Carnivore claims about plant foods

(Chris) #102

When dying from starvation I’m sure you’d eat anything. This is ridiculous.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #103

There are store-bought broths, but check them for undesirable ingredients before stocking up.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #104

Stefansson and Andersen demonstrated the need for fat along with lean when, at one point during the experiment, they were persuaded to eat only lean meat and felt terrible. But a little bit of fat made them right as rain again, apparently.

(Robert C) #105

The same argument holds for vegans - plenty of positive claims and experiences.

Remember, I’m talking about long-term. I think anyone can have a great change on just about any elimination diet (especially if moving away from processed foods specifically) and will discuss their success very positively.

But, in the 10 year time frame - did people that stuck with Carnivore find they had to move to nose to tail or supplement? Listen to your body is the best approach I think.

(Robert C) #106

I don’t have much knowledge of their work but, weren’t they generally eating wild caught fish vs. muscle meat from grain fed, hormone infused cows that sometimes have antibiotics?

My contention is that there is a big difference between those two.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #107

Actually, there is plenty of documentation of tribal peoples’ having none of the chronic diseases that plague us, so long as they ate their traditional diets. We’re talking about no heart disease, no stroke, no obesity, no gout, no dental caries, very few of certain types of cancers, no dementia, very long life-spans, here.

George Mann did EKG’s on over 400 Maasai warriors and found no evidence of heart trouble. In the cadavers he dissected there was some evidence of arterial damage, but only at the level of Western men who were something like thirty or forty years younger. (Ravnskov and Diamond posit that arterial damage occurs all the time, but only becomes a problem when the rate of damage outstrips the rate of repair.)

I believe it was also Mann who did a comparative study of Maasai who remained on the traiditional diet of milk, meat, and blood, versus their relatives who moved to the city and adopted a Western diet, with predictable results on their health.

The point of bringing up the Maasai and the Inuit is not particularly to show that a plant-free diet is the best possible, merely that it is possible and carries with it no ill effects. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Stefansson’s and Andersen’s experiment shows the same thing, and they attributed their health to the fat they ate as much as to the absence of plant matter. Remember that the researchers considered that experiment a failure, because the two subjects failed to develop scurvy, lol!

From what I have read, Stefansson seems to have continued his meat-only diet to his death at age 82. He settled in a New England village, and was grateful that his neighbors were all afraid of saturated fat, because it meant that he got plenty of fat from the local butcher practically for free.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #108

Whereas Prof. Bikman is concerned about lean-tissue loss as we age. He feels that the low insulin/glucagon ratio of a low-carb diet keeps mTOR in check.

(Omar) #109

Same here

I get bone and fat for free. Some people charge just for like 1 dollar for the person who prepare it not for the shop.

(Rob Grantham) #110

Nature isnt really concerned with how we age just so long as we make it to be old enough to carry on the genome.The way i understand it is that protein requirements are based upon nitrogen balance. The recommended allowences are taken into consideration based upon cellular turnover and excreted amino acids. There is no reason to go too high with protein at the risk of overactivation of Mtor signalling. Amino acids remain to be the single most fundamental factor in the expression of Mtor.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #111

Eating plants as a way not to starve to death is vastly different from eating them as a regular part of the diet. Don’t misinterpret what’s being said. The Inuit’s point was that they never willingly chose to eat plants.

Or consider the case of a vegan in the middle of a drought, in which all the plants have died. A vegan might well choose starving to death over eating an animal, but the Inuit were avoiding plants by preference, not out of moral compunction.

Again, the point here is merely that they avoided eating plants when they didn’t have to, and they remained healthy.

(G Whistler) #112

But eating liver would be nose to tail :smiley:

(G Whistler) #113

I eat about 120g protein a day. Anything less and I’m still hungry. I don’t eat lean meat either. I’ve heard plenty of people saying that the kind of restriction Dr Rosedale advocates isn’t necessary. I don’t eeven believe it feasible

(G Whistler) #114

I think you’re off point. I’m not questioning whether folk should starve themselves fro a principled position. I’m simply looking to be accurate about the example. For whatever reason, genuine or otherwise, if they eat plants even occasionally, then it’s wrong to say they only eat meat. The reasons why aren’t in question

(Chris) #115

You would eat dog poop if you were actually going to die, that doesn’t make it part of your diet. You’re splitting hairs just to be difficult.

(G Whistler) #116

We’re having a polite and friendly conversation, there’s no need to get spiky about it. I simply think that, when it comes to making the case for carnivory, using, as an example, a people who sometimes consumed plants is going to provide inaccurate results. This isn’t about judgement.

(Rob Grantham) #117

He’s only talking about 1g/kg lean mass. I think that is achievable. For me that’s 65g of protein day. This is a moderate amount based on urine excretion of amino acids. The rest of it has to be used by the body via gluconeogenesis. Obviously you need to account for activity levels and get slightly more but it’s still not much more.
Maybe your hunger has moreto do with fat intake?

#118

Let’s keep it civil folks…

#119

I think the point is valid that neither the Inuit nor the Maasi appear to have evidence of a regular, year round, long term diet of only animal products.

It’s also a bit notable that the Maasi at least, while consuming largely animal products, are also consuming a lot of that as milk (sometimes fermented or as buttermilk) which means they probably get a lot more carbohydrates from lactose than is often indicated. It’s a bit tricky though to seperate out the “what they eat now”, “what they ate 200 years ago” and “what they always ate” and account for the “what were the researchers that showed healthy populations looking at”.

(This actually sounds a lot like Mongol Tribal diets as well. I’m a bit surprised that hasn’t been looked into more or come up more. They did/do have grains, but from what I am lead to believe that is primarily for the horses).

They indicate a primarily animal product diet can work, but that’s not the same as an exclusively.

(G Whistler) #120

I don’t think so. I eat a fair amount of fat. Most everything I eat is 50/50

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #121

This reminds me of an hilarious scene in Quest for Fire. Our three heroes are trekking across a wide open prairie with a single tree way out in the middle of nowhere. They suddenly encounter a hunting lion who is stalking them as the next meal. They all high tail it to that lone tree and disappear into the leafy foliage. The lion doesn’t give up, but instead walks guard duty around that tree for the rest of the day, the next day and into the next night. The following dawn finds the lion gone and our three intrepid explorers standing amidst the limbs and branches of a tree they have completely denuded of foliage by eating every single leaf on it.