Nutrition 100% Carnivore

[Al Ciampa]

The Carnivore Diet Is the Latest Fad to Ignore That Food Does More Than Just Feed Us - Tonic

A well written and argued piece about reducing everything down to nutrition and missing out on many pleasures that life can offer. It is focused on carnivore but it really could be any 'miracle' diet.

Yes, no doubt at all. This is no argument against living healthy.

Living a culturally rich life can be part and parcel of why you might find yourself in a poor state of health. Many, many, many people have discovered that they just cannot partake in typical bouts of celebration and maintain health. It is a choice that one has to make.

 

[North Coast Miller]

The Carnivore Diet Is the Latest Fad to Ignore That Food Does More Than Just Feed Us - Tonic

A well written and argued piece about reducing everything down to nutrition and missing out on many pleasures that life can offer. It is focused on carnivore but it really could be any 'miracle' diet.

Hmmm, lets break this down.

No historical analog, chronically high BG, low T and no beer - what's not to love?

98% of the way there indeed - send me a postcard.

 

[ali]

Living a culturally rich life can be part and parcel of why you might find yourself in a poor state of health. Many, many, many people have

Very true. Party, party, overeat, over drink, over work and under sleep. Tackling one enormous unbequeathable cluster*uck of excess with an unnecessary excessive diet of rules and a total exclusion of an entire food group is, well, extreme.
Perhaps the situation calls for extreme measures, I don't know!

 

[Marc]

Being 100% carnivore is actually one of the most unsustainable ways to eat and again, I can really see no benefit to it. Rather the contrary.
Concerning celebrations and cultural life: it is true that you cannot have your cake and eat it always and all the time and if this is one's primary focus then the individual might want to seriously rethink his/her attitude towards food/drink or the company, if she/he is constantly surrounded by people who endorse such behaviour.
Also: there are plenty of cultural events that do revolve around food and in fact are even mire enjoyable in their pure form. Think about art, music, science etc.

 

[Deleted member 316]

Meat-heavy, low-carb diets can 'shorten lifespan': study

 

[Al Ciampa]

Very true. Party, party, overeat, over drink, over work and under sleep. Tackling one enormous unbequeathable cluster*uck of excess with an unnecessary excessive diet of rules and a total exclusion of an entire food group is, well, extreme.
Perhaps the situation calls for extreme measures, I don't know!

Ali, note that I’m not defending eating this way. I’m simply saying that the “usual” about society tends to be unhealthy.

 

[North Coast Miller]

Ali, note that I’m not defending eating this way. I’m simply saying that the “usual” about society tends to be unhealthy.

Very true. Or the traditional meal recipes and eating habits are no longer applicable when combined with sedentary lifestyles and huge portions.

I worry/consider more and more the chemical load that is dumped on our bodies and ingested, even with a thoughtful diet. Makes it very difficult to isolate what might be irritating one's digestive system - is it a particular macro, sub unit or is it just the specific chemicals that are ubiquitous to a given food item?

Gluten intolerance is a particularly curious one - used to be extremely rare and now is common. I find it hard to believe this generation just discovered some universal truth re starchy grains that previous generations was somehow oblivious to. Yet even with heirloom grains many folk have a tough time eating what amounts to the same basic bread the Roman Legionnaires ate every morning and part of the day, every day, for years on end while performing at a very high level of individual capability.

Personally I am extremely suspicious of any exclusionary diet. Only by eating a good variety can you avoid a build-up of the unknown knowns that are present in just about everything we eat and drink.

 

[ali]

I’m simply saying that the “usual” about society tends to be unhealthy.

Yes. That's precisely why I find it all desperately puzzling.

 

[Snowman]

missing out on many pleasures that life can offer.

I would note, as someone who has responded remarkably well to a carnivore diet (which is certainly not to be expected for everyone), I feel pretty darn satisfied. I don't have cravings for anything besides meat, and then it's usually only when I'm actually hungry. When I am hungry, I thoroughly enjoy a grilled medium-rare steak, as much as I can ever recall enjoying any food. If I really felt like I was missing something, I would eat it.

Meat-heavy, low-carb diets can 'shorten lifespan': study

I do have a few issues with this study. I'm a big fan of science and all, but mis-interpreted research is a little tricky. The study you linked (full study here) does have good information, but there are a few things I think should be pointed out:

• The food intake assumptions are based on questionnaires, meaning the data is only as good as human recall
• The "low carb" quintile is people who get up to 37% of their calories from carbs. Most people would agree that this isn't "low carb"
• The low carb quintile also smokes the most, exercises the least, and eats the fewest calories overall
• Geographic changes that would influence both diet and other health-influencing factors are not measured or accounted for

The quality of the data, the definitions of the data, and confounding variables make this kind of study difficult to hang your hat on. Sure, it's a good way to start looking at patterns and observing connections, but it's far from being immediately useful.

 

[mprevost]

I would note, as someone who has responded remarkably well to a carnivore diet (which is certainly not to be expected for everyone), I feel pretty darn satisfied. I don't have cravings for anything besides meat, and then it's usually only when I'm actually hungry. When I am hungry, I thoroughly enjoy a grilled medium-rare steak, as much as I can ever recall enjoying any food. If I really felt like I was missing something, I would eat it.


I do have a few issues with this study. I'm a big fan of science and all, but mis-interpreted research is a little tricky. The study you linked (full study here) does have good information, but there are a few things I think should be pointed out:

• The food intake assumptions are based on questionnaires, meaning the data is only as good as human recall
• The "low carb" quintile is people who get up to 37% of their calories from carbs. Most people would agree that this isn't "low carb"
• The low carb quintile also smokes the most, exercises the least, and eats the fewest calories overall
• Geographic changes that would influence both diet and other health-influencing factors are not measured or accounted for

The quality of the data, the definitions of the data, and confounding variables make this kind of study difficult to hang your hat on. Sure, it's a good way to start looking at patterns and observing connections, but it's far from being immediately useful.

Good observations. The CORE study had almost 10X the number of subjects and saw something different. Look at the mortality curve below. But realistically, mortality was not statistically increased until carb intake exceeded about 70% of calories. Study abstract his here: Dietary prevention of coronary heart disease: the Finnish Mental Hospital Study. - PubMed - NCBI

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

...mis-interpreted research is a little tricky.

Snap Shots

Agreed. One of the issues is that research provides "Snap Shot" of information rather than providing the "Whole Picture.

It reminds me of this...

Analogy

Aliens visit a Basketball Game and report back the following.

1) Playing Baketball makes you tall,

2) Sitting in the bleacher makes you short.

The food intake assumptions are based on questionnaires, meaning the data is only as good as human recall

Quetionares

Surveys like this are of limited value. As noted, human recall is incredibly inaccurate.

As a case in point, that is one of the reason that there is "Under Reporting" when it come to calorie intake. One weight loss documentary followed a woman around who stated that she consumed 1800 kcal a day when it was actually around 3200 kcal a day.

Another point is the inaccuracy of "Eye Witnesses" to an event. Two individual at the same event often have different stories.

Controlled Studies

The ONLY way to ensure greater research accuracy is to fully control the environment of those tested; which is impossible with human for various reason. That is one of the reason mice are used.

The "low carb" quintile is people who get up to 37% of their calories from carbs. Most people would agree that this isn't "low carb"

Low Carbohydrate

I see this as being a lower carbohydrate diet that the Traditional Western Diet but NOT Low Carbohydrate.

Evidently, the researcher in this group came up with their own definition.

This reminds me of Bill Clinton who claimed that he didn't have sex with Monica Lewinsky. Clinton redefined the term for what sex was. Thus, based on his own definition, Clinton was correct...he did not have sex with her.

The quality of the data, the definitions of the data, and confounding variables make this kind of study difficult to hang your hat on. Sure, it's a good way to start looking at patterns and observing connections, but it's far from being immediately useful.

"The devil is in the details."

Agreed. A research study provides some clues. Those clues need to be cross referenced with additional supportive and conflicting data.

Quick Simple Answers

One huge issue is that the majority of individual want a quick simple easy answer to a complex question.

They want a "Yes" or "No"; preferably no answer longer than one sentence.

Reading The Complete Article or Research

One of the keys in the analysis of of research article is the References. At times, items are taken out of context; the information is misrepresented or misunderstood.

However, few individual are willing to examine the reference because it is tedious and time consuming.

This bring me to one of my pet peeves of...

"I Don't Have Time for..."(fill in the blank)

It is not that individual don't have time, it's that...

"They Don't Make Time"

You "Make Time" for things that you like and want to do; you don't have time for things you don't like or want to do. This remind me of...

Summary

Reading research article amounts to being cop in an investigation.

You interview each witness or suspect individually and see if they come up with the same answer; only in this case, you review various research.

As someone said, there are two side to every story.

Kenny Croxale

 

[ali]

From the study:

Both high and low percentages of carbohydrate diets were associated with increased mortality, with minimal risk observed at 50–55% carbohydrate intake. Low carbohydrate dietary patterns favouring animal-derived protein and fat sources, from sources such as lamb, beef, pork, and chicken, were associated with higher mortality, whereas those that favoured plant-derived protein and fat intake, from sources such as vegetables, nuts, peanut butter, and whole-grain breads, were associated with lower mortality, suggesting that the source of food notably modifies the association between carbohydrate intake and mortality."

I agree questionnaires are dodgy, many other variables to consider too, certainly. As indeed the authors note:
'There are limitations to this study that merit consideration'......like any good scientific disclaimer.

But, but, but they did actually get the information first hand, very recently ie they didn't guess what someone may have eaten 100000 years ago.

Is this not a balanced view, despite possible flawed methodology?
They 'suggest' (not with absolute certainty) the source of food modifies the association of carbs to mortality risk; that moderation offers the lowest risk, not high, not low but moderate.
Consider your views of the very same methods had they found that meat eating and low or zero carb intake represented the lowest mortality risk group. Would it be questionable methodology then?
Absolutely, nutritional science is fraught with methodological shortcomings, it is only right and proper to scrutinise every detail. Or, the best scientific paper ever published since Newton?
The findings though were the findings, in this study. More studies will follow, more knowledge gained, more suggestions made to further more knowledge. Perhaps there will be a peer reviewed nutritional scientific paper that suggests the carnivore diet is the optimum human diet for an omnivorous species. There is no doubt, none, it is not up for debate, we are omnivores.
Of course that does not discount yours or anyone's experience with any diet, good or bad because, er, we are omnivores.

So, this study, 50% of carbs represents the lowest risk to mortality and the food groups which provide this - plants, fruit and veg, nuts, plant fat and protein sources......that still leaves 50% to fill your plate, perhaps some animals?

Let's say the common 2500 cal a day for a bloke, that's 1250 cal of carbs. 4 cals per gram giving 312 grammes.
I don't count calories so referencing one of those charts a baked potato is between 200-270, a banana 100. So that's that. Of course eat a lot more of lower caloried veg for variety. Hardly pancreatic beta cell nuclear fall out. Yes a double whoppercino with chips, popcorn and a hotdog will send you well over the limit. But we know this, hardly surprising. No apples fell on the researchers' heads, no new universal laws were discovered.

Or consider this, the average bloke can store 150 grams of so of liver glycogen, 400-500 muscle glycogen depending on muscle.
For us lot, 300 grammes a day isn't really much, no?

SO really, the 50% of carbs representing the lowest risk to mortality isn't really very much, is it? Especially if it comes from food. At least these researchers identified 'fruit and veg' to be different from doughnuts in the high carb intake because in both the high carb and low carb groups fruit and veg were both low.

I don't see any great revelation in this paper, it just shows that we are omnivores and 'suggests' the 'eat plants and animals, mostly plants' is a pretty good base. Also it supports a Pavellian view: meat for strength, veg for health. And it supports the view of millions and millions and millions of people who eat a varied moderate diet around the world and live a healthy life who don't have an instagram account.

Or is it all just bad science.

 

[offwidth]

Here is an open question to all of the people who are doing and/or researched 100% Carnivore:

What is your take on fibre and colo-rectal health? Much of the mainstream medical information suggests that diets high in meat and low in fibre is not good from that perspective.

Thoughts?

 

[Snowman]

millions and millions and millions of people who eat a varied moderate diet around the world and live a healthy life who don't have an instagram account.

Indeed, but if they don't instagram their food, does it really count? As the Information Age gives way to the Social Media Age, prioritizing information by quality gives way to prioritizing it by viewability and provocativeness...Ok maybe I'm being a little dramatic

But I agree, we are omnivores, and the decision about what to eat has many influencing factors.

What is your take on fibre and colo-rectal health?

I see colon health in two regards; colon cancer and mechanical issues like diverticulosis.
The often cited correlation between meat and colon cancer is an odds ratio (strength of correlation) of just under 1.2. It takes an odds ratio of at least 2 to imply causality. For what it's worth, the odds ratio between tobacco and lung cancer is around 27 or 28. There has been considerable research done on fiber and colon cancer, and it does seem to help. It helps the most when people replace processed plant food with fiber-rich whole plant food. There is also research to suggest that adding supplemental fiber to an existing diet will help some. Adding fiber to a meal generally slows the post-prandial increase in blood sugar, which dampens the insulin response. So is the fiber helpful because it does something to the intestinal wall, or because it reduces insulin related pathology? It's also worth noting, in the epidemiological studies that display a relationship between meat and colon cancer (i.e. those conducted in America), the people eating more meat engage in generally less healthy behavior (more smoking, drinking, processed food, etc). After decades of anti-animal product nutrition advice, the health conscious people are eating less meat, in addition to all the other stuff they do to protect themselves. This is referred to as the "healthy user bias." In the China Study, there was actually a mildly inverse correlation between animal protein intake and colon cancer (but still not to the point of statistical or clinical significance). I'm generally unconcerned about any increase in cancer risk on a fiber-free diet.

With regard to diverticulosis, a high fiber diet is sometimes recommended, since it speeds along stool transit time. However, it also increases stool bulk, which increases intra-colonic pressure. From an engineering perspective, it seems like it might be better to decrease pressure when one is concerned about the integrity of the colon wall. Not surprisingly, people with diverticulosis who transition to a nearly fiber-free diet often decrease or eliminate the occurrence of diverticulitis. It might also be worth noting that people with a history of bowel obstruction often do better on low/no fiber diets as well. Essentially, if there's a mechanical issue with how the gut is handling stool, it could be worth it to test a range of fiber intakes to see what works best.

As always, I will point to the various indigenous peoples that have traditionally eaten diets largely free of fiber. As far as we know, they have very low rates of colon cancer. In fact, they have very low rates of GI issues and cancers in general. Just like most people who eat a traditional diet free of processed food.

 

[offwidth]

@Snowman
Thanks for the detailed response...

 

[Snowman]

Just like most people who eat a traditional diet free of processed food.

Edit: Just like most people who live traditionally, eating a diet free of processed food, meeting the physical demands of minimally-industrialized life, and sharing social connections inherent to their traditional societies.

It's easy to get over-focused on nutrition. While I think nutrition is at least half the battle, it's certainly not the only thing that matters.

 

[ali]

As the Information Age gives way to the Social Media Age, prioritizing information by quality gives way to prioritizing it by viewability and provocativeness...Ok maybe I'm being a little dramatic

No, I don't think you are. It's the rapidity with which information can spread - good and bad information. Not wishing to get political here (ahem) but that issue is very, very real. Propaganda, distortions call it what you will - fake news - isn't new at all, just the mechanism for its delivery has changed.
Inboxes from whatever social media site you visit can be manipulated for you only to get information that confirms and bolsters your belief system whilst blocking other views, opinions and beliefs contrary to your ever growing deeper belief. Gladly, not here where open debate is encouraged in the form of democracy for strength and health! So you raise a very important point.
Fake health news is probably the oldest one going, isn't it? Miracle cures and potions, diets, lifestyles and general made up wellness nonsense have been around long before instagram and social media. It's not all nonsense, of course. And then there is the very real health concerns, individual health, public health and actual science getting thrown into the mix. Deciphering what is real, somewhat real, well maybe some truth in it, oh, I doubt that to the full Gwyneth Paltrow spectrum of fact/interesting narrative/total fiction makes it all very interesting. We really need science, open debate and critical thinking before the earth actually returns to being flat again.

This guy reckons most people with gut issues could do with less fibre (note the spelling, haha):

About Fiber Menace by Konstantin Monastyrsky

 

[North Coast Miller]

Edit: Just like most people who live traditionally, eating a diet free of processed food, meeting the physical demands of minimally-industrialized life, and sharing social connections inherent to their traditional societies.

It's easy to get over-focused on nutrition. While I think nutrition is at least half the battle, it's certainly not the only thing that matters.

I think the issue when you read across forums - many people just have really screwed up digestion. Is probably not an actual macro issue, I keep coming back to the chemical load we carry and how it might effect metabolism - leading people to try 'snake oil' nutrition.

But...by making big changes many people get relief. It doesn't seem to matter if they go from carnivore to veg or vice versa, crappy habits to paleo etc, the fact they are making a change alone is enough to cause an improvement in their digestive health. I find it hard to believe our nutritional requirements have become so individual in the absence of other factors.

I'm not going to throw in for any particular diet, but I am a firm believer there is a toxin load in every food we eat and the specific toxins are related to the way specific foods are grown and harvested, be they meat or veg, wild or domesticated - pretty much every critter on the planet has a large number of chemicals in their blood many of which are proven to be genetically or metabolically active. Variety is the prudent strategy.

 

[Snowman]

I find it hard to believe our nutritional requirements have become so individual in the absence of other factors.

I would agree. While I often use language like "figure out what works for you," I think the individualization of diet (or any behavior for that matter) is 20% physiology and 80%psychology. People need to find a nutritional strategy that not only nourishes their body, but also supports their lifestyle without causing undue stress. Most differences we see between individuals seem to have more to do with dietary history than any actual genetic or morphological difference, meaning they're often trainable and temporary. Yes, certain people can digest certain compounds more/less effectively, and some people are more/less sensitive to certain compounds, but the concrete differences in physiology between individuals is really pretty small, in my opinion.

 

[Kenny Croxdale]

...certain people can digest certain compounds more/less effectively, and some people are more/less sensitive to certain compounds, but the concrete differences in physiology between individuals is really pretty small, in my opinion.

More Alike Than Dis-Alike

The "differences in physiology between individual is...Small", it's a fact, not opinion.

That is why the majority of individual with certain type of illness respond to the same medications, calories in calories out for losing or gaining weight, training protocols, etc

With that said, within every groups there are small percentage of "Snowflakes"...

1) Non-Reponders: Individual who have limited success.

2) Super-Responders: Individual who obtain unbelievable results.

Kenny Croxdale