Did The Carnivore Diet Get Deleted from Wikipedia?

(Windmill Tilter) #1

I just googled Carnivore Diet and low and behold the wikipedia entry wasn’t there. How would somebody even pull that off? I’m not carnivore myself, but I think it’s interesting. It appears to be a wiki-coup. It’s amazing when you’re so self deluded that you try to deny even the existence of a different way of eating… :roll_eyes:

#cancelculturevictories

(Gregory - You can teach an old dog new tricks.) #2

There is a reference under Monotrophic diet

Carnivore Diet
Fully protected : This is a redirect from a title that is fully protected from editing for any of several possible reasons. It may have been protected by an administrator, or it may be on the Cascade-protected list, or both.

Yeah… wonder who pulled that off…

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #3

I just googled ‘carnivore diet’ and got 107,000,000 results. I’m in Canada. Where are you @Don_Q?

(Michael - When reality fails to meet expectations, the problem is not reality.) #4

Wikipedia is a different issue. I suspect, there are vegans involved.

Carnivore diet

The carnivore diet is a fad diet that involves eating only animal products…

There is no clinical evidence that the carnivore diet is safe or provides any health benefits…

(Windmill Tilter) #5

Lol. My bad. My wording was pretty unclear. I meant that the wikipedia for “carnivore diet” wasn’t there.

I edited the sentence for clarity.

(Windmill Tilter) #6

That’s hilarious. I’m an omnivore to the bone, but that bullshit annoys me enough that I’m tempted to go full carnivore in solidarity until the article gets reverted by adults. I barely eat 10g carbs anyway.

Safe spaces are so objectively pathetic and idiotic, that people assume they don’t pose a genuine problem. The problem is, the atrophied, craven, festering, minds it produces are starting to interrupt public discourse. The idea that the other side of an argument must not be heard is irredeemably toxic.

#snowflakeveganscankissmyass

#7

Having no tolerance for others life even though it doesn’t personally effect you must be a great way to go through life. I will eat an extra pound of beef this week to honor them.

(Jack Bennett) #8

Where do people find the time to get into Wikipedia editing wars?

The funny thing is, most carnivores don’t care how anybody else eats. Shawn Baker himself, who is probably the most visible figurehead of the movement, says that if you like vegetables, and they make you feel good, then eat them! Paul Saladino says similar: the carnivore diet is a tool for those who need it, and it may not be necessary for those who don’t.

It’s the activist vegans who insist that everyone must be forced to eat as they do… (I feel like I need to reiterate that when I was a vegan, I did not behave that way… :laughing::joy:)

(Bob M) #9

You could say that about a lot, including vegetarian and vegan diets. Oddly, low carb diets might have the most “clinical” evidence (whatever that might be…), or at least the most number of RCTs. One might argue that low fat has more and larger RCTs, but those have largely been a failure. Meanwhile, the low carb RCTs (typically versus low fat) have been successes or at least as good as low fat.

(Polly) #10

Go for it @Don_Q. I am into my second week of carnivore and loving it!

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #11

I don’t think so, really. As far as I know, no RCT has actually produced evidence that a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet does anything that a low-carbohydrate, high-fat diet doesn’t do far better.

[rant on] And not only that, but several large, government-funded epidemiological studies intended to support the low-fat hypothesis (such as the Women’s Health Initiative, the MRFIT study, the Nurses’ Study, the Framingham Study, and Keys’s own Minnesota Coronary Study among them) all yielded data that not only failed to show a correlation between high cholesterol and increased cardiovascular risk, but several of them actually showed a negative correlation; i.e., a correlation between lower cholesterol and higher risk of both cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality.

In other words, while there may be other explanations of why we see increased risk of CVD and all-cause mortality in the case of lower cholesterol, the absence of a correlation between high cholesterol and increased CVD risk means that cholesterol cannot be causing cardiovascular disease.

Nevertheless, a ketogenic diet is unsustainable and will kill us—so carnivore must be truly deadly, amiright? [rant off] #NOTDEADYET

(mole person) #12

It’s much more than “starting to”. The situation in Europe is already dire. People are getting arrested for tweeting their opinions. I find it all quite terrifying.

(Bob M) #13

I agree with you, although the Women’s Health Initiative Dietary Intervention trial had 49k women over 8 years, low fat versus “normal”. Granted, it was a failure, but I don’t know of any low carb RCT over 2 years (though Virta will reach 3 years soon, but they aren’t technically an RCT).

So, at least we know that low fat isn’t worse than a “normal” diet, over 8 years. :wink:

Also, just since we’re on this subject, it’s like when Atkins had to fund his own RCT, because people thought saturated fat was deadly and his diet would literally kill people. If what you do is decide that something is “good”, it’s quite hard to get approval to study something that is “bad”. I’m rereading The Big Fat Surprise, and I just read the part of the book where she discusses all the scientists whose livelihood and careers were effectively destroyed because they went against the status quo.