I appreciate that. And incidentally, I also appreciate anecdotal experience; I do it all the time.
While I have real belief in the utility of an animal-based diet, I do think you have to guard against dogmatic beliefs and the inclination to go on the defensive anytime conflicting evidence is introduced.
Presenting conflicting evidence is defensive by definition…
Rather than animosity, there might be a bit of scoffing. ( In a lighthearted way, of course. )
How does one defend their ( contrary ) position without presenting conflicting evidence?
Well, it is possible to deconstruct an argument whether you believe it or otherwise. It is about challenging the evidence on its merit dispassionately.
I wouldn’t be on these forums if I didn’t believe in an animal-based diet. However, I am alive to the challenges, such as the question around peripheral insulin resistance on a KD (which I flagged up earlier in this thread - and what feels like a long time ago!) Whether we like it or not, matters like these are well-established in the literature and, I believe, it’s about understanding it rather than blindly trying to discredit it or relying on inferior sources of evidence. Sorry if that came across as a rant. 
While we have a strong carnivore contingent here, we also have a surprising number of vegetarian and vegan ketoers, who are equally welcome. As I mentioned, it’s just more difficult to eat this way without meat, but it can be done.
No, but you are going to run into resistance here when you try to rely on mainstream nutrition science. And this is not prejudice against science in general, but a recognition that nutrition science is a nightmare.
As Gary Taubes points out, some of the difficulties of doing real, scientifically valid research are insuperable. As a result, researchers tend to rely on epidemiological data, which at best can only uncover correlations for further investigation. And anyone who has actually read a food-frequency questionnaire will easily realise why certain researchers call any data based on one into serious question.
Some research is actually fraudulent. The story of how Ancel Keys manipulated the data from 22 countries to come up with his famous Seven Countries Study (which he used to blame coronary heart disease on saturated fat in the diet) is well-known, as are his machinations to destroy the career of John Yudkin, the British researcher who proposed an alternative to his “diet-heart hypothesis.”
Meanwhile, Keys’s buddy Walter Willet, according to published sugar industry memoranda, was taking money at the time from the sugar industry to vilify fat and play up the health benefits of eating sugar.
Lastly, David Diamond, a neuroscientist at the University of South Florida, has several lectures available on YouTube, in which he demonstrates the flawed statistics used to justify the widespread prescription of statins.
Given all this, you can surely see why most of us approach nutrition studies with such a degree of scepticism.
One of my favorites…
And then there are the studies where they compare whole wheat flour to white four, and conclude whole wheat is better for you… Yeah, right…
And we all know low nicotine cigarettes are better for you than the plain unfiltered ones…
Absolutely, and if you have any spare time you can check my posts on these forums to see if I have cited any epidemiological studies. The answer should be zero.
I tend to concentrate on randomised controlled trials, which can be good or not so good, of course, depending on how they were conducted.
There is some promising clinical evidence around as well, of course. But there is a real risk that theory is being treated as fact, or validation for someone’s personal belief. That’s clearly wrong.
@amwassil @Jamesbrawn007 @OldDog @PaulL @Digital_Dave @ffskier I am thoroughly enjoying this scrappy conversation! It reminds me of The Civil War Round Table…a group of older gentlemen who met in the library every month to rehash and argue battle strategies from the civil war. (Their ancestors) It could get heated and they all left with unchanged opinions but it was a great camaraderie. They left as friends and would stand out in the parking lot and laugh and talk afterward. Anyway, thanks for the friendly banter. I would join in but I am as clueless about what cavemen ate as I am about battle strategies.
Well, I tend to try and refrain from making statements on subjects that I have not studied intensely, or that I don’t have personal first hand knowledge on. Such as, say, what the Dinosaurs ate. Instead you may just get my thoughtful wishful thinkings on how things may have been. … Such as, I would like to think that maybe a young teenage T-Rex, hmm, we’ll call him Benny, 
- Well Benny might have indeed liked the occasional side salad? Who’s to say? Probably would help to know that there was a smaller mammal hiding in that there bush… but who’s to say he didn’t enjoy it? Even a little. 
And maybe from time to time, while he was chowing down on a nice big ole’ meaty meal, he might stop mid-chew and think to himself, hmm, I bet some noice aged Cheese would go well with this one… Me gusta el queso! 
… What? You honestly think that Dino’s only spoke English? How rude!
And don’t even get me started on how things will really blow up around the world, when they finally find that long lost “Candy Cave”. When they find those hieroglyphs finally proving that Snickers, MilkyWay and even things like Kit-Kats have been around for Thousands or possibly Millions of years! 
