This source seems fairly balanced.
https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/vegetarianism-and-plant-foods/living-with-phytic-acid/
It states:
“research suggests that we will absorb approximately 20 percent more zinc and 60 percent magnesium from our food when phytate is absent.”
There are loads of phytates in nuts and seeds which are so high in Mg they are considered one of the better sources. Yet it turns out much of it is lost.
Those are interesting links, he makes a lot of claims about the nutrition content of meat in the second link but i’m not seeing any supporting evidence and that’s the point of this thread.
I’m afraid websites that are “get your free copy of my book…just enter your email” do not win me over. I don’t want to be on someone’s ad list either
I have no idea how one would acquire bone marrow nor connective tissue (specificaly). I guess it depends whether you can find a shop selling that. I certainly don’t know of any
The traditional way to get the nutrients from marrow and connective tissue is through bone broth.
Ask a grocery store butcher for bones or save yours from steaks, rib slabs, roasts, etc and simmer them. Heat and time do their thing and the result is a mineral buffet for your body.
Some specialty butchers sell marrow on its own. Connective tissues are only available with the meat, ie gravy beef has a lot of it. Any of the hard working muscle areas will have loads of connective tissue. And there is a lot of connective tissue on bones (ie connecting muscle to the bone).
I would be interested in learning how spices offset these problems. I like to cook with EVOO (technically its zero carb if not carnivore so I’m not aware of the issues with that) and use basil sage and pepper.
The muscle meat to connective tissue ratio is an interesting one for longevity… the methionine to glycine ratio from the different animal parts is more important than methionine restriction as was previously thought…
About 55 minutes in
All the larger grocery stores here sell beef marrow bones for soup stocks or lucky dogs. Connective tissue is usually part of various meat cuts. They are tough and most people don’t eat them but a sous vide fixes that right up and makes them delish.
But it’s worth just talking to the butchers. They are usually happy to get you what you want if it’s in their power.
Very interesting! Do you know if skin is rich in glycine, by any chance?
Yes. It does.
https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/balancing-methionine-and-glycine-in-foods-the-database/
“Collagen, found abundantly in the skin, bones, and other connective tissue of animals, provides 25 times as much glycine as methionine.”
Why not? Though I believe I would prefer them cooked. 
@G_Whistler The Stefansson experiment settled a lot of this, because he and Andersen disappointed the researchers by failing to develop scurvy. It used to be believed that meat must contain a fair amount of Vitamin C, especially in the organs.
However, it has recently been discovered that β-hydroxybutyrate, in addition to serving as a fuel, also acts to deactivate the genes, activated by chronically elevated insulin, that inhibit the body’s built-in defenses against oxidation. Which is a roundabout way of saying that β-hydroxybutyrate reactivates the defenses that insulin had turned off. This makes Vitamin C unnecessary, since its primary function in the diet is to act as an anti-oxidant.
I wonder if the version of Carnivore that gets studied, reported on and compared to - for example - Keto (with meat, vegetables and very limited fruit) is actually the nose-to-tail version?
Seems like everything needed can be found in nose-to-tail Carnivore but, what some people might actually be doing is running to Costco and getting the cheapest tastiest grain-fed meat they can find.
They can tout even that level of meat intake is okay because it really does help some people with serious disorders (M. Peterson) or will fuel outrageously healthy people (S. Baker).
I wish they’d publish something about how many (I think) people are really doing Carnivore - just muscle meat and maybe some chicken liver every few weeks. It would be great to know the difference between that and nose-to-tail (especially in terms of what you might want to supplement for).
If you eat muscle meat, fat, skin and liver … you’re pretty much there.
And liver can easily be included in hamburger meats or recipes.
Skin from grilled chicken skin or pork rinds
I like to use pork rinds as breading.
While it’s true fermentation implies an additional process has taken place (though for vegetables like cabbage it’s generally done only with what is naturally found on itself and some extra salt/water), that certainly takes nothing away from this still being a plant source. Saying “they’re not plants any more” is really stretching the English language to a degree I certainly will not accept and isn’t useful for anyone.
For that matter, the same can be said of a lot of other things, including meats. Whether it’s bacteria on the food itself, or bacteria that’s already in our guts, they’re helping to break down our foods, convert them, and make nutrients more or less bioavailable all the time as an important part of the process. For that matter, cooking and salting, and aging meats, or the development of cheeses (some which are also high in K2), all involve additional processing and alter the food and bio-availability of nutrients (or even their existence).
Contrary to what some seem to think now, cooking foods can give great benefits to this process beyond just safety and taste. While frequently cooking does reduce certain nutrients, it also makes others more bio-available, so it can be a trade off (Lalonde mentions that, while the cooked versions of several foods are lower on his density lists, the bio-availability of the nutrients in those is sometimes much higher than the uncooked versions. With several meats though, like Bacon, they simply are more nutrient dense than the uncooked versions anyway [though that was from his early data that didn’t include certain fatty acids into the calculation since he simply didn’t have that data yet, not sure if it changed later]).
That also indicates that perhaps whether or not cooking a food is beneficial for a particular person at a particular time over eating it uncooked is, yet again, contextual. It depends on what they need and what their bodies can take from the food without further assistance. But, overall, nearly everything indicates the advent of cooking to have been of great benefit to humans in many ways and allowed for much advancement and expansion.
it’s quite useful for me as a carnivore since I can enjoy the bacteria modified cabbage as sauerkraut… I like the work the friendly bacteria that came of the cabbage did with the place. 
I also enjoy what cows do with grass… etc…
In other words, it’s useful to you because it gives you an excuse to call yourself a carnivore when you aren’t a carnivore after all, but you want to feel like part of the club?
Sauerkraut is a plant food by what all those words mean in the English language.
way off topic - buy if a sauerkraut identifies as a bacteria or bacterial biproduct… to me… why would you care? 
I really am just having fun with this - you can believe it’s a plant if you want.
I care about communication and the English language. The desecration of language and meaning, along with the breakdown of communication that results, is one of the primary battle grounds of philosophical thinking and thus of the order of society, analysis of truth, relationships between peoples, and much more.
Sauerkraut is not a bacteria. It is a fermented vegetable (plant). Would you call someone a vegan if they only ate pickled meats, since by the strange definition you are using those aren’t really meats, they’re bacterial biproducts (so are cheeses for that matter, so I guess a vegan can eat that too)?
no…bacteria is not a plant… if you ferment meat… it’s bacteria or bacterial biproduct … not a plant
also no… mold is not a plant… if you let mold work on cheese (which is a product of bacteria too )… then it’s mold/bacteria biproduct… also not a plant
the logic is consistent.
when a fish eats plankton, that plankton is processed by the fish… you get the omega 3 in the plankton but it’s in the fish.
also - sense of humor
You aren’t eating the bacteria alone. You are eating the plant matter. In fact the majority of what you are eating is the plant matter. It’s a plant food. Plant with bacteria, sure, but still plant food.
You seem to have completely missed what I was saying cheese was as well. I never claimed it was a plant. But it is considered an animal product/dairy product, which is why vegans don’t eat it. But, if it could just be considered bacteria, then they could eat it and still be vegan.
The logic is not consistent with how the English language works and identifies foods, and where we draw the line between a food being of one category and another.
Hence, a carnivore can’t eat fermented vegetables and still be considered a carnivore. A vegan can’t eat cheese and still be considered a vegan.
When the fish eats plankton and processes it through it’s body, it transforms the substance of the plankton through digestion and builds fish cells out of it, which is why we consider it a fish when we eat a fish (the material, the molecules and atoms and such, from the plankton undergo a substantial and essential transformation in the most literal sense: it goes from one form to another form [in something like the platonic sense of the word form)], and why eating humans is still cannibalism no matter what the human ate. “You are what you eat” is problematic idea if applied to all contexts and without a lot of additional explanation and qualifications (and otherwise would imply not matter what you eat, we are all plants or perhaps bacteria ourselves, since if our food ate those things, than our food is those things, and so are we once we eat them).