggest that anyone making drastic diet changes should be more inclined to make sure their health providers pay more attention to vitamin and mineral testing results, and supplement when/if needed. It really should be done regardless of how a person eats, but with any radical changes it should probably be even more a priority.
2 -
In respect to the nutrient issue. I did go into this in my previous post. There are certain metabolic functions and actions within the human body which change interactions and absorption rates. The example I previously made was Vitamin C. Vitamin C and carbohydrates have a very similar chemical make up. The transporter for Vitamin C is the same as that for carbs. If you are eating carbs then the body gives priority to carbs to fuel the body, thus all the transporters are taken by carbs. So you need more Vitamin C to counteract this.
It is the same with other vitamins and minerals. Certain molicules of an element are easier to absorb than others. As the human body is build to absorb from meat, it is more efficient in converting the vitamins and minerals found in meat. The forms found in vegetables, fruits and many commercial multivitamins are not as bioavailable to us.
There are also chemicals within the fruits and vegetables that hinder the body from using vitamins and minerals. It is why humans can't eat grass, trees, flowers etc. The chemicals are so abundant in these that we would quickly die. These are the same or similar chemicals that are in all plants. And some of us are more sensitive to them than others. Thus when we don't eat them we stop being sick.
If you look at the research you will find that many of the supplements are poor quality. The majority of forms of Magnesium, potassium, etc are the cheapest they can produce and usually most of the tablets are fillers/bulkers. They give you very expensive urine as many studies have shown that much of it is urinated out.
No one disagrees that you should research what you do to your body. Nobody ever said that and the indication that anyone is very very poor form. I spent months researching before I started. I tried the veg alternative and I felt awful. I was open to being veggie based if it worked. It did not, I lost no weight and felt terrible. So I researched. I was obsessive about it, spent at least 1 hour a day looking into it before I started. I got tested before I started and after.
The guidance and suggestions from the other contributors are nothing but helpful insights into their experience.
Nobody is saying to be caviller, as is suggested by the poster above. It is never helpful to be disingenuous. Some of the statements are vaguely inaccurate as representations of what is being said.
0 -
mrbretmaye wrote: »In respect to the nutrient issue. I did go into this in my previous post. There are certain metabolic functions and actions within the human body which change interactions and absorption rates. The example I previously made was Vitamin C. Vitamin C and carbohydrates have a very similar chemical make up. The transporter for Vitamin C is the same as that for carbs. If you are eating carbs then the body gives priority to carbs to fuel the body, thus all the transporters are taken by carbs. So you need more Vitamin C to counteract this.
It is the same with other vitamins and minerals. Certain molicules of an element are easier to absorb than others. As the human body is build to absorb from meat, it is more efficient in converting the vitamins and minerals found in meat. The forms found in vegetables, fruits and many commercial multivitamins are not as bioavailable to us.
There are also chemicals within the fruits and vegetables that hinder the body from using vitamins and minerals. It is why humans can't eat grass, trees, flowers etc. The chemicals are so abundant in these that we would quickly die. These are the same or similar chemicals that are in all plants. And some of us are more sensitive to them than others. Thus when we don't eat them we stop being sick.
If you look at the research you will find that many of the supplements are poor quality. The majority of forms of Magnesium, potassium, etc are the cheapest they can produce and usually most of the tablets are fillers/bulkers. They give you very expensive urine as many studies have shown that much of it is urinated out.
No one disagrees that you should research what you do to your body. Nobody ever said that and the indication that anyone is very very poor form. I spent months researching before I started. I tried the veg alternative and I felt awful. I was open to being veggie based if it worked. It did not, I lost no weight and felt terrible. So I researched. I was obsessive about it, spent at least 1 hour a day looking into it before I started. I got tested before I started and after.
The guidance and suggestions from the other contributors are nothing but helpful insights into their experience.
Nobody is saying to be caviller, as is suggested by the poster above. It is never helpful to be disingenuous. Some of the statements are vaguely inaccurate as representations of what is being said.
I've directly quoted where people are in fact stating things such as "just fill up with meat" and making it that simple, even suggesting that is why people push back. Suggestions that it is that simple don't seem to suggest research. And just as with vitamin concerns and such, when examples are given they are ignored. Ignoring any nutritional defficiency is not suggesting research. That is the reason I actually quote things I disagree with. Nobody can twist a quote.
But I'm not in any way, shape, or form comfortable with people openly suggesting that 10mg of Vitamin C is optimal for humans. Though I'm aware of absorbtion changes with differing diets and other factors, no peer reviewed information is standing up to a claim such as this.
Your previous posts made no such claims beyond opinon and your thoughts. As such they were not quoted or disputed.
I'd be curious to see what you think of the information in the video posted above with Paul Saladin. I was expecting something other than what it was myself, but was surprised he pointed out the various concerns.
0 -
robertw486 wrote: »mrbretmaye wrote: »In respect to the nutrient issue. I did go into this in my previous post. There are certain metabolic functions and actions within the human body which change interactions and absorption rates. The example I previously made was Vitamin C. Vitamin C and carbohydrates have a very similar chemical make up. The transporter for Vitamin C is the same as that for carbs. If you are eating carbs then the body gives priority to carbs to fuel the body, thus all the transporters are taken by carbs. So you need more Vitamin C to counteract this.
It is the same with other vitamins and minerals. Certain molicules of an element are easier to absorb than others. As the human body is build to absorb from meat, it is more efficient in converting the vitamins and minerals found in meat. The forms found in vegetables, fruits and many commercial multivitamins are not as bioavailable to us.
There are also chemicals within the fruits and vegetables that hinder the body from using vitamins and minerals. It is why humans can't eat grass, trees, flowers etc. The chemicals are so abundant in these that we would quickly die. These are the same or similar chemicals that are in all plants. And some of us are more sensitive to them than others. Thus when we don't eat them we stop being sick.
If you look at the research you will find that many of the supplements are poor quality. The majority of forms of Magnesium, potassium, etc are the cheapest they can produce and usually most of the tablets are fillers/bulkers. They give you very expensive urine as many studies have shown that much of it is urinated out.
No one disagrees that you should research what you do to your body. Nobody ever said that and the indication that anyone is very very poor form. I spent months researching before I started. I tried the veg alternative and I felt awful. I was open to being veggie based if it worked. It did not, I lost no weight and felt terrible. So I researched. I was obsessive about it, spent at least 1 hour a day looking into it before I started. I got tested before I started and after.
The guidance and suggestions from the other contributors are nothing but helpful insights into their experience.
Nobody is saying to be caviller, as is suggested by the poster above. It is never helpful to be disingenuous. Some of the statements are vaguely inaccurate as representations of what is being said.
I've directly quoted where people are in fact stating things such as "just fill up with meat" and making it that simple, even suggesting that is why people push back. Suggestions that it is that simple don't seem to suggest research. And just as with vitamin concerns and such, when examples are given they are ignored. Ignoring any nutritional defficiency is not suggesting research. That is the reason I actually quote things I disagree with. Nobody can twist a quote.
But I'm not in any way, shape, or form comfortable with people openly suggesting that 10mg of Vitamin C is optimal for humans. Though I'm aware of absorbtion changes with differing diets and other factors, no peer reviewed information is standing up to a claim such as this.
Your previous posts made no such claims beyond opinon and your thoughts. As such they were not quoted or disputed.
I'd be curious to see what you think of the information in the video posted above with Paul Saladin. I was expecting something other than what it was myself, but was surprised he pointed out the various concerns.
Originally I mentioned that liver has 25-30 mg's of Vit. C and that in the carnivore community scurvy has not been seen. You then found a case study from 25 years ago of a guy living mostly as a hermit in rural Appalachia consuming only a canned meat product called Bunker Hill canned beef in gravy and that wasn't found out until at 54 and finally went to the hospital, where is overall health was a mess, all you have to do is look at the pictures to see that and he has signs of scurvy which they proceeded to give him vit C.
My argument was about preventing scurvy and now your saying that I said 10gm's is optimal for humans, I never said that, really, it seems you twisted my quote.
This study you provided as your proof also said right in the link that 10 mg's was enough to prevent scurvy, which you didn't comment on at the time and I think if vit C was a problem I would think @mrbretmaye would have said something. Like I said if you can find a case where actual practicing carnivores have problems with scurvy then of course that would make a difference.
Here's your link for that Appalachia case.
https://cdn-uat.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/066010039.pdfurvy from a vasculitis.15
Treatment of scurvy is simple and inexpensive and
results in dramatic improvement of signs and symptoms.
Although 10 mg of oral vitamin C per day is enough
to prevent scurvy,10,12 it is recommended that patients
with scurvy be started on 1 to 2 g/day for the first 2
days, followed by 500 mg/day for the next week.170 -
Bit off topic but - a yummy recipe using liver (which might be keto?)springlering62 wrote: »That’s another thing. Mom was a horrible cook. I had liver once in my life. One bite and I was done.
Maybe it’s wonderful and delicious but I personally see that as punishment if the very worst kind.
@neanderthin you are a doll and one of the most helpful people around here. I certainly don’t take it that your way is the only way.
Saute an onion in butter (probably c30-40g - it’s quite a lot)
Add a tub of chicken livers and one clove garlic, fry gently until cooked.
Blitz in food processor with glug of brandy and salt and pepper and until smooth
Makes liver taste totally amazing.
0 -
claireychn074 wrote: »
Bit off topic but - a yummy recipe using liver (which might be keto?)springlering62 wrote: »That’s another thing. Mom was a horrible cook. I had liver once in my life. One bite and I was done.
Maybe it’s wonderful and delicious but I personally see that as punishment if the very worst kind.
@neanderthin you are a doll and one of the most helpful people around here. I certainly don’t take it that your way is the only way.
Saute an onion in butter (probably c30-40g - it’s quite a lot)
Add a tub of chicken livers and one clove garlic, fry gently until cooked.
Blitz in food processor with glug of brandy and salt and pepper and until smooth
Makes liver taste totally amazing.
I've made that quite a bit over the years and it's basically referred to as liver parfait and yes very keto friendly.
Chicken liver, butter, onion, garlic, brandy are all there, your just missing some fresh thyme and heavy cream and a little salt for balance. Yes very yummy on a cracker or some decent bread and my SO likes to put on a little red pepper jelly. 0 -
neanderthin wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »mrbretmaye wrote: »In respect to the nutrient issue. I did go into this in my previous post. There are certain metabolic functions and actions within the human body which change interactions and absorption rates. The example I previously made was Vitamin C. Vitamin C and carbohydrates have a very similar chemical make up. The transporter for Vitamin C is the same as that for carbs. If you are eating carbs then the body gives priority to carbs to fuel the body, thus all the transporters are taken by carbs. So you need more Vitamin C to counteract this.
It is the same with other vitamins and minerals. Certain molicules of an element are easier to absorb than others. As the human body is build to absorb from meat, it is more efficient in converting the vitamins and minerals found in meat. The forms found in vegetables, fruits and many commercial multivitamins are not as bioavailable to us.
There are also chemicals within the fruits and vegetables that hinder the body from using vitamins and minerals. It is why humans can't eat grass, trees, flowers etc. The chemicals are so abundant in these that we would quickly die. These are the same or similar chemicals that are in all plants. And some of us are more sensitive to them than others. Thus when we don't eat them we stop being sick.
If you look at the research you will find that many of the supplements are poor quality. The majority of forms of Magnesium, potassium, etc are the cheapest they can produce and usually most of the tablets are fillers/bulkers. They give you very expensive urine as many studies have shown that much of it is urinated out.
No one disagrees that you should research what you do to your body. Nobody ever said that and the indication that anyone is very very poor form. I spent months researching before I started. I tried the veg alternative and I felt awful. I was open to being veggie based if it worked. It did not, I lost no weight and felt terrible. So I researched. I was obsessive about it, spent at least 1 hour a day looking into it before I started. I got tested before I started and after.
The guidance and suggestions from the other contributors are nothing but helpful insights into their experience.
Nobody is saying to be caviller, as is suggested by the poster above. It is never helpful to be disingenuous. Some of the statements are vaguely inaccurate as representations of what is being said.
I've directly quoted where people are in fact stating things such as "just fill up with meat" and making it that simple, even suggesting that is why people push back. Suggestions that it is that simple don't seem to suggest research. And just as with vitamin concerns and such, when examples are given they are ignored. Ignoring any nutritional defficiency is not suggesting research. That is the reason I actually quote things I disagree with. Nobody can twist a quote.
But I'm not in any way, shape, or form comfortable with people openly suggesting that 10mg of Vitamin C is optimal for humans. Though I'm aware of absorbtion changes with differing diets and other factors, no peer reviewed information is standing up to a claim such as this.
Your previous posts made no such claims beyond opinon and your thoughts. As such they were not quoted or disputed.
I'd be curious to see what you think of the information in the video posted above with Paul Saladin. I was expecting something other than what it was myself, but was surprised he pointed out the various concerns.
Originally I mentioned that liver has 25-30 mg's of Vit. C and that in the carnivore community scurvy has not been seen. You then found a case study from 25 years ago of a guy living mostly as a hermit in rural Appalachia consuming only a canned meat product called Bunker Hill canned beef in gravy and that wasn't found out until at 54 and finally went to the hospital, where is overall health was a mess, all you have to do is look at the pictures to see that and he has signs of scurvy which they proceeded to give him vit C.
My argument was about preventing scurvy and now your saying that I said 10gm's is optimal for humans, I never said that, really, it seems you twisted my quote.
This study you provided as your proof also said right in the link that 10 mg's was enough to prevent scurvy, which you didn't comment on at the time and I think if vit C was a problem I would think @mrbretmaye would have said something. Like I said if you can find a case where actual practicing carnivores have problems with scurvy then of course that would make a difference.
Here's your link for that Appalachia case.
https://cdn-uat.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/066010039.pdfurvy from a vasculitis.15
Treatment of scurvy is simple and inexpensive and
results in dramatic improvement of signs and symptoms.
Although 10 mg of oral vitamin C per day is enough
to prevent scurvy,10,12 it is recommended that patients
with scurvy be started on 1 to 2 g/day for the first 2
days, followed by 500 mg/day for the next week.17
I will gladly admit that you never used the term "optimal" while defending 10mg as adequate to prevent scurvy and apologize for that. But it seems to be the bar you have set, even though at least two examples were given of heavy meat eaters getting scurvy. And that was part of my point, despite the bar being set extremely low, it has happened.
What you did say at one point was:neanderthin wrote: »I see, ok, no problem, I was just asking.
Just to let you know, there's about 25-30 milligrams of Vit C in 100g's of beef liver which when incorporated and consumed once a week is enough to maintain adequate amounts and I've seen no data where people on carnivore experience scurvy and if you have I certainly would be appreciative of that data.
Even if we err on the high side of the nutrition, you are recommending that about 4mg a day (averaged) is adequate. This is less than 1/2 what you claim is sufficient to prevent scurvy, and even that 10mg number is grossly below the recommended daily intake for overall health. I can't think of even an outlier case where I would recommend to someone that less than 5% of the RDA is "adequate".
And that case is only if the person eats the beef liver, which is a far cry from the original claim of:neanderthin wrote: »Consuming just animal protein and their fats until your full and satisfied and then just getting on with the rest of their day is about as simple as it gets, there are no other requirements at all, no other food that are needed and most carnivores generally eat twice a day.
People can exist and live without meeting dairly RDA of nutrients, but to think that they can remain healthy long term while essentially ignoring nutritional needs is far from the truth.
I'd be interested to know what you think of the video by Paul Saladin as well. Being he literally wrote a book on Carnivore, it's amazing what he found through doing it for an extended period.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »robertw486 wrote: »mrbretmaye wrote: »In respect to the nutrient issue. I did go into this in my previous post. There are certain metabolic functions and actions within the human body which change interactions and absorption rates. The example I previously made was Vitamin C. Vitamin C and carbohydrates have a very similar chemical make up. The transporter for Vitamin C is the same as that for carbs. If you are eating carbs then the body gives priority to carbs to fuel the body, thus all the transporters are taken by carbs. So you need more Vitamin C to counteract this.
It is the same with other vitamins and minerals. Certain molicules of an element are easier to absorb than others. As the human body is build to absorb from meat, it is more efficient in converting the vitamins and minerals found in meat. The forms found in vegetables, fruits and many commercial multivitamins are not as bioavailable to us.
There are also chemicals within the fruits and vegetables that hinder the body from using vitamins and minerals. It is why humans can't eat grass, trees, flowers etc. The chemicals are so abundant in these that we would quickly die. These are the same or similar chemicals that are in all plants. And some of us are more sensitive to them than others. Thus when we don't eat them we stop being sick.
If you look at the research you will find that many of the supplements are poor quality. The majority of forms of Magnesium, potassium, etc are the cheapest they can produce and usually most of the tablets are fillers/bulkers. They give you very expensive urine as many studies have shown that much of it is urinated out.
No one disagrees that you should research what you do to your body. Nobody ever said that and the indication that anyone is very very poor form. I spent months researching before I started. I tried the veg alternative and I felt awful. I was open to being veggie based if it worked. It did not, I lost no weight and felt terrible. So I researched. I was obsessive about it, spent at least 1 hour a day looking into it before I started. I got tested before I started and after.
The guidance and suggestions from the other contributors are nothing but helpful insights into their experience.
Nobody is saying to be caviller, as is suggested by the poster above. It is never helpful to be disingenuous. Some of the statements are vaguely inaccurate as representations of what is being said.
I've directly quoted where people are in fact stating things such as "just fill up with meat" and making it that simple, even suggesting that is why people push back. Suggestions that it is that simple don't seem to suggest research. And just as with vitamin concerns and such, when examples are given they are ignored. Ignoring any nutritional defficiency is not suggesting research. That is the reason I actually quote things I disagree with. Nobody can twist a quote.
But I'm not in any way, shape, or form comfortable with people openly suggesting that 10mg of Vitamin C is optimal for humans. Though I'm aware of absorbtion changes with differing diets and other factors, no peer reviewed information is standing up to a claim such as this.
Your previous posts made no such claims beyond opinon and your thoughts. As such they were not quoted or disputed.
I'd be curious to see what you think of the information in the video posted above with Paul Saladin. I was expecting something other than what it was myself, but was surprised he pointed out the various concerns.
Originally I mentioned that liver has 25-30 mg's of Vit. C and that in the carnivore community scurvy has not been seen. You then found a case study from 25 years ago of a guy living mostly as a hermit in rural Appalachia consuming only a canned meat product called Bunker Hill canned beef in gravy and that wasn't found out until at 54 and finally went to the hospital, where is overall health was a mess, all you have to do is look at the pictures to see that and he has signs of scurvy which they proceeded to give him vit C.
My argument was about preventing scurvy and now your saying that I said 10gm's is optimal for humans, I never said that, really, it seems you twisted my quote.
This study you provided as your proof also said right in the link that 10 mg's was enough to prevent scurvy, which you didn't comment on at the time and I think if vit C was a problem I would think @mrbretmaye would have said something. Like I said if you can find a case where actual practicing carnivores have problems with scurvy then of course that would make a difference.
Here's your link for that Appalachia case.
https://cdn-uat.mdedge.com/files/s3fs-public/Document/September-2017/066010039.pdfurvy from a vasculitis.15
Treatment of scurvy is simple and inexpensive and
results in dramatic improvement of signs and symptoms.
Although 10 mg of oral vitamin C per day is enough
to prevent scurvy,10,12 it is recommended that patients
with scurvy be started on 1 to 2 g/day for the first 2
days, followed by 500 mg/day for the next week.17
I will gladly admit that you never used the term "optimal" while defending 10mg as adequate to prevent scurvy and apologize for that. But it seems to be the bar you have set, even though at least two examples were given of heavy meat eaters getting scurvy. And that was part of my point, despite the bar being set extremely low, it has happened.
What you did say at one point was:neanderthin wrote: »I see, ok, no problem, I was just asking.
Just to let you know, there's about 25-30 milli4mg a day (averaged) is adequategrams of Vit C in 100g's of beef liver which when incorporated and consumed once a week is enough to maintain adequate amounts and I've seen no data where people on carnivore experience scurvy and if you have I certainly would be appreciative of that data.
Even if we err on the high side of the nutrition, you are recommending that about 4mg a day (averaged) is adequate. This is less than 1/2 what you claim is sufficient to prevent scurvy, and even that 10mg number is grossly below the recommended daily intake for overall health. I can't think of even an outlier case where I would recommend to someone that less than 5% of the RDA is "adequate".
And that case is only if the person eats the beef liver, which is a far cry from the original claim of:neanderthin wrote: »Consuming just animal protein and their fats until your full and satisfied and then just getting on with the rest of their day is about as simple as it gets, there are no other requirements at all, no other food that are needed and most carnivores generally eat twice a day.
People can exist and live without meeting dairly RDA of nutrients, but to think that they can remain healthy long term while essentially ignoring nutritional needs is far from the truth.
I'd be interested to know what you think of the video by Paul Saladin as well. Being he literally wrote a book on Carnivore, it's amazing what he found through doing it for an extended period.
Ok robert apology accepted. I never said "4mg a day (averaged) is adequate" and I've not given what a carnivore optimally needs either because it's not known because of the absorption and metabolic differences that challenge that absorption, and my only claim was that 10mg's was sufficient enough to stave off scurvy.
I suspect you took the 30mg's and divided by 7. What you haven't factored into the equation is the amount of vit C that is in the muscle meat of say beef cattle which is the overwhelming choice for carnivores and the only meat in the "lion diet" and what the average carnivore consumes on a daily basis is around a 1 kilogram which contains about 100mg's of Vit C daily. Of course consuming different animal protein will not deliver those numbers but again beef is the go to. Also the half life of vitamin C is estimated to be between 10 and 20 days.
I will also see what Paul Saladin is saying in that video although and I'm quite familiar with his early take I haven't followed him for a few years.
0 -
the average carnivore consumes on a daily basis is around a 1 kilogram which contains about 100mg's of Vit C daily.
I fact checked myself because I thought this seemed way too high and found this to be inaccurate and it was based on a reliable source and made the assumption it was good but after revisiting they obviously made a clerical error which didn't come to light until reading further. Anyway, it's difficult to get accurate numbers. For example the default practice of the UDSA is to fill in vitamin C amounts in muscle meat as “assumed to be zero" which is not the case but they're assuming there's no carbs or fiber in meat, so no vit C, anyway the best I could find from a few sources is around 2 mg's at best per 100g's of beef, which translates to 20g's a day, which is double the amount for scurvy and probably why @mrbretmaye and @MacksFisher are still alive and well.0 -
In respect to the Daily recommended amounts, RDA's etc. They change continually. The 'Food pyramid' has evolved continually as the 'experts' claims about various food groups has been debunked. Salt for example was the cause of various deaths and the elimination of salt was touted for decades as the cure to heart attacks. This recommendation has quietly been dropped. How many peer reviewed studies are out there about the evidence of salt. If you look at some studies of red meat you will see that they lumped in processed food with red meat because it contained any type of proceeded meat, such as a meat pizza.
Even on the more sinister side, where the outcome was catastrophic for individual and national health, health professionals gave credence to Oxy Contin. Through nothing more than free holidays and sales bonus to the health professionals Purdue got recommendations and conformation of studies that never took place from 100's of Doctors. These 'peers' are people, and they will do anything for money and/or the acceptance of their peers.
There may be a little simplification of this way of eating at times by people. That is because no-one can outline the full process of the diet every time they try to explain what they are doing. "I only eat meat" is a true statement and an intelligent person will ask follow on questions if they intend to follow up on this. Unfortunately some people will interpret that as, "Oh, I can eat nothing but frankfurters and lose weight and become strong and healthy". Nobody should have to give a nuanced presentation each time they mention carnivore. The facts are out there.
Every time I discuss carnivore it is the same arguments. Some well touted fact is picked and stated such as the Vitamin C thing. You state the facts about its interaction and absorption in the human body and then it degrades down to 'Well you said that you need 5mg and it should be 5.1. The straw man is immortal and the arguments go in circles of ever decreasing logic and further away from the main point.
I have found carnivore to be amazing. It has changed my life in many ways.
The community is cool too. Many people, after 3-5 years decide to introduce small amounts of fruit/veg into the diet and everybody is supportive and cool. Rational minds. Those who quit aren't ridiculed, unlike some communities I have been in.
The amount of anecdotal evidence is massive. Go to any YouTube or other page of carnivores and you will see 1000's of stories of how lives have been changed. Go to the comments and you will see ten of thousands.
And of course you will see people that it doesn't suit. That's ok too, for them and the community of carnivores.
My recommendations would be
Research it to deeply before you start.
I didn't, but you should get medical advice. My doctor put me on a diet of medication and veg based eating which made me very sick which is how I found carnivore. Which reduced my BP from over 180/99 to around 115/70 this week. That is a hard fact, not placebo.
Listen to your body. It may not suit you. Some people are not compatible, from their perspective, and if they say no then that's ok.
The fact is that carnivore works for 1000's of people. Simples.
0 -
I will let people argue the nutritional stuff. I went mainly (note not solely) carnivore because it is far more simple than keto. I do Ketovore because of blood sugar issues, and find it is a way of eating that works very well for me.1
-
Perhaps the only, and certainly the best point of view on a diet/food plan/lifestyle.rileysowner wrote: »... find it is a way of eating that works very well for me.
I'm happy for you, you have been an inspiration here. Continued success, and keep on describing your process.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 436 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions