Every food commercial, advertisement, and packaging in the US is currently protein obsessed. I just bought 3 burritos, and the most noticeable thing on the entire package is its protein content. TV commercials about waffles are advertising that they have X amount of protein per serving. The products in my jobsite’s vending machine have protein all over every package.
Did America have a protein thing recently?
Just to give an example to make a point, smoking cigarettes achieve similar results: more energy, lower weight, better cognition in the short term. Doesn’t mean it’s better for you!
I can give you diet instructions proven to do the same not only in the short term but the long term as well. Most carnivore benefits share some benefits with many other scientifically proven better diets, but the benefits subside drastically after mere months to a year typically.
The nutritional deficits and anti-nutrients associated culminate to exacerbate health issues in the longterm.
There is no scientific peer reviewed consensus support for carnivore diet. If you need an elimination diet there are also better diet. If it’s temporary and works for you to figure out sensitivities, just exercise caution!
You have done very definite beliefs there
I doubt you can find better. I’ve been in online zero carb communities for long enough to have heard everything people have said this diet mitigates. I have never heard such a list for low carb, for example, nor from low fat or mediterranean.
The moderator of /r/zerocarb had been doing the diet for about 7 years when I was there regularly. I have been eating only meat for three years and am not feeling any ill effects.
Deficits? What nutrient isn’t found in beef? Cows are made of the same stuff as us. Anti nutrients? That’s a thing plants do - lock up nutrients to make them hard to extract; packaging them with anti nutrients to remove the benefit of eating them. Animals don’t engage in chemical warfare against the things that eat them, cows use horns and hooves. Plants use chemicals. Nothing wants to be eaten.
Of course there is little research on the zero carb diet. There are few people using it. The only stuff I’m aware of is on the specific health problems the diet seems to fix, the only controlled study I know of was on the heart health impacts of the diet (people on zero carb who exercise a lot have very high LDL cholesterol. We now know that cholesterol in that population is not associated with cardiac plaques)
Studies are rare because nearly no one follows the diet so governments don’t care, there’s no money from the meat industry for diet science, and unlike plant based diets there’s no large religion promoting the diet.
Please cite scientific peer reviewed studies backing your claims. Science isn’t litigated by consensus.
What specific claim I made are you interested in to start? Please give 1-3. I’d rather not do a wild goose chase of moving goalposts.
Litigated among experts? Probably not. The problem is your use To Litigate inherently, circularly, suggests dispute; but of course, if you have significant consensus, then there is also little to no dispute and thus little to no litigation. Scientific Consensus is absolutely a pillar nonetheless. Especially among laypersons. Peer-review by way of Systematic Reviews deploying meta-analysis, and especially albeit not limited to Cochrane studies do tend to attempt to draw consensus. These further reinforced when medical experts associations (e.g., AHA, AMA, AND) and regulatory agencies crafting food guidelines follow suit. From Canada to Norway (both outperforming US in health outcomes, generally) none of these dispute the findings, nor recommend anything remotely close to a Carnivore Diet for this reason.
Expert consensus was key in overcoming the deluge of conspiracy theory misinformation propaganda originating largely from right-wing sources on matters ranging from Climate Change, to Vaccinations during the coronavirus pandemic; and just like these two, so too is the misinformation surrounding diet originating significantly from far-right and pro-business sources as opposed to any threshold of scientific peer-review one would deem consensus.
Nobody said it better than Bertrand Russell, that when the conglomeration of expert belief and evidence points to a certain conclusion, then the layperson would be wise to follow.
Edit: I see now why the perplexing skepticism, given one moderates “Friendly Carnivore”, as well as “Low Carb High Fat - Ketogenic”
Great, where is the rct data?
This doesn’t match the literature i have read at all, as long as the fat metabolism is maintained so are the benefits.
There are no demonstrated deficits, and what anti-nutrients are you referring to? The only anti-nutrients i’m aware of are in plant foods.
That isn’t saying much, there are no RCTs for any diet. Keto is the diet with the most publication papers on it
Why does it need to be temporary? I’m cautious, what should i be looking for?
Yes, RCTs do exist. I’m curious why one denies such an easily-found claim. Have you done much research yourself into this topic?
In their conclusion, for emphasis:
Epidemiological evidence is further considerably high and most beneficial in matters related to diet and longevity or health outcomes, given the statistical long-term focus capacity of these types of studies. The two are thus very much complementary in the world of nutrition study.
These further reinforced when medical experts associations (e.g., AHA, AMA, AND) and regulatory agencies crafting food guidelines follow suit. These expert associations all have a strong leaning toward promoting a diet closely adherent to the Mediterranean or DASH diet, and much further away from something like a carnivore diet, paleo, caveman, keto, etc.
I think most importantly, is by contrast limited to no RCTs or corroborating epidemiological studies indicating carnivore diet outperforming other diets, let alone as found by systematic peer review, cochrane studies performing meta-analysis.
Side note but have you heard of Blue Zones? Highest concentrations of populations of centenarians? Their diets have nothing in common with Carnivore Diet.
To the contrary:
Precisely as I originally stated. What “literature you read” goes counter to this conclusion?
Carnivore diet tends to be lacking in a host of micro and phyto-nutrients, ranging from Vitamin C, Potassium, fiber, folate, thiamin (b-vitamins), and maybe in my opinion the most important, antioxidants given the anti-nutrient properties of NOCs, LPOs, HCAs, and PAHs one is commonly exposed to on this diet (leaving aside Neu5Gc, which I need to do more research on). There’s a reason why the link between red meat and colorectal cancer is strongly established in meta-analysis peer reviewed literature, and that Red Meat and Processed red meats are Class 2A and 1 carcinogens as defined by the WHO.
Kidney stones, appendicitis risk all increase under these diets as well; and possibly gallbladder inflammation and stones as well.
Look I’ve been both meat eater and vegetarian over my life. I’m not super into pissing contests over this, I’m just trying to help you out. To this day I practice vegetarianism but slightly counter to that, I am actually convinced of the scientific literature and widespread consensus that some variation of a whole foods mostly plant-based diet with a little bit of fish like the Mediterranean or DASH diet are optimal. This is what I recommend to my aging parents and what I have my children on. I’m just saying, don’t fall for the immediate pitfall because I noticed you deflected my valid point as to the short-term benefits of. If you’ve got tunnel-vision on body-weight, then there is less risk associated with just taking GLP-1 (though you could just up your fiber intake and probably get the same result once your microbiome adapts; farting is generally not a bad thing).
Again while there are a few short-term benefits to the carnivore diet in terms of weight-loss and brain fog, these are not unique inclusive to carnivore diet that cannot be found elsewhere; and at the same time, there are lost nutrients and elevated risks associated therewith that aren’t found in other diets. So why do it?
What specific evidence let you to choose Carnivore Diet over something like DASH or Mediterranean Diet? Are you drawn to it as a result of taste preference?
I’ll leave you with one final thing to note. The following study was conducted in partnership with 5 different universities across multiple countries in a 30 year follow-up, and the dietary patterns revealed therefrom:
What’s going on in the chart at the end? Fast food looks greener than legumes.
I was wondering that, too. I think the category is possibly too general. “Fast and fried foods” may point to, say, an Asian stir fry place, like a Mongolian grill or Thai place full of vegetables, seafood, etc. as opposed to say, McDonald’s (and note where french fries and meat are by comparison). Why it’s out of order relative to the other green-rated foods with positive outcomes, I’m not sure – but maybe it’s a matter of weighing the total number of samples within that category (and thus it has a lower significant difference)?
Seeing Wine higher than Tea was also interesting to me, but there is a known social element to longevity, leaving aside a lack of control for added sugars in coffee and tea in this.
I agree.
I wasn’t so surprised by tea / coffee because most people add sugar and diary to it. Like you said, alcohol is associated with diseases like cancer but it does reduce stress and helps you bond with others.
I’m guessing you haven’t actually read the study you just cited.
The RCT you cite did not have a zero carb arm, or a ketogenic arm, so it is not a RCT that backs up your claim that carnivore has been offset by better science, i.e. no RCT of carnivore and your pet diet. Your study is not actually a RCT, it’s not a controlled trial, it uses the PREDIMED data over 8 years - the population was at risk elder dwelling community members for CVD. The study was verified with food frequency questionnaires. The three groups in the study were 1. “control” low fat, 2. MD + olive oil 3. MD + nuts; AT BEST - this study can inform you of associations (not causation) of people doing best effort low fat vs medeterrian. To be clear this study does not resolve questions about optimal or best diets, which you implied. It’s not a controlled study, verification of diet adherence is problematic in FFQs.
Just because people haven’t collected the data it doesn’t make observational epidemiology any more relevant to inform on cause and effect.
Clearly we have different standards for evidence in science - https://hackertalks.com/post/15439661
Before proceeding further, please acknowledge one moved the goalpost:
From: “there are no RCT studies for any diet” --> to “there ARE in fact RCT studies indicating efficacy of Mediterranean Diet in isolation.”
If one cannot acknowledge this, then clearly we have a different understanding of logical fallacies (blanket statements, goalpost moving, strawman) and without a basic foundation of logic I have no interest going further.
Edit: Bonus:
That’s fair, there was a RCT of MED vs Low fat, but in the context of our conversation: it doesn’t prove a scientifically better diet then carnivore. And epidemiology is hardly a RCT, not real controls in this trial.
Regardless we are not going to have a productive discussion, i wish you well, but i’m calling it here.
lol works for me. Take care!