New Carnivore Community does not like opposing opinions
https://feddit.org/post/13994826/7165181
Everything I downvoted was because I genuinely do not think it's good. Like meat is not going to cure cancer.
I actually really like eating meat I just try to life a life that gives others room to enjoy this earth too without mutually destroying it.
Please tell me how I am the asshole :)
You're viewing a single thread.
I am pretty sure the carnivore community is just a big troll. Maybe it is some confused people, but it seems on Lemmy more likely to just be people taking the piss out of vegans.
But not like in a cheeky and fun way, more cruel and tragic
At this time and age you can expect anything to be serious. Like biden being cloned
It's not a troll, it's a earnest eating pattern. It has nothing to do with vegans, the entire world doesn't rotate around vegans. People can do things independently of what vegans do.
The Inuit didn't exist for thousands of years in the arctic circle eating only animals to spite vegans.
The Inuit didn’t exist for thousands of years in the arctic circle eating only animals to spite vegans.
Their population is sparse and they had absolutely no energy to spare to expand or rise up in the world, they were too busy with the incredible energy expenditure that is hunting. They didn't choose to do this as a success option, they just have no other option because nothing will grow in their environment, so it's hunt or starve.
But they survived - With great health according to the reports of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson who observed the population pre-westernized.
Any type of person that survives in a harsh environment where death is an ever-present outcome will generally be strong and healthy on an individual basis. It's natural selection. If they're not hardy, they don't survive, so the ones that are left are healthy.
I'm not saying that there's no way to eat exclusively meat and have it work out. I'm just saying that (a) you're choosing an example that doesn't apply all that well to making an argument about how to eat in the modern world (b) the industrially farmed meat that's available in the modern world, definitely in the US at least, is pure poison compared to what any ancient society you're studying was eating.
Every study in the modern world that I'm aware of has drawn conclusions of severe negative health consequences from eating too much of the type of meat that's available to us now.
Every study in the modern world that I’m aware of has drawn conclusions of severe negative health consequences from eating too much of the type of meat that’s available to us now.
Would you like to see more data?
On average, participants who reported consuming meat regularly (three or more times per week) had more adverse health behaviours and characteristics than participants who consumed meat less regularly, and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI). In multi-variable adjusted (including BMI) Cox regression models corrected for multiple testing, higher consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat combined was associated with higher risks of ischaemic heart disease (hazard ratio (HRs) per 70 g/day higher intake 1.15, 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 1.07–1.23), pneumonia (1.31, 1.18–1.44), diverticular disease (1.19, 1.11–1.28), colon polyps (1.10, 1.06–1.15), and diabetes (1.30, 1.20–1.42); results were similar for unprocessed red meat and processed meat intakes separately. Higher consumption of unprocessed red meat alone was associated with a lower risk of iron deficiency anaemia (IDA: HR per 50 g/day higher intake 0.80, 95% CIs 0.72–0.90). Higher poultry meat intake was associated with higher risks of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (HR per 30 g/day higher intake 1.17, 95% CIs 1.09–1.26), gastritis and duodenitis (1.12, 1.05–1.18), diverticular disease (1.10, 1.04–1.17), gallbladder disease (1.11, 1.04–1.19), and diabetes (1.14, 1.07–1.21), and a lower IDA risk (0.83, 0.76–0.90).
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9
That's just the first random thing I found. Again, I am sure that a lot of that has to do with the low quality of the meat available in modern factory-farm-driven societies. I'm just saying that if you're advocating for people eating meat, and they live in that type of society, they're going to be fucking themselves up by eating lots of the type of meat that is available to them in that society.
That doesn’t directly have a bearing on whether a first-world adult choosing to consume only meat is going to improve anything for them.
Sure, everything is about context - Can someone be perfectly healthy without Carnivore? Yes, Absolutely.
Are there any nutritional deficiencies on Carnivore itself - not that I'm aware of
Are there a group of adults who have plant sensitivities / inflammation / allergies that benefit from carnivore? Yes
Now consider a modern adult with T2D (which is a billion people right now), carnivore by virtue of having zero carbohydrates is one of the best possible interventions for them to manage or even reverse their T2D
Correlation is not causation, both meat consumption and overall life expectancy are going to be highly correlated with societal wealth.
Great, I 100% agree, to your previous post about all the science being against red meat because of cancer risk, can you point out the non-correlated (non-epidemiology) that demonstrates this risk?
fucking themselves up by eating lots of the type of meat that is available to them in that society.
Context matters - Any dietary intervention is better then the sugar heavy, processed food, standard western diet. Even low grade factory farmed meat is better then pop-tarts and cheerios, yes?
If we want to quibble about which diet has optimal health outcomes - then we are already winning! I think most people would benefit from whole food (single ingredient), non processed, sustainably produced food for their diet.
Carnivore (as per my pinned going carnivore post https://hackertalks.com/post/5730540 ) is a option for people, which confers the benefits of simple keto, especially valuable to people who have unresolved issues on other interventions - so the elmination protocol aspect of carnivore has value clinically to those people.
Now consider a modern adult with T2D (which is a billion people right now), carnivore by virtue of having zero carbohydrates is one of the best possible interventions for them to manage or even reverse their T2D
Context matters - Any dietary intervention is better then the sugar heavy, processed food, standard western diet. Even low grade factory farmed meat is better then pop-tarts and cheerios, yes?
Reducing the amount of pure garbage that someone consumes is going to help them, yes. If you're advocating for replacing the garbage with meat, and then give credit to the meat because of the lack of garbage is helping them, I don't think that makes a ton of sense.
Great, I 100% agree, to your previous post about all the science being against red meat because of cancer risk, can you point out the non-correlated (non-epidemiology) that demonstrates this risk?
The study actually talks about this. They point out some correlations with BMI where the meat diet is probably not the issue, and then they point out some other health issues where they can't find an obvious correlation with anything else and so provisionally it is maybe okay to blame the meat.
I'm just pointing out that in all your studies I looked at there was an instant 2-seconds-of-thinking correlation that was more likely the cause than meat consumption, and it didn't seem like the study was addressing that. It kind of looks like someone is aiming to prove that meat is healthy, and grasping around for anything they can find that will demonstrate that, when most of the science I'm aware of (again, based on consuming the type of meat that's available in a modern first world society) says the opposite.
If we want to quibble about which diet has optimal health outcomes - then we are already winning! I think most people would benefit from whole food (single ingredient), non processed, sustainably produced food for their diet.
Absolutely agree. I actually personally suspect that almost all the bad health outcomes according to modern science from eating too much meat would evaporate if the people were consuming healthy untainted meat. But, also, I think you have to be aware of that and communicate it if you're advocating for someone to eat a lot of meat when it's likely that what they're going to be eating is tainted.
If you’re advocating for replacing the garbage with meat, and then give credit to the meat because of the lack of garbage is helping them, I don’t think that makes a ton of sense.
In my understanding this makes perfect sense
when most of the science I’m aware of (again, based on consuming the type of meat that’s available in a modern first world society) says the opposite.
You have to decide if correlation is important to you or not. If not, then there is no smoking gun against meat. If correlation matters then there are opposing epidemiology to consider.
untainted meat. But, also, I think you have to be aware of that and communicate it if you’re advocating for someone to eat a lot of meat when it’s likely that what they’re going to be eating is tainted.
Other then having lower omega-3 levels - I'm not aware of any problems with low grade meat.
Meat, by virtue of not being a plant has no toxins, no pesticides - both of which some people react to
This is absolutely false. Cows eat plants, and any pesticides in the plants can bioaccumulate in the cow so that it winds up with more pesticide than you would have gotten from just eating the plant in the first place. It's one of the problems with eating meat in the modern world.
This has some links to various high-level explanation: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/how-to-shop-for-safer-healthier-meat-a1124955526/
It was actually pretty difficult for me to find a study about this that was (1) from the US and (2) not on some site that was clearly trying to promote one side of the battle or the other. But Consumer Reports is pretty trustworthy, to me.
You have to decide if correlation is important to you or not.
I have explained my thought process, why I think you need to be cautious about assuming correlation is causation when there is a clearly obvious alternative explanation for the correlation, but you can accept epidemiology in general instead of throwing out any study that relies on correlation as any part of its argument.
If not, then there is no smoking gun against meat. If correlation matters then there are opposing epidemiology to consider.
Opposing epidemiology that to me is hilariously weak and implausible, yes. I considered it.
I’m not aware of any problems with low grade meat.
You really should be. It's not just an issue with "low grade" meat. If you're in the US, you should know that most of the world won't even import our meat products because they are so full of hormones, pesticides, antibiotics, and all kinds of other fun stuff that they are illegal to sell in other first world societies. Do you really not know this?
First link, study does nothing to support the idea that a primarily carnivorous diet is in any way better and doesn't claim to, simply that higher calorie and nutrient intake results in more/faster growth in children.
Second link, the study also does nothing to support a primarily carnivorous diet, from their conclusion: "Meat intake, or its adequate replacement, should be incorporated into nutritional science to improve human life expectancy."
Third link, actually relevant to carnivore diet! And it's a sample size of just over 2k, a timeline of less than 2 years, and entirely self-reported data with no external verification whatsoever.
Fourth link, also makes no claims whatsoever regarding a primarily carnivorous diet. From the conclusion: "Our study found that, for relatively healthy older adults, the consumption of eggs 1–6 times per week was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and CVD mortality compared to those who rarely or never eat eggs. No such potential benefit was observed with daily egg consumption." So not only does it not even try to recomment a fully carnivorous dier, but it explicitly states that eating more eggs resulted in no increased health benefit
You clearly just googled "carnivore diet is healthy study" and posted the first four results that came up, you don't give a shit about what's actually true you're just here to push an agenda
You clearly just googled “carnivore diet is healthy study” and posted the first four results that came up, you don’t give a shit about what’s actually true you’re just here to push an agenda
You do realize each of those link to a post I made for the paper with my notes for those papers.
If your not even going to try to engage in earnest discussion without disparaging me and my motives... I don't think we are going to have a productive talk.
I directly quoted the studies you mentioned, couldn't have done that if I didn't open the links and read the studies, try harder halfwit
Please disengage.
No u
According to the methodologically worthless reports of one guy who died in the 60s, "i ate this and I'm feeling fine, trust me bro"
It took me all of 30 seconds in the linked wiki article to find this
"Arctic physiologist Kåre Rodahl has written that Stefansson's diet on his arctic explorations should not be confused with the Eskimo diet as the Eskimos in addition to meat and fat also "eat considerable quantities of entrails and plant food in the form of land plants and sea algae" and during the summer, marine algae makes up 50% of their vitamin C supply.[26]"
Scientific literature isn't valid because its old?
Evaluations of pre-westernize cultures has value to us today.
There is no scientific literature related to the guy you mentioned and you know it, I already quote your own article link debunking your claims
They say that about every fash. It's just a joke!