Should carnivore be the starting point?

(Karim Wassef) #81

Mmmmm… nose to tail

(Chris - #82

Really vague list in that wikipedia link. Did you check out any of the sources?

Gathering from the Shore
On the tidal flats and rocky shorelines, Inuit gathered seaweed and shellfish. For some, these foods were a treat; for others, their consumption was a sign that the men were out hunting and there was no meat in camp."in+the+land+where+it+was+flat"&hl=en#v=onepage&q="in%20the%20land%20where%20it%20was%20flat"&f=false

Women gathered the food from the land, such as berries. The women prepared them for the men and other members of the families. And those women that did not have providers often provided for themselves from the land.

When somebody is really hungry, when there is nothing to eat, the plants make you survive a little longer without meat. This has happened to Inuit, it has happened to me. The plants can make you last longer without food, even without real meat.

So, check those sources. It’s very telling. This last guy didn’t refer to plants as food.

(Robert C) #83

Uh - I guess I am not getting my point across.
For this post, assume Inuits are 100% nose-to-tail Carnivore and remained healthy without issues.

How does that help inform your decisions in a modern food environment?
If your meat has been commercialized (corn fed) - is it possible you need to get the flow through nutrients found in wild caught naturally grazing meat from other sources?
If your meat has been filled with hormones - is it possible that you should be concerned about making it your exclusive calorie source?
If your ancestors evolved in the middle latitudes - is it possible that you would function better not eating like an Inuit?
(And, of course, Ribeyes all day is nothing like nose-to-tail.)

Because one small set of people could survive far away from the equator on little or no non-meat foods does not imply everyone’s evolved metabolism will do just as well on modern-only-somewhat-similar-diet.

If the health field oriented Carnivore bloggers / YouTubers / Authors are all out buying non-hormone traditionally fed meats (or are hunting them themselves) - how does that translate to marching to the back of a supermarket and grabbing a factory farmed corn fed Ribeye treated with carbon monoxide (“modified atmosphere packaging” to keep it red and not looking spoiled)?


Ignoring the fact that I try to be as nose-to-tail as possible with the resources I have available, that I try to get the best quality I am able to within my budget, I guess my question is this: why would adding plants that have been treated with pesticides or that have a higher risk of being tainted with diseases be healthier than even a Carnivore who eats just ribeye? Not that I agree with Carnies who just eat muscle meat, but what would them adding plants back to their diets accomplish?

(Robert C) #85

A quick google search will tell you that (for example) a freshly washed organically grown bunch of spinach will provide a bunch of health benefits (nutrients and fiber) - if you can tolerate spinach.

Same goes here - buy the spinach only looking at cost - why would you expect something positive?


To answer the original question…

Carnivore can be an extremely harsh starting point even to a person who has given up vegetarian to get meat. My brother recently decided to go carnivore. After a week on it, he couldn’t even stand the sight of meat, much less the smell of it.

You may tell people that carnivore is an option, but at the same time, if they have vegetable craving, they really should just eat some keto vegetables. It’s more important to stay in ketosis than to force one’s body.

Most people need time to adapt to change. Going straight onto a keto diet can cause some to become hypoglycemic. A week’s transition on non-keto lchf (50-150 cals/day) would be a good idea if the person isn’t totally convinced. This makes it rather painless, as long as they kniw that they need way more salt when they go keto.

Give people some options, so they can make informed choices if one of the ways to start doesn’t work too well for them.


So why should a Carnie waste money on organic spinach instead of springing for grass-fed ribeye, which would provide more nutrients and calories for their buck?

(Robert C) #88

Well, I think because grassfed beef is a lot more expensive than factory farmed (double/triple) but organic spinach is incrementally more (20% premium or so).

Supplementing with spinach covers nutrient deficit of factory beef.

To handle the fat problem, a trick Thomas Delauer recommends is to cook your meat down to get rid of the omega 6 fat and add back healthy fat (might only make sense for ground meat).

(Chris - #89

Spinach saps more nutrients than the body can absorb from it and humans have a really hard time converting K1 to K2, that’s what we have animals for. Not to mention, even without knowing it many folks can get gut permeability from eating it. Waste of time if you ask me.

You also mention hormones and antibiotics, and what cows are fed. Hormones and antibiotics are only administered when there’s a medical need, by a medical professional. Cows in the US are fed on GRASS. Only the last 4 months or so are they put on feedlot feet, and even then 80% of it is forage, or stalks, or hay. Not stuff people can eat. And their diet is individually administered so as not to make the animal sick. Sounds like a What the Health ad in this thread.


Even assuming you can absorb all the nutrients in spinach (which thanks to bioavailability, you can’t), here’s a breakdown:

10oz of organic spinach costs about $3.00 and provides 70 calories and 9g protein. I can get 1/2lb of grass fed ribeye for $7.00, which provides 320 calories and 50g protein. If you spent twice as much for spinach, you still wouldn’t get near the amount of calories for your buck than you do with ribeye.

Even if you compare organic spinach with grain fed ribeye, it still isn’t worth the money for the former. Costs being the same, spinach will not give you enough to satiate you than ribeye will.

(Chris - #91

But now mUh RDAs how can you ever eat healthy without a rainbow of colors on your plate?

(Robert C) #92

But - what about Popeye? :grinning:

(Chris - #93

He’s an industry shill!

(Karim Wassef) #94


Olive was vegan and Brutus was carnivore.

(Chris - #95

You can spot her deficiency, see the bowlegs. Poor thing.

(bulkbiker) #96

hmmmm not sure I’m 100% convinced.

(Brian) #97

That’s a good place to be.


Forgot to reply to this earlier, but I’ve not come across anyone on Carnivore who has had iron overload. And that’s probably because we get so little Vitamin C on the diet. The lack of VitC keeps the larger amount of iron from being absorbed, so there isn’t an overabundance of stored iron. That’s my theory, anyways. If you’ve heard of Carnies getting iron overdoses, feel free to link me.

(Janelle) #99

Every time someone brings up the Inuit and their diet, I think about how they’ve generally never been known to live to 100. In fact, it’s probably worse in current times. I am not making a case for cause but I just don’t understand why everyone (men in particular) is/are so hot on holding them up as examples. (High incidence of cancer)

(Chris - #100

They commonly eat a westernized diet nowadays. Processed and high carb. This study is worthless.

STUDY DESIGN: The geographic area of coverage includes communities within Inuit Nunangat, with the addition of Inuvik in the Northwest Territories. Deaths were compiled for 2 5-year periods, 1994 through 1998 and 1999 through 2003, with the mid-year centred on the 1996 and 2001 censuses.

Excuse me, both studies are worthless.

ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Areas where at least 33% of residents were Inuit were identified, based on census results. Vital statistics death records for 1989 through 2003 and census population counts for 1991, 1996 and 2001 were used to compute abridged life tables for the Inuit-inhabited areas in each of the three 5-year periods centered around those census years.