Carnivore claims about plant foods

(G Whistler) #1

Please show me the science surrounding the claims as to the effects of antinutrients/lack of bioavailability/toxins found in plant food.

For example; oxalates are found in plants and, for some, can be a problem. They also bind with calcium. But for most they, according to comment, don’t seem to be a problem.

Same with all these elements. I am completely confused as to what the truth is. I’ve heard all this from carniovre advocates, but mostly biased because they havce a particular issue with those elements and so must avoid them. Yet they represent an outlier group.

Please show me the science because plants do seem to be, at worst, superior sources of some, perhaps only a few, nutrients

(Rob Grantham) #2

When it comes to superior sources of nutrition animal sources win hands down. Not only are animal foods more nutrient dense they also offer us greater bioavaliability manyplants just simply don’t contain certain nutrients. Vitamin d, k2,b12 and a as well as cholesterol. The human body needs these to be healthy. We can survive even thrive on animal products alone.not so with plants. There is lots of information about antinutrient contents of various plant species. I suppose a good way to eliminate risk would be to not eat plants

(Eric - The patient needs to be patient!) #3

I heard Dr. Paul Mason talk about this on a podcast recently. Not sure which one. Some plants produce lectin which is a toxin to insects. A consult with Dr. Google shows this https://youtu.be/8kmo5UcGPXo Discussion by Dr. Paul Mason.

I have not listened to it.

Mask Sisson argues on this podcast that for some of us our immune system might be strengthened by exposure to these low toxicity chemicals. https://www.peak-human.com/home/mark-sisson-on-metabolic-flexibility-ancestral-health-and-how-to-live-long-drop-dead

I suspect that some people that benefit from carnivore are sensitive to some of the chemicals in plant and eating only meat is a form of elimination diet.

Lets see what others turn up here in terms of science. Also a search of pubmed might be interesting.

#4

I too would be very interested in seeing the science and comparative nutrient densities. I’ve done some brief searches but didn’t turn up much.

(Omar) #5

just like anything in this life, there are extremists from both sides.

If we believe everything out there, we will not find nothing to eat.

just stay out of carbs and you will be OK.

(Alec) #6

Research lectin.

(Eric - The patient needs to be patient!) #7

While this is true for most, I do believe there are some people that benefit from extreme elimination diets especially for autoimmune diseases, and some mental health conditions.

(mole person) #8

This is a good topic. I’ve heard a lot about this subject on podcasts but haven’t seen much of the science either. I’m currently practicing carnivore and I’d like to understand it better. I’ll try to do some research over the next few days and I’ll post anything interesting that I find on this topic. I hope some others here already have some of this information at the ready though because it’s a big topic and I’m sure to miss a lot in a general search…

(G Whistler) #9

I don’t see how animal food alone produces enough of all required nutrients. Sure, most. But not all. Particularly vitamins e and k1 (never mind claims surrounding vitamin c), folates (liver aside) and phytonutrients (which may or may not be necessary), and of course essential electrolytes. In order to get enough Mg and K you’d have to eat unrealistic amounts of meat - assuming bioavailability.

(Omar) #10

that is true. I am one of those people who the carnivore diet helps me.

but most people are ok with vigitables.

so the issue is not vigitables itself.

(G Whistler) #12

I’m just not convinced people are making founded claims. If meat helps you then good luck to you, but I sumply do not see the evidence. Certainly I could be wrong.

I’ve been trying it for 2 months and I don’t feel entirely comfortable with it. As for health, I feel no different than on regular keto. It certainly hasn’t improved my constipation

(Karen) #13

Not heavy duty science but I enjoyed this video
(G Whistler) #14

Also is the ‘gutsense’ guy who wrote the Fiber Menace credible?

(Chris) #15

Links to some of it, missing: lectins (unless I missed them on my brief look): https://bengreenfieldfitness.com/podcast/carnivore-diet-benefits/

Plenty of info on oxalates though.

Sources on lectins at the bottom of this article:

(Karim Wassef) #16

There seems to be two topics in this thread…

The first is “are plants bad? If so, why?”
The second is “are meats complete or superior sources of micronutrients?”

I’ll take a stab at the second one first- yes. Liver and organ meats actually provide all the necessary nutrients and they do it in a more bioavailable form for humans.

Take vitamin K… we actually need K2, not K1. When a cow eats plants with K1, they convert it to K2. Their conversion efficiency is substantially better than ours and we use them as “production factories” so we get what we need. We can convert too, but we are not very good at it.

The same applies with vitamin A… sure, we can eat carrots and sweet potato for beta carotene, but we really need retinol… animals make that for us.

Take chia and flax seeds for omega 3. They make ALA, not EPA or DHA. Our conversion efficiency of ALA into the usable forms is terrible… but we can get EPA and DHA from fish and brain meat.

In other cases, the animals are great at focusing nutrients - Omega 3 is made in plants & algae (sunlight driven), but eating grass and seaweed would require 4 stomachs or eating a lot of material… the animals (our processing factories) focus that goodness in their flesh.

Animals remove chemicals & toxins from the plants as well. Ruminants ferment the plants for us and derive the most nutritional value… literally - factories.

I will separate mushrooms from plants as a third group because they actually feed on plants (like animals do) and some exhibit the same “production factory” benefits of conversion, concentration and purification. Some end up behaving like plants with toxins also, but they’re different.

So if you eat the meat, fat and liver … you pretty much have it. The brain is another favorite for omega 3 and roe/eggs are just nutrient bombs.

On the first question - some plants are bad for some people. The science here is developing but the n=1 is substantially focused on neurological effects ~ around depression. Plants are basically drugs - good or bad and different people react differently. However, they are sessile and use chemical means (vs mechanical for animals) for protection.

Just wanted to clarify the basics here :smiley:

(Karim Wassef) #17

https://alwaysomega3s.com/learn/epa-dha-ala-omega-3s

(mole person) #18

This ignores the fact that plants can have anti nutrient effects and bioavailability issues. The RDA amounts of nutrients that we need per day were formulated based on the needs of people on the SAD. In other words, they are based on the metabolism of people who were exposed to all the anti nutrient and bioavailability effects of plants (see @Karim_Wassef’s post above). I have always thought that these RDA values were so difficult to balance that it made no sense that our evolutionary ancestors could do it. However, when nutrient sucking plants come out of the diet you will be left needing much less. So the theory goes, at any rate. But it does make sense.

Karim’s post gives a good reason for why you’d need much less K on a carnivore diet.

(Karim Wassef) #19

Yes. Eating some plants forces a “rebalancing” with eating more and different plants to offset the penalties.

Vitamin C
Minerals
Fiber

It’s interesting that carnivore cultures don’t suffer scurvy… until they’re exposed to plants…

the metabolism of even small quantities of plants consumes so many vitamins and nutrients that supplementation with vitamin C becomes necessary to avoid disease.

Also - there are essential nutrients that can’t be derived from plants at all, like many of the vitamin Bs. There are bacterial sources that can be cultivated for supplementation.

(G Whistler) #20

Sure, and it stands to reason that, if you’re eating a diet lower in antinutrients and lessened bioavailability, you won’t need as much

But we don’t seem to know how much we do need nor, afaict, the degree to which these effects reduce bioavailability. EG, flaxseed is high in Mg, but how much of that is absorbed and how much lost due to antinutrients?

(Karim Wassef) #21