Healthiness of the carnivore regime?
Healthiness of the carnivore regime?
There were a few points mentioned by @[email protected] about the negative aspect of carnivore diets on health: https://lemmy.world/comment/14453309
Here are some sources on why the carnivore diet is completely unhealthy:
While there is debate in the scientific community over just how much meat belongs in a human diet, it is impossible for all or even most humans to eat primarily meat. Beef production at the scale required to feed billions of humans even at current levels of consumption is environmentally unsustainable. It is not even healthy from a theoretical evolutionary viewpoint, the microbiome expert Gilbert explained to me. Carnivores need to eat meat or else they die; humans do not. “The carnivore gastrointestinal tract is completely different from the human gastrointestinal tract, which is made up of a system designed to consume large quantities of complex fibers.”
Christopher Gardner, a professor of medicine at Stanford University, is less convinced by the evidence.
“Are these T rex? African lions? Or humans? Assuming [you are referring to] humans, this sounds disastrous on multiple levels,” he said.
The lack of dietary fibre in an all-meat diet is likely to wreak havoc on the bacteria in our colons, known as the microbiome, he said. “Growing evidence suggests that in the absence of adequate fibre, the bacteria in the colon consume and thin the protective mucus lining, which then leads to impaired immune function and inflammation.”
Eating more meat also contributes to a rise in a substance called trimethylamine N-oxide in the blood which, according to research by the Cleveland Heart Lab, may be as bad for heart disease as saturated fat and elevated cholesterol.
Factory farming of animals is also linked to antibiotic resistance in humans and is a huge contributor to the greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.
“In summary, I think a ‘carnivore diet’ is inappropriate for human health, bad for the health of our planet, abusive of the human labour force that handles the preparation of meat, abusive of animal rights and welfare,” he said.
By skipping fruits and vegetables, people likely won’t get enough fiber in their diets, which can affect gut health. They also will miss out on carotenoids and polyphenols, substances with antioxidant properties that have been linked to lower risk of chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer. Animal products also contain high amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol.
In addition to the potentially adverse health effects of the diet, Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition, noted that industrial production of animal-based foods is harmful to the planet. “There’s also the issue of justice that basically the Global North—Europe [and] the United States—cause most of the problems with climate change that we have today, and this sort of perpetuates that.”
On a free speech level, I think its rather burdensome to demand people prove their worthy of having a place to talk. Where do we expect new science to come from but collaborative spaces where ideas can be tested and discussed?
Trying to silence others, remove their voices, even if you disagree with them, is a great social harm and just ends up back to Galileo situations.
Half of what we know today is wrong, but we don't know which half - Classic medical school axiom.... If we can't discuss science and nutrition how on earth are we going to figure out the wrong 50%?
It's Time to separate Church and Plate.
The Legacy of the Temperance Movement … in an attempt to stop us consuming alcohol and meat, have we allowed the processed food industry to create our food supply? Are we simply going to sit back and watch Vested Interests and Ideology (with the backing of the cereal industry and coca-cola) to dictate health policy and continue to shape our dietary and health guidelines?
God help us Blaze!
[email protected] exists...
For more context its a diet where only beef meat is eaten.
For more context its a diet where only beef meat is eaten.
Yeah, its really strict. Not many people go fully lion, I have seen no science or literature indicating its any better then Carnivore. Some people claim they get less negative reactions from different animal sources, but I think its mostly performative. That said, it still works, its a zero carb ketogenic ASF diet. As long as those lions eat the organs too its fine. I think Dr. Shawn Baker talks about lion extensively.
The community has no moderator, and no mod log either, not sure when it was created. The wayback machine says January of 2024.
How on earth did you find it? I suppose your just looking for things to rally against, really we should let everyone explore their own paths to health with respect, and especially without performative outrage.
The lower limit of dietary carbohydrate compatible with life apparently is zero, provided that adequate amounts of protein and fat are consumed.
Carbohydrates (that includes Fibre) are not essential for human life.
I'm not trying to recruit people, this is an area of interest of mine, and I want to talk about it with other people who are interested in the area. Eat whatever diet you want, if your getting good outcomes (Including being insulin sensitive) - great, more power too you.
Per my post https://hackertalks.com/post/5770624 must nutritional science is very poor quality, on the bottom of the evidence pyramid. Even the meta-analysis is meta-analysis of observational studies, which is only as good as the observational studies they are built on. The few RCTs I can find are not to hard end points, but rather focus on biomarkers that are assumed to be bad endpoints (such as elevated LDL - which has been shown in actual RCTs with all cause mortality to not be a danger).
Since I imagine the tire fire from this post will be epic, I'm going to respond to each point individually in its own comment. I wont talk across points on different threads - keep the conversation on each issue topical.
Full disclosure I moderate the following relevant communities (but not this one)
Newspaper / Opinion 2
While there is debate in the scientific community over just how much meat belongs in a human diet, it is impossible for all or even most humans to eat primarily meat. Beef production at the scale required to feed billions of humans even at current levels of consumption is environmentally unsustainable. It is not even healthy from a theoretical evolutionary viewpoint, the microbiome expert Gilbert explained to me. Carnivores need to eat meat or else they die; humans do not. “The carnivore gastrointestinal tract is completely different from the human gastrointestinal tract, which is made up of a system designed to consume large quantities of complex fibers.”
(Source)[https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2018/08/the-peterson-family-meat-cleanse/567613/]
This does not speak to health outcomes or human safety, no response.
Type 2 Diabetes
They also will miss out on carotenoids and polyphenols, substances with [antioxidant](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/antioxidants/) properties that have been linked to lower risk of [chronic diseases](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/multitaxo/topic/chronic-disease/) such as Type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer.
This is said without any context of a low carbohydrate or carnivore diet. This is a example, generously, of throwing things at the wall to see what will stick.
Type 2 diabetes can be defined as the state of carbohydrate intolerance. People cannot control their blood glucose, because they're not producing sufficient levels of insulin to overcome their incumbent insulin resistance.
If somebody is carbohydrate intolerant, why would a diet without any carbohydrates in it, cause carbohydrate intolerance?
I would love to see a randomized control trial comparing a low carbohydrate diet, even a carnivore diet, to any plant-based diet, in the context of T2DM. I don't believe any exist, but the statement above very much assumes the context of a unhealthy Western diet. Not a low carbohydrate carnivore diet.
All the diet comparisons I have seen have compared only to standard American.
Just about anything beats standard American over the course of the few months it takes for vitamin deficiencies to kick in
I’m going to respond here, this is just a placeholder while I write up my response.
Thanks!
Newspaper / Opinion 1
“In summary, I think a ‘carnivore diet’ is inappropriate for human health, bad for the health of our planet, abusive of the human labour force that handles the preparation of meat, abusive of animal rights and welfare,” he said.
Expert opinion is the least credible form of evidence, and does not speak to poor health outcomes, not science, no response.
Since I imagine the tire fire from this post will be epic, I’m going to respond to each point individually in its own comment. I wont talk across points on different threads - keep the conversation on each issue topical.
Good approach
I'm not trying to recruit people
Nor I, but I can't help but tell those I care about how much dumping veg helped me
Fibre / Fiber :
By skipping fruits and vegetables, people likely won’t get enough fiber in their diets, which can affect gut health. They also will miss out on carotenoids and polyphenols, substances with antioxidant properties that have been linked to lower risk of chronic diseases such as Type 2 diabetes and some types of cancer. Animal products also contain high amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol.
Is fiber a necessary macro-nutrient?
Dietary Guidelines for Americans (Latest Edition)
Essential Nutrient—A vitamin, mineral, fatty acid, or amino acid required for normal body functioning that either cannot be synthesized by the body at all, or cannot be synthesized in amounts adequate for good health, and thus must be obtained from a dietary source. Other food components, such as dietary fiber, while not essential, also are considered to be nutrients. - Pg 91
Fiber is NOT ESSENTIAL FOR HUMAN LIFE.
.
Fiber IS NOT NECESSARY, as demonstrated in this post (publish expert opinion, weak science), and the 1930's 1 year strict carnivore hospital study post (published case series, stronger science).
For a standard nutritional analysis of carnivore post (mechanistic analysis, weak) -
By completely excluding plants, the carnivore diet provides zero dietary fibre. There is no estimated average requirement (EAR) or RDI for dietary fibre;
One postulated benefit coming from the exclusion of fibre in the carnivore diet is a significant reduction in antinutrients. Antinutrients include lectins, oxalates, phytates, phytoestrogens, and tannins [41]. They are thought to restrict the bioavailability of various nutrients, and if absorbed in excess, may disrupt various physiological processes. For example, oxalate hyperabsorption, which occurs more commonly in individuals with gastrointestinal disorders, is associated with the formation of oxalate kidney stones [42]. Phytate, which is found in cereal grains, nuts, seeds, and legumes, acts as a strong chelator of mineral cations, impeding the bioavailability of copper, zinc, and iron in the diet [41]. Given that fibre and plant-sourced antinutrients compete with mineral absorption [43,44], it is plausible that not consuming plants could lead to lower net requirements of those nutrients.
Based on our analysis, individuals following a carnivore diet may consider supplemental fibre intake to achieve the AI, however, dietary fibre may not be necessary in all cases and, theoretically, could off-set some of the intended effects of the diet itself.
Given the totality of the above it is not credible to say fiber is a essential macronutrient. Is it optimal for human health? That is a interesting, and open research question.
From personal experience I know people with Crohn's disease, and IBS are are strict carnivores who are still alive after many years, so fiber isn't a necessity (anecdotal data, case studies if your feeling generous, weak evidence)
Constipation RCT
Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms
CONCLUSION: Idiopathic constipation and its associated symptoms can be effectively reduced by stopping or even lowering the intake of dietary fiber.
slide
This was a 6 month study focused on constipation, not human health in general, but none of the 41 people died, and they pooped better too
General discussion of fibre beyond "Necessity" and "Safety"
As an aside, I think its reasonable to say Fiber (since it diminishes/reduces absorption of nutrients, reduces transit time) may be a net benefit on a standard Western diet (unhealthy by default). Fiber is a good way to even out blood sugar spikes, but if your eating carnivore your not eating carbohydrates and not having blood sugar spikes anyway.
Fibre also absorbs moisture (its just wood), Fibre is not a lubricant, its a dry bulking agent.
Lots of the fiber "benefits" are claimed to be due to short-chain-fatty-acid production in the intestine... which then produce... ketones.... which a carnivore diet already produces (and are available to the colonocytes in greater abundance this way and get to EVERY colonocyte, not just the ones in contact with the fiber)
SCFAs Plant vs Animal
Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome
Here is a comparison of SCFAs on different diets.......
Human gut vs Herbivore gut
Humans have a vastly reduced (cecum)[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecum#Other_animals] compared to Herbivores
Most mammalian herbivores have a relatively large cecum. In many species, it is considerably wider than the colon. For some herbivores such as lagomorphs (rabbits, hares, pikas), easily digestible food is processed in the gastrointestinal tract and expelled as regular feces. But in order to get nutrients out of hard to *digest fiber, lagomorphs ferment fiber in the cecum and then expel the contents as cecotropes, which are reingested (cecotrophy).
These two lectures were on my "to review" list, but since my hand was forced here they are, if you are interested in the science of fiber
@[email protected] I think you have your conclusion, mods and admins probably don't want to get involved unless their hand is forced. I don't think your going to see any TOS changes, just the absence of enforcement.
Regarding cardiac health, carnivore, and cholesterol there was/is a study of "lean mass hyper responders" (LMHR)
Those are people whose cholesterol went very high after adopting the carnivore diet
The first paper out of the study showed the LMHR group had far less coronary plaque than the matched controls
The second paper is going up tell us whether their coronary health improves or deteriorates
Ken Berry on the study – YouTube
A search on YouTube for LMHR finds a lot of videos. I think the two I linked link the paper
The carnivore diet only resurged from the 1800s because some insecure men wanted to spite the vegans.
This community needs to be desperately shut down.
Just fetched most of the comments to Lemmy.ca, and subscribed using this account
Nobody is doing carnivore to spite vegans. Maybe there are trolls who go to a vegan cookout and eat meat in front of them, but a carnivore lifestyle is restrictive it's not something you do for a joke.
At no point in my journey did I even think about vegans once. Not everything is about vegans.
Nobody is spending thousands of dollars on high quality meat to spite the vegans. People are not giving up sugar and chocolate to spite the vegans. Regenerative agriculture isn't using ruminant animals to increase top soil fertility to spite vegans. People are not losing weight to spite the vegans. People are not reversing their T2DM to spite the vegans. etc...
not everything is about the vegans.
insecure men wanted to spite the vegans.
This community needs to be desperately shut down.
Yes, sweetie. Meat is also tasty just to piss off vegans 😂