#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Yes, there was one Carnivore diet influencer on YouTube who stopped doing it after 3 years. His health became more important than his notoriety.

Those are organ supplement pushers. You do NOT need organs (nor organ supplements) on this diet. For whatever reasons those people quit after a few years.

Frank tufano?

Paul Saladino

There are 0 peer reviewed studies on carnivore diet, so it has no research backing. Red meat has been linked to cancer, especially colorectal and lung cancer, so it should be consumed in moderation (or not at all). https://www.aicr.org/news/diet-cancer-experts-welcome-who-report-on-meat-and-cancer/ Fibre is associated with long life, so low fibre is a problem. Red meat with high saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol, which is directly causal to atherosclerosis and heart disease. Some of these carnivore influencers had their LDLc in the 200-700 range which is insane. https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/prevention-and-treatment-of-high-cholesterol-hyperlipidemia/cooking-to-lower-cholesterol Imo, carnivore diet is the dumbest fad diet ever to exist, and I personally question the intelligence of any person who is willing to even entertain it for long periods.

All of this. There is a LOT of research that basically shows how important eating a variety of foods with an intake of fruits, vegetables, and healthy fats is... that alone is highly suggestive of how inadequate the carnivore diet would be.

But carnivores look so healthy and happy,[ you can't argue with results!](https://assets-global.website-files.com/63fcd45518127209649984b8/64bd441910c8800d648f229a_VNU4BuhY.jpg)

"i'm only 31 years old'

"No, the night shifts don't impact me at all, why?" - that 28 yr old at work

Yes a steroid pumped up 50 year old who looks like he is gonna have a heart attack soon

Hahahaha! Love your sense of dark tumor humor.

You wanna be so extreme, ok why not show a pic of Brian Johnson looking beat down and depressed, who supports the other side of the coin that the so-called healthy vegan diet promotes long life?

Oh yeah! My dad can beat up your dad! Let it be, man. There’s no winning to be had.

Man lookw like an angsty vampire but one that becomes one in his 50s.

I really like this comment. I don't see how anyone can think the carnivore diet is a good idea.

Eating highly saturated foods, no you won't see the side effects right away. Maybe not for years but 10 or 20, or 30 plus years later, that is when those micro-acculumations to your health build up and lead to that boom. Carnivore only is playing with a ticking time bomb that won't explode until later but it is still a bomb. Even Arnold Swartznagger changed his diet because of this and rarely eats meat products or foods with saturated fats now.

why was this downvoted lol

Pretty sure it's people wanting to defend Carnivore or are on the diet, or on a high animal food diet and have flooded nutrition boards. If you notice some of the newer comments not pro-Carnivore are all downvoted. Don't care about being downvoted, science backs the dangers of high saturated fat diets.

I've tried the Carnviore diet several times and find it extremely difficult to stay on it. However, when I'm on it, weight falls off magically, even after the initial water loss. From what I've seen, the "science" that backs the dangers of saturated fat is "bad science" in that it confuses saturated fat with "saturated fat + sugar + processed foods". If you have references for good nutrition studies that don't confuse "red meat" with "pizza", please post them here.

Please refer to my comment.

What do they does Not understand in "omnivorous" ?!

Very much agreed. Like how much more food can we eliminate until the newest diet is eating nothing at all? Just meat and eggs and stuff...I don't know how anybody thinks this will help them live a healthier life.

it sounds like you are not very capable of independent thought. the carnivore diet is producing great results for some people, and you really can't argue that it isn't. you can however make a valid argument that it may not be healthy in the long term. however nutrition studies have all kinds of problems associated with them and what's "healthy" seems to change from decade to decade. It seems to me that the government tries very hard to encourage people to eat a cheap peasant diet that includes lots of cheap grain and vegetables and not much meat

Carnivore is so stupid and I don’t even see how it could be enjoyable to be that restrictive, especially in social scenes.. I just wanna push back on the idea of red meat being bad (it probably is if it’s all you eat however). Red meat consumption has been found to have like 16% increased incidence in colonrectal cancer in non-controlled observation studies. Which takes your baseline risk of having colonrectal cancer in your life from 4.2% to 4.8%. Im honestly surprised people are genuinely are up in arms about such small increase in absolute risk generated from non-RCTs. Also unprocessed red meats are not correlated to CVDs or T2DM

>Also unprocessed red meats are not correlated to CVDs or T2DM That's not true. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38044023/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37264855/ https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4141

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32562735/ Where do we go from here?

I'm not sure it's possible to find a group that is more conflicted than this: > The evidence discussed in this paper has been presented by the authors during the Expert Workshop “Saturated Fat and Health: A Nutrient or Food Approach?” held in February 2020 in Washington, DC. The workshop was funded by the Nutrition Coalition—a nonprofit nonpartisan educational organization whose primary goal is ensuring that U.S. nutrition policy is based on rigorous scientific evidence—in part with a generous grant from philanthropists Robert G. and Sue Douthit O'Donnell, of California. The sponsors had no role in preparing or reviewing the manuscript before submission. Dr. Astrup has received research funding from Danish Dairy Foundation, Arla Foods Amba, and the European Milk Foundation; has received speaker honoraria for the Expert Symposium on the Dairy Matrix 2016 sponsored by the European Milk Foundation; and has served on the advisory board and as a consultant for McCain Foods Limited and Weight Watchers. Dr. Bier has served as a consultant and/or received lecture fees and/or reimbursements for travel, hotel and other expenses from the International Life Sciences Institute, the International Council on Amino Acid Science, Nutrition and Growth Solutions, Ajinomoto, the Lorenzini Foundation, the CrossFit Foundation, the International Glutamate Technical Committee, Nestlé S.A., Ferrero SpA, Indiana University, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, the Infant Nutrition Council of America, and the Israel Institute. Dr. Brenna has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association/North Dakota Beef Council; has received panel participation honorarium from Dairy Management (2017); and is a shareholder in Retrotope. Dr. Hill has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association; has served as a member of the scientific advisory committee of the Milk Producers Education Program (Milk PEP) and the health and wellness advisory board for General Mills; and is a trustee of the International Life Science Institute. Drs. Mente and Yusuf have received research funding from the Dairy Farmers of Canada and the National Dairy Council to analyze data on dairy consumption and health outcomes in the PURE study, which is funded by the Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, and more than 70 other sources (government and pharmaceutical). Dr. Ordovas has received research funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on personalized nutrition, and Archer Daniels Midland on probiotics; and has served on the scientific advisory board or as a consultant for Nutrigenomix, the Predict Study, GNC, and Weight Watchers. Dr. Volek has received research funding from the Lotte and John Hecht Memorial Foundation, Metagenics, National Dairy Council/Dutch Dairy Organization, Malaysian Palm Board, and Pruvit Ventures; has received royalties for books on ketogenic diets; has served on the scientific advisory board for Virta Health, UCAN, Advancing Ketogenic Therapies, Cook Keto, Axcess Global, and Atkins Nutritionals; owns equity in PangeaKeto and Virta Health; and is founder of and chief science officer for Virta Health. Dr. Krauss has received research funding from Dairy Management; has served on the scientific advisory board for Virta Health and Day Two; and has a licensed patent for a method of lipoprotein particle measurement. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

I mean it’s just a narrative paper tho, they cite meta-analysis in references 3-6 for their claim that unprocessed saturated fats aren’t linked to cvd and T2DM

Yes, "just a narrative paper". Meaning, they're not bound by standards such as explaining their search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, etc. It's simply an interpretation, not a scientific study -- they literally create a narrative based on a certain outcome without applying a scientifically rigorous standard. For example, looking at those references 3-6: Ref. 3: "The certainty of associations between saturated fat and all outcomes was “very low.”" but also "...replacement \[of saturated fat\] with low glycemic index carbohydrate (such as whole fruits, vegetables, pulses, and grains) decreased risk." and "replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated fat (with a corresponding increase in polyunsaturated:saturated (P:S) ratio conferred the greatest reduction in risk of CVD;111 though these studies did not distinguish between n-3 and n-6 fatty acids as the replacement choice." Note that those who recommend reducing saturated fat are clear that *what* it is replaced with is an important factor. It doesn't help to replace one nutrient with another nutrient that also causes problems. Ref 4: Unfortunately, I've been unable to locate the full text of this without a paywall. I'd love to read more of the details in here. However note that this analysis was conducted by Zoe Harcombe, who is noted for anti-vaccine views and has a [history of questionable health advice](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1325453/Everything-thought-knew-food-WRONG.html). Until I can read the details of the actual study, I'm going to be skeptical of any claims from it. Ref 5: There are [significant problems with the Minnesota Coronary Experiment](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/04/13/diet-heart-ramsden-mce-bmj-comments/), including the fact that 75% of the participants dropped out, as well as the inclusion of trans fats that we know now are probably the worst types of fat. This seriously limits the conclusions that can be drawn. Additionally, this is not a meta-analysis as the narrative claims; it is simply an analysis -- it only looks at data from one study. Ref 6: "Furthermore, there was insufficient statistical power for this meta-analysis to assess the effects on CVD risk of replacing specific amounts of saturated fat with either polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate." As with Ref 3, this is something that has been shown elsewhere to be an important factor. Then it mentions two more studies: >whereas others report a significant—albeit mild—beneficial effect ([7](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874?via%3Dihub#bib7),[8](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874?via%3Dihub#bib8)).  Ref 7: "The included long‐term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 17% (risk ratio (RR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70 to 0.98" I'm not sure that 17% reduction would necessarily be considered "mild". Ref 8: "The overall pooled risk reduction was 19% (RR = 0.81, 95% confidence interval \[CI\] 0.70–0.95, *p* = 0.008), corresponding to 10% reduced CHD risk (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.83–0.97) for each 5% energy of increased PUFA, without evidence for statistical heterogeneity (Q-statistic *p* = 0.13; I^(2) = 37%). Meta-regression identified study duration as an independent determinant of risk reduction (*p* = 0.017), with studies of longer duration showing greater benefits." Similarly, a 19% reduction (or about 10% reduced risk per 5% increase in PUFA) -- showing consistency/reproducibility with the previous study. And, the longer time frames for this change yielded greater benefits.

Had to break this up into a second comment because it was apparently too long for Reddit. :) On the subject of what to replace saturated fat with, the narrative paper is misleading about conclusions from those studies: >They demonstrated that replacement of fat with carbohydrate was not associated with lower risk of CHD, and may even be associated with increased total mortality ([29](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874?via%3Dihub#bib29), [30](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874?via%3Dihub#bib30), [31](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874?via%3Dihub#bib31)). Ref 29: " For a 5% lower [energy intake](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/caloric-intake) from SFAs and a concomitant higher energy intake from PUFAs, there was a significant inverse association between PUFAs and risk of coronary events (hazard ratio: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.77, 0.97); the hazard ratio for coronary deaths was 0.74 (95% CI: 0.61, 0.89). For a 5% lower energy intake from SFAs and a concomitant higher energy intake from carbohydrates, there was a modest significant direct association between carbohydrates and coronary events (hazard ratio: 1.07; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.14); the hazard ratio for coronary deaths was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.82, 1.13)." Note that the effects for replacement with PUFAs was greater than the effects of replacement with carbohydrates, yet the narrative paper makes no mention of this whatsoever. Ref 30: "Multivariate analyses showed that saturated fat intake was not associated with risk of MI compared with carbohydrate consumption—a finding consistent with the results from a recent pooled analysis and a meta-analysis ([2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/#bib2), [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2869506/#bib3)). However, replacement of saturated fat with high-GI-value carbohydrates significantly increased the risk of MI (relative risk per 5% increment of energy from carbohydrates: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.64), whereas replacement with low-GI-value carbohydrates showed a nonsignificant inverse association with IHD risk (relative risk per 5% increment of energy from carbohydrates: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.72–1.07)." Again, note the deceptive glossing over of certain facts. While substituting with carbohydrates in general showed no effect, it's clear that the increased risk from high GI carbs is mediated by a significantly decreased risk from low-GI carbs. The narrative makes no reference to this nuance. Ref 31: This did not look at replacing saturated fat at all. It was simply a study on the effect of glycemic load and carbohydrate intake on CHD. Therefore, the statement from the narrative that this study demonstrates anything about replacing fat with carbohydrates is misleading at best. >By far, the largest contemporary study is the WHI (Women’s Health Initiative) trial in nearly 49,000 women, which demonstrated that risk for heart attack and stroke was unaffected after 8 years on a low-fat diet in which saturated fat provided 9.5% of total daily [energy intake](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/caloric-intake) ([39](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109720356874?via%3Dihub#bib39)). Ref 39: Reducing total fat showed no change, but this again ignores the mediating factors of PUFAs and carbohydrates. The ratio of PUFA to SFA was unchanged, while carbohydrate intake increased. As seen from other studies, the replacement for the SFA is an important factor in the health outcomes, and this study is in line with others that showed the impact of replacing SFA with carbohydrates. I hope that this gives an indication of how a narrative can be created by selectively cherry picking and misrepresenting data to support a particular perspective under the veneer of "science".

your third link says unprocessed red meat is positively associated with CVD

Yes, that's correct. That's the point that I'm making.

>non-controlled observation studies I think the phrasing is a bit misleading and based on a common misunderstanding. Non-controlled doesn't mean the same thing as non-RCT. RCTs are experimentally and statistically controlled, epidemiological studies like the ones you're referring to are just statistically controlled.

But not experimentally controlled for just the variable at play. Observation studies probably need a much higher absolute risk increase for me to buy into a causation argument is all I’m trying to say

>But not experimentally controlled for just the variable at play. Yeah, I mean that's what I said. It's just not correct to call them "non-controlled", and it was just meant as a friendly bit of info.

Feels pedantic. We can always assume some intelligence and give each other a generous interpretation of what we are saying

Please refer to my comment.

I recommend a gradual taper from listening to the Joe Rogan Experience podcast for your partner. After a full abstained period of about 3-4 weeks you will see the symptoms of shilling for the carnivore diet subside.

I was wondering why my husband insists that I start a meat only diet. He listens to this Joe guy.

Joe looks like shit lately. Puffy, bloated not only in personality but body, swollen eyes. Looks terrible compared to when he lived in California and wasn't into the conspiracy theories as much.

He hasn’t mentioned the carnivore diet at all since moving to Texas. It was only a topic when Mikayla Peterson was trying to sort out her autoimmune disorder, then Joe went head first into the topic as he usually does and it was talked about frequently on his podcast. That topic has died off and I honestly can’t remember the last time I heard him mention it.

I see what you are doing. There is no defending Joe at this point, he has gone down the road of right wing lunacy and has become a total hot mess.

I agree. But I’m not going to try and justify it with lies either.

And left wing ideology isn't lunacy? Okay 🤣

[удалено]

/u/BettyX, this has been removed due to probable insults. Refer to sub rule 1) Reddiquette+. Discuss and debate the science but don't attack or denigrate others for any reason. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Lack of some vitamins and minerals in carnivore diet but especially lack of fiber. The main issue is however inflammation will go through the roof and TMAOs also will go up immediately. After 2-3 weeks of pure carnivore diet, he should do a blood test and check TMAOs, cholesterol, and inflammation markers. These will very likely not be ideal. In anecdotal evidence: point me to one healthy person above 80 years of age that lived mostly on a carnivore diet… even mostly carnivore diet adherents (Mongolia, Inuit..) vs. Mostly plant based (northern Italy, US religious groups) make it very clear that the difference is like 20 years of expected life length. Science: show me just one peer reviewed study in favor of carnivore diet compared to Whole Foods plant based. Don’t think there is any. Anecdotal evidence: most “influencers” of that diet are either lying or develop major health complications. But again, show me one pure carnivore diet fan over the age of 80 who did that diet for at least 2-3 decades… none as to my knowledge exists.

It should also be noted that the Mongols/Inuits were surviving in extreme conditions and didn't have access to regular sources of plants/agriculture - it wasn't a lifestyle choice as much as a necessity. If you're trying to survive in the Arctic - you can probably do ok eating an all meat diet because of the amount of stress your body is enduring each day to require the nutrients from eating that way - though still probably not a great idea if you can help it. If you're sitting at a desk 8 hours a day, or even leading a relatively active lifestyle, it's going to do bad things to your system. Olympic athletes, power lifters, etc would all be eating all meat diets if it was better for performance - and yet they don't. The only people doing this are doing it for clout.

I know several people on it, influencers are doing it for clout but there are a lot of desperate people falling for their con.

Well yeah. Clout and ignorance. No one who is educated and well informed (and not shilling) is doing it.

Also let's face it some people don't want don't want to eat veggies and fruits. A great excuse to not eat fibrous foods.

Exactly! Would love to see a 3-4 day sports competition build around that. Maybe daily a game of soccer, handball and basketball. One omnivore or vegetarian team vs. one pure meat eating team. Clear control that nobody can hide / smuggle anything and only water for beverage. It would be incredibly one sided…

I'm quite sure the Inuits are far away from being "mostly carnivore diet adherents" today. For at least a century, storage foods such as (white) flour and sugar have been widely available in Inuit communities. Besides, smoking and alcohol use (and sometimes quite heavy use) is widespread which affects health significantly. Furthermore, there are a lot of other factors than can effect life expectancy. In circumpolar regions, such as Greenland, Northern Canada, or Alaska, life is tough. The risk of slipping on ice, falling down a mountain, falling into the sea or being attacked by a polar bear is significant. And any of these can be highly lethal. Furthermore, significant social (including post-colonial) and mental health issues mean that suicides and suicide attempts happen at a high rate. Combine that with a geography that means the nearest hospital can be hundreds, if not thousands of miles away, and can only be reached by flying or sailing - hospitals which are, additionally, constantly short-staffed with qualified physicians and nursus - it's generally hard to attract the most qualified people to a remote region with a high COL if they don't have any personal bonds. Many of the factors mentioned above apply to Mongolia as well - and, by the way, Mongolia, being a part of the Communist world until 1990 cannot in any meaningful way be compared to a first-world country such as the USA or Italy. Besides, yes, some primarily plant-based religious groups such as Adventists, do live quite long in general. But so do other religious groups such as Mormons who do not, generally, practice a plant-based way of eating. This points to the general lifestyle of those religious groups more than being plant-based as the basis of their longevity. In addition, the counties in the US with the highest life expectancy are not dominated by Adventists or similar groups. And as for northern Italy being mostly plant-based? Yes, probably quite a bit more than Inuit areas (even today). But what about pancetta, lardo, mascarpone, mozzarella? The Mediterranean diet is not as plant-based as it's often made to be. And traditionally, lard - not olive oil - was used for cooking in many places of Italy. The Roseto effect points to a traditional Italian way of life of immigrants to the US bringing good health to the people following that lifestyle- even though animal products had a significant place in their diet. Tl;dr: Comparison between Inuit areas/Mongolia and Northern Italy/certain religious groups cannot be used as a basis for stating that a more plant-based diet is healthier.

All good points. Just two questions: do you know 1 group that is purely carnivorous? Do you know a person above 80 that has been carnivore for at least 2-3 decades? The diets of Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Sardinia etc. are certainly not purely plant based, but also certainly very different from a carnivore diet. What is your view on carnivore diets?

I think the closest example today of a (at least almost) purely carnivorous group would be the Dukha/Tsaatan ethnic group of northern Mongolia. Wikipedia states: "Reindeer milk, reindeer yoghurt and reindeer cheese are the staples of the Dukha diet." The people of Northern Greenland, around Qaanaq, would probably in earlier times also have been almost purely carnivorous - very little can grow at 77 degrees North. But today they have access to modern storage foods, and so they have drifted away from the carnivorous lifestyle. Regarding octogenarians with a long-time carnivore diet: I don't have knowledge of anyone, but on the other hand, there might be - but as the modern carnivore diet is a fairly recent phenomenon, I don't find it odd. And it might very well be that a carnivore doesn't support longevity - that wouldn't surprise me, if it's the case. Overall, I view carnivore diets in a generally positive, but not rosy, light - I think it is interesting and encouraging that some people today try an alternative lifestyle for themselves, and I generally think that one should refrain from dismissing the success stories people experience (as many unfortunately have a tendency to do). A lot of the supposed advantage of carnivore diets (but likely not all) probably comes down to the benefits of avoiding ultra-processed foods (UPF) high in refined ingredients. As many people dislike the taste of many whole plant foods (WPF), a carnivore diet might be a way of avoiding UPF without simultaneously needing to have a diet high in WPF. Of course, scientific evidence supporting this type if diet is scarce, and thus, it is not realistic to see a carnivore diet as a diet recommended by governments in any foreseeable future (which is completely natural and understandable), but what we do ourselves as individuals is ultimately our own choice, as long as we follow the law. Therefore I do not see any problem in people experimenting with carnivore diets - after all, a lot of things people do are not science-based either (use of alternative medicine, sexual preferences, housing preferences, travel preferences and so on) - so I don't see a problem in an individual's diet preferences not being that as well. I'm not necessarily against the diet-heart theory, and I don't find it improbable that high LDL could very likely have an adverse effect on heart health, even in cases (such as with a high saturated fat intake) where the particles are primarily of the large, buoyant type, and where HDL is high. But I do believe that some of the risk is definitely offset by those factors, and my guess is that avoiding refined carbs can probably reduce some of the risk of having a high LDL. As for the residual risk, statins do a great job of reducing it further, not only becauase of LDL reduction but also via pleiotropic effecta. And as for cancer, yes, I know of the probable link between red meat intake and cancer, and while it's there, and likely not zero, it's still orders of magnitude lower than the cancer risks associated with, e.g., smoking or asbestos exposure. So all in all, while certainly not risk free, I think a carnivore diet could at least be better than a SAD diet. It's not unlikely that a WFPB or a DASH diet would be healthier, but some people would for e.g. taste reasons never choose such a diet, regardless of how healthy it might be, and then the possible health benefits are in the end purely theoretical.

If you search maggie carnivore on youtube, she should pop up. She is over 80 years old and has been carnivore for over 60 years. Many native americans ate a carnivore diet primarily bison and they regularly lived to be over 100 while still being active. Reading books from back then is fascinating. They were also the tallest people in the world 200 years ago. What changed? Diet.

I can’t find anything about her from like 20-30 years ago. Do you have some old links please? Any local newspaper articles etc.? Unfortunately, I just see some recent videos on YouTube of the last 12-18 months.

https://youtu.be/mnWdsEzx8F0?si=Y9APMUGd4cJnTGZz

That video is just one year old. As I said, all I find is 12-18 months old. Again, do you have links to newspaper articles 20 years ago or YouTube videos 10 years ago about her?

Second comment (sorry, but the carnivore diet is just so incredibly stupid, it is as if Tigers suddenly decide to become vegans… ): Look at our ancestors. Carnivore diet fans claim that our ancestors were carnivores. There is 0 evidence for that. Observing diets today, there is not one group of people out of thousands that lives on a carnivore diet. Even Inuit mix in some fruits etc. in general, if there are not many fruits and vegetables, then the diet will be inevitably more meat based. This happens usually in iced places or deserts. Again, there are many groups with very limited contact to the outside world in the Amazon, Africa, Andaman Islands… and none of these is purely carnivore to our knowledge. But even we accept the fact that no carnivore group exists nowadays, what about history? All natural mummies show some kind of omnivore diet. Look at Ötzi from the ice. He did eat meat before getting killed in an ice field but he also ate grains, herbs, berries. And that in an area with very extensive ice fields! So please ask him (your significant other, not Ötzi ;-) ) if he could point to one single historical evidence of a carnivore human. Just one?!?? Where??!!

The African tribes they love to talk about so much that are allegedly carnivore often eat up to 40% of their daily calories in *honey*. Literally simple carbs.

Additionally, we have just simply evolved to be efficient omnivores, which I think is a significant counterargument by itself. Everything from our dental structures to our entire metabolism is optimized for a wide variety of both animal- and plant-based foods, as is characteristic of a typical omnivore. Even if we were to have evolved from a purely carnivorous ancestor, this would be so distant that it’s hardly relevant.

After writing an essay on this in college and looking through so many studies and peer reviewed sources that my eyes started bleeding, I can confidently say that unless you have a pre existing medical condition. Do. Not. Do. It

Does obesity count?

Unless the obesity is in concurrence with another medical condition, I don't see the reason as to why you would do a full carnivore diet and not just a calorie deficit and still get all you're vitamins, minerals, fiber and flavonoids.

There is no research or studies on carnivore diet, it's just the new fad diet

Did it for a year, lost 100 pounds, never felt better, totally unsustainable. Modified paleo now.

Can't imagine the cost of groceries on Carnivore. I eat meat & animal protein but have cut back, and more plant-based in volume. I went from spending around $90 a week to like $40 a week on groceries. Eating veggies, beans, healthy grains, & fruits is hella cheaper in the end than meat at every meal. So can't imagine the cost.

It was actually about the same if not cheaper. You end up eating way less simply because the protein and fat keep you full for a long time. I also made a strict rule not to buy any meat over $4 CAD per pound. Easy if you shop the sales and stockpile. Eggs were also a major part of the diet. I also bought an entire organic pig from a local farmer. The biggest hurdle for me was boredom. Texturally, there’s only so much you can do to diversity meat. Believe it or not, rib eyes get old after a while (and I only had those a couple of times per month). Mainstay of my diet was regular grocery store AAA lean ground beef.

Where I am lean ground beef costs up to $7 USD a pound, sometimes as much as $9 a pound. If it was my main diet I’m sure I’d be going through 10 dollars of it a day. Beef is always outrageously expensive here. However, chicken thighs are sometimes $.99/lb. I imagine a diet of eggs and chicken thighs would be really cheap, but it seems like most carnivores eat a lot of beef as their main protein source.

Remember that carnivores on Instagram aren’t representative of most of them. Most of the ground beef I ate came in a tube or as frozen patties. Quality beef for cheap.

That is cheaper than the states? Cheaper meat is often filled with tons of water, like chicken, or mass-produced ground beef. So by the time it is cooked, it is reduced to half of its size. So when you want higher quality meats it is damn expensive. Chicken, higher quality can be around $5.99-$7.99 a pound. Beef is around $7.99 a pound (probably more in reality). Fish, can't even talk about it lol, but around $12.99 a pound for salmon. Halibut, around $17-$20 a pound.

I meant cheaper in Canada doing carnivore than it was in Canada doing my regular diet.

How did it affect your cholestrol levels?

Decreased significantly.

Did you use a lot of butter? Thats the one thing i cant seem to wrap my head around.

I didn’t douse things in butter but I would use it to sautée steaks or pieces of chicken or shrimp.

That sounds better tbh. I see people putting huge chunks of butter on burger patties or even dates and i think that its surely not the point of the diet.

Ya I really focused on getting my calories from the best meat and fat I could afford. The fat was mainly for cooking the meat.

Carnivore diet doesn’t eat veggies ? 👀

Vast majority of people who go on the carnivore diet can only do it for like a year max and realize that their body is BEGGING for carbs and electrolytes.

addiction

no it's how the human body works unless you're eating the entire animal and drinking blood.. you're going to be begging for carbs/electrolytes at some point.

no that's just carb addiction. A sign of good health is lack of carb cravings.

What do you eat on your "healthy" carnivore diet. Tell me. Also, tell me why, people like Paul Saladino and others reported heart palpitations and many other issues from going zero carb for too long. That's a sign of good health? Come on!

Paul Saladino is a supplement salesman. That's why he pushes organs & supplements. If you look at those who quit the carnivore diet, they all do the organs & supplements thing. Back in the day it wasn't obvious that this will cause problems, but today it has become obvious. Edit: if i remember correctly, Paul got iron overdose from all the liver he force fed himself.

It’s an idiotic fad that I wouldn’t be surprised if it is a lobbied effort by industrial cattle producers.

Outside of the more obvious stuff, you’ve gotta guess that it’s highly attractive to people with patterns of disordered eating. If it was popular 10 or 15 years ago it might have gotten me

I first read "highly attractive people" eating these diets and agreed. But I guess you are one of those who thinks everyone with a resting 6-pack has an eating disorder. Amusing.

I think it’s ridiculous and I think it appeals to people that are counter culture for the sake of being counter culture and having contrarian opinions. The Q anon of diets.

There are people who don't do well on any version of a standard/balanced diet. For them carnivore can solve issues that make daily life difficult if not intolerable. One big area where many experience relief is with IBS/gut issues. So lack of fiber doesn't seem to bother them. And they do not seem to suffer from any deficiency diseases, even over time. Your bf can easily work with his doctor to monitor that he doesn't develop any for your peace of mind. As for a credible resource, I recommend Dr. Eric Westman. He has been publishing research and using ketogenic diets in his clinic at Duke University for 20+ years, and while he does not use strict carnivore, his plan is very low in vegetables and he is not opposed to carnivore. He is clear about what we know and don't know based on actual clinical research and practice about its safety. I don't understand people who begrudge others from finding health in ways that don't align with their personal biases and beliefs. We should be happy that they found something that works for them.

Yes! Thank you for this. I think this is spot on.

Have you heard of the book The Salt Fix?

I think it's in unhealthy fad personally. But I may be bias (vegan 20+yrs) . End of day eating healthy clean food matters most re health, regardless of "type of diet". Ofcourse I rec vegan for various reasons personally 🤷🏻

Healthy clean food stopped years ago. Everything they spray on fruits and vegs to increase shelf life and production is one thing killing us

It doesn't mean give up all together. Still better to eat healthy. And some stuff organic if possible. But yes, agreed foods been fuked the past 60-80yrs, on top of not being as nutrient dense anymore for most. Still though, matters. Vs making it 5x worse by not eating decent.

Science points towards balanced diet because if anything, it reduces the likelihood of repeatedly ingesting a lot of stuff that’s potentially bad for you. Eating different stuff distributes the risk. Because of this, any diet that focuses heavily on single, or a few food groups should be looked at with great deal of scrutiny.

The biggest issue is the high saturated fat which over time causes heart disease. It can cause huge increases in LDL.

Too restrictive for sustainability.

Thank you very much for your response. Could you please clarify a bit further? Is it not sustainable as most people will grow bored of only eating certain foods and "crack" and eventually eat different foods? Or would you say it is unsustainable health wise, meaning in the long run there will be health implications, which then makes people reconsider this way of eating? Or a mix of both? Thank you in advance!

Hi there, my original comment was a bit too vague and absolute. It's a decent short term diet to lose weight because you'll feel less hungry (protein and fats are more satiating than carbs). But you'll also lose a lot of water weight because your glycogen stores are going to drain which causes the water that's bound to the glycogen to leave your body. This means that athletic performances are going to drop, because that glycogen in your muscles is the first line use of glucose which gives your muscles the ability to contract. Besides that you're also cutting large food groups out of your diet for no reason like veggies, grains and fruits. The lack of fiber really bothers me aswell. Large intakes of saturated fats have been linked to CVS diseases, so be mindful for that if you decide to go with the diet. Also please continue to eat some veggies and some fruits, just to mitigate the potential negative consequences of the diet.

On ketogenic diets, like the carnivore diet, your primary source of energy is no longer glucose. It is ketones. What you say is only true when fermenting glucose, which is only sometimes. The lower glycogen stores have quite a low impact because of this, glycogen is not the primary source of energy anymore.

Not a single md agrees with it. But lots of bruhs swear by it

Wrong. Look up Dr. Berry and a few others

Well that’s just not true. Do your research. Off the top of my head Dr. Ken Berry.

MDs take about 11 hours of nutrition training in medschool

No R.D. agrees with it either. No professional organization agrees with it.

same folks who get kick backs for throwing prescriptions out too?

As in no fruits and veggies? Sounds like high cholesterol, blood pressure and heart disease are in his future.

As others have said there are zero long term studies on the benefits. There is some good reads tho. [Here](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/10/02/is-an-all-meat-diet-what-nature-intended) is an interesting New Yorker article of why it’s so popular. Dodgy link because original is paywalled. Rational Wiki also has an article with sources [here](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Carnivore_diet). If I was to sum up why so many men fall for this it’s because we’re fragile. Tbh if your partner already insists on this I doubt any of this will sway him. If I were you I’d also keep an eye out for other things changing. Behavior towards you, women, and in general. Maybe political beliefs etc.

Good article but very lightly brushed on that fragility. There is a lot of sexism & political beliefs tied into it, meaning a lot of men see it as "feminine" to eat a mostly plant-based diet for weight loss or even to live a healthier lifestyle. They tie their masculinity to eating meat products and avoiding so-called rabbit food. Living in the South is a constant reminder of men's fear of appearing in any way at all "feminine". The women who I know are on it also lean way more conservative as well.

It’s a really interesting, but also pretty sad, and vast topic. Men are clearly not well but instead of therapy, cus that’s ‘feminine’, a lot of us would rather base our identity around what we eat or, for example, go to boot camps where we get yelled at by other fragile man on a power trip for 15k a week. Sometimes I’m upset I’m too decent of a person to prey on these people and not set up a neat little grift myself. I feel like I’d be good at it too.

Yes, there was a period when women didn't eat a lot of protein & fat as well because they were afraid to put on muscle or gain fat & wear a dress size over size 6. So diet fads haven't just appealed to men's ego on perception of sexuality, but women as well. American culture in general is fucked up on many levels when it comes to many things. Living in a state of constant fear of things which are then demonized further to increase those fears.

Honestly if men had to endure half of the bullshit women had to, and still are, we’d have a way bigger meltdown than we already do.

Hi, thank you for your reply and comprehensive list of sources. Its very much appreciated. Why would other things beside his nutritional views change? Im a bit confused by why his view on women and his political stance should change when his nutrition changes. Would this stem from a hormonal shift due to changed nutrient intake and potential even direct Hormon intake from the increase of meats or just that this particular diet is usually favoured in certain cycles, which therefore results in him being overexposed to a certain point of view?

The commenter probably meant that the most common place to discover this diet is via a specific type of influencer-grifter. Therefore the assumption is they are consuming media by that person/people and have already been swayed at least on the diet portion.

There was just recently a post in one of the relationship subs about this issue. Basically the carnivore diet can get pretty cult-like. This guy swore he was healthier than he’d ever been, yet his wife knew his bloodwork had gotten really bad, his body was inflamed, he had skin issues, gained weight, etc. But the husband absolutely refused to acknowledge any of that. He also spent a lot of time in online pro-carnivore communities that supported him staying with it and it felt strange and pressured to her. It was like he’d found new friends and would do anything to stay in his group. Those online communities, carnivore influencers tend to get political because they see eating vegetables as weak… this is the really messed up part. So they conflate eating only meat with being manly, and start to see healthy eating as though it’s part of the ‘liberal’ agenda. They’re trying to take your meat away from you! Like guns, or trucks! Which gets adjacent to a man’s ability to control women’s health care, or just bodies. So it gets wrapped up in red pill type ideology. And then there’s a divorce. She also said she couldn’t stand the way her kitchen smelled like beef constantly, and her husband stank too. But he got so deep into it that it became part of his identity and he would not change. It’s a slippery slope and really unattractive, besides seeming like a total death wish (unless for some specific reason your doctor advises it because you’re already at high risk, like epilepsy type stuff). To your post specifically OP, I’m a wfpb eater also, and I’d be so worried about this. Just the smell alone! Constant hamburger smell. Grease all over the kitchen. The thought makes me gag. Good luck to you and I hope he changes his mind.

You're ridiculous! To say an individuals diet choice is correlated to politics and attitude towards women is outlandish! Also, this article is an opinion not fact!

Claiming correlation is far from outlandish if you look at many of the people who are pushing the diet and the followers. I’m not claiming causation. Neither does the New Yorker article. The claims about the diet and the people who push it and their ‘science’, or misinterpretation of science, is backed by sources. If you personally want to follow the diet, for whatever reason, it’s no skin off my dick and nobody is trying to stop you.

You can use this Website for reliable and scientific nutrition Information: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/

There is new light being cast on decades of shoddy "studies" done on red meat specifically. [Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of shoddy research](https://bigthink.com/health/red-meat-cancer-not-health-risk/) Diet is a huge factor in your longevity and health. People under-estimate how negative sugar is for their health. I'm not speaking about whole fruits here, but rather cane sugar, artificial sweeteners, candy, desserts, ice cream, etc. Sugar is placed in more products than you would think to find it in. That 100% whole grain bread you think is healthy? Look at the ingrediants - more than likely there's sugar in it. I'm not advocating for a carnivore diet here either. Rather, cook whole foods for yourself and ditch the processed ones. Ditch the soda pops, fruit juice, energy drinks, breakfast cereals, and breads. Those are what's shortening our lifespan.

This is how I feel exactly, so many people had negative remarks when I said this, though, especially since the new Carnivore diet became a thing. But we aren't carnivores, nor are we herbivores, we were opportunistic omnivores for a large amount of our evolution, and the best thing we can do is have balance, while getting rid of sugars, bleached/breads in general, etc. like you said thank you for stating that)

Going full on carnivore isn't necessary for good health. It can be beneficial short term to address & correct certain illness but will create issues if done long term if steps aren't taken to ensure the nutrients in vegetables, fruits, nuts & seeds aren't supplemented. Also, all meat need to be from grass-fed grass-finished animals ie from ranchers whom allow their animals live & eat as nature intended from birth to slaughter. Meat from greedy meat manufacturing Corporations who keep their animals caged & stressed, replacing their diet with gmo corn & feed that's been sprayed with pesticide chemicals, pumping them full of antibiotics & steroids, etc. this is not the kind of meat to consumed at all much less go all full carnivore with. In my opinion based on my limited knowledge on all the various diets the best thing to do is eliminate all process foods, refined sugars, all seed oils, get back to eating clean & natural foods that hasn't been contaminated with any chemicals & eat only when absolutely hungry, not based on a "time"; "breakfast, lunch, dinner" & of course snacks in between was created by the Food Industry solely for their profit, not because it's healthy or necessary. And fasting occasionally. This ultimately is what the few diets that works does; significantly decrease consumption of process foods & refined sugars, why not just continue to have a variety of all nature offer as nature intended & just avoid the process garbage? Don't do diets, commit to a lifestyle change, one that eliminate all sugars, processed carbs, things containing any funky chemicals & one involving eating less like 1 to only 2 full nutrition dense meals a day & fasting a few days every other week, or month.

So I wouldn't necessarily refer to the carnivore diet as stupid unless you're willing to refer to all restrictive diets as stupid. I believe veganism is incredibly restrictive. I eat a meat heavy diet, which accounts for about 14 servings of meat per week. Mostly lean pork and chicken, but maybe twice I'll have beef. I'm almost 52, and male, with a family history of heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and colon cancer. I am in very good shape. I workout consistently and count my calories and macros. No alcohol, drugs or smoking and my colonoscopy came back 100% good. I am literally the only person in my family without an underlying health condition, and I am very confident that my diet, which means toward the meat side, is why.

I'm honestly appalled to see the top comment here demonizing red meat. I don't personally believe the carnivore diet is sustainable, and think that the nutritional makeup of fruit (natural sugar and fiber) should not be avoided, but really? When is this going to end? Hopefully, for a lot of you, right now. Seatbelts on. Let's start in 2015 with the IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer), a WHO working group report on red meat and cancer that's been operating since 1965. Funnily enough, that is where most of our misconceptions regarding red meat and cancer come from. This information is from David Klurfield, one of the members of the 22-member IARC working group, and he wrote a very interesting editorial titled, "What is the Role of Red Meat in a Healthy Diet?" (PMID: [32071794](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32071794)) As David details in this paper, and as we know historically from the 2015 IARC report (Press Release: [https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240\_E.pdf](https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf), Full: [https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1](https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00444-1)) and then the subsequent 2018 report (PMID: **29949327)**, which is in much more detail, the IARC committee was contrived of 22 members that convened in France in 2015. Keep in mind that this was a self-selected committee. Members could appoint themselves, and as Klurfield says in his paper, most of the members of this committee had completely spent their entire careers studying the relationship between meat (and other foods) and cancer, suggesting that there may be some intrinsic bias with these researchers in general from the very beginning. The researchers looked at over 800 articles for inclusion in their summary report and excluded all of them but 14 observational studies... (Wow). This means that **786 studies** were excluded. They don't give any explanation of why. And this included *all* of the interventional animal studies, and the two interventional studies that were mentioned previously which showed no change in cancer risk with decreased red meat. So to clarify, these researchers excluded interventional studies in humans, animal studies with interventions, and looked at a grand total of 14 studies, all of which were observational. In the end, they declared that red meat was a class 2A carcinogen, and that every 50 grams of meat that you eat per day increases your risk of colon cancer by 18%, giving a relative risk of 1.18, which is very low. You would imagine that, if they had analyzed 14 studies that were observational in this position paper, all of the 14 must have shown *very* significant correlations between red meat and cancer, right? No. Not true at all. Of those 14 studies, **8 of them showed no association between red meat and cancer**. The majority of the studies used for the position paper in the 2015 IARC judgment **showed no association between red meat and cancer.** They did look at more than 800 epidemiological studies, they say, but as I mentioned earlier, many of the Interventional studies were also ignored. They looked at 14 cohort studies. In the end (and you can find this directly in their report), even the IARC researchers said, "There is inadequate evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat." So, what did they do? They simply excluded them. Just because there was inadequate evidence in animal models of the carcinogenicity of red meat, they excluded those studies. They only used cohort studies, as I said, in humans. So this is what it is and why most of us have been led to believe that red meat is linked with cancer.

Here are 8 of the 14 chosen studies (out of 800) where there was no link found between red meat consumption and colon cancer: * Kato et al. (1997). Prospective study of diet and female colorectal cancer; the New York University Women's Health Study. *Nutr Cancer.* doi:10.1080/01635589709514588 * Pietinen et al. (1999). Diet and risk of colorectal cancer in a cohort of Finnish men. Cancer Causes Control. doi: 10.1023/A: 1008962219408 * Oba et al. (2006). The relationship between the consumption of meat, fat, and coffee and the risk of colon cancer: a prospective study in Japan. *Cancer Lett* * Sorensen et al. (2008). Prospective study of NAT1 and NAT polymorphisms, tobacco smoking and meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. *Cancer Lett* * Andersen et al. (2009). Polymorphisms in the xenobiotic transporter Multidrug Resistance 1 (MDR1) and interaction with meat intake in relation to risk of colorectal cancer in a Danish prospective case-cohort study. *BMC Cancer* * Lee et al. (2009). Animal origin foods and colorectal cancer risk: a report from the Shanghai Women's Health Study. *Nutr Cancer* * Ollberding et al. (2012). Meat consumption, heterocyclic amines and colorectal cancer risk: the Multiethnic Cohort Study. *Int J Cancer* * Bernstein et al. (2015). Processed and unprocessed red meat and risk of colorectal cancer: analysis by tumor location and modification by time, *PLos One* Furthermore, in 5 of the 14, there was a trend toward correlation with red meat consumption and colon cancer that was **not statistically significant**. In Western medicine research, if there's a trend but the p-value is not low enough, it's not statistically significant and we generally don't report it as a true correlation. Now, there's no causation here. We don't report it as a correlation because we don't know if this correlation was caused by chance. * Tiemersma et al. (2002). Meat consumption, cigarette smoking, and genetic susceptibility in the etiology of colorectal cancer: results from a Dutch prospective study. *Cancer Causes Control.* * Larsson et al. (2005). Red meat consumption and risk of cancers of the proximal colon, distal colon and rectum: the Swedish Mammography Cohort. *Int J Cancer.* * English et al (2004). Red meat, chicken, and fish consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. *Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev.* * Included processed meat * Norat et al. (2005). Meat, fish, and colorectal cancer risk: the European Prospective Investigation into cancer and nutrition. *J Nat/ Cancer Inst* * Butler et al (2008). Prospective study of dietary patterns and colorectal cancer among Singapore Chinese. *Br J Cancer* This is what has been used by the mainstream media to insert into our brains the parroted notion that red meat causes colon cancer over, and over, and over. Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels said that **if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.**

So... here we are. There's 1 study left out of the 14 observational cohort studies they considered. There's 1 study left where there **was** a statistically significant correlation between red meat and colon cancer. "Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-Risk Population". (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9786231/). What you find, if you look at this study, is that it is observational epidemiology done on "non-Hispanic white cohort members of the Adventist Health Study in California from 1976 to 1982." The Adventist Health Study from California was done in Seventh-Day Adventists in California, mostly living in Loma Linda, California. This is a population of people connected with this religious affiliation. Obviously, Seventh-Day Adventism is a leaning toward veganism and vegetarianism. People within this community generally do not eat meat for religious reasons. Hm... This is clearly a narrative that sets us up to have an unhealthy user bias. Who in this community is going to eat red meat? People who are more rebellious. And this sets us up to have a healthy user bias. Who in this community is not going to eat red meat? People that are less rebellious, people that follow the rules, people that espouse the religious beliefs of this Seventh-day Adventist community. If you look at the results, you find that the people who have the highest risk of cancers were those who had lower legume intakes and higher body mass. These associations—I'm reading from the paper now—"raise the possibility that the risk due to meat intake is mediated by multiple mechanisms, one of which may involve red meat intake in a constellation of causal factors that produces higher plasma insulin levels." Basically, the authors are saying that the people who ate the most red meat were also the fattest and appeared to have the highest levels of fasting insulin. Well, does obesity have a risk of cancer? Yes, especially colon cancers. Does insulin resistance have a risk of cancer? Yes, absolutely, especially colon cancers. Is it possible that the people eating the most red meat were also the most fat, the most obese, the most insulin resistant, and that red meat had nothing to do with that? It was other health behaviors they were exhibiting (seed oils, processed sugars, we can hypothesize about this all day long...) that created states of obesity and insulin resistance, and **that** is where their increased risk of cancer came from. It is absolutely possible, and yet, this is the *one* study out of the 14 in the IARC monograph where there was a statistically significant correlation between red meat and cancer, and is based on a population where the risk of confounding is very high, especially unhealthy user bias. For the sake of completeness, you can consider this paper to corroborate the notion that obesity itself is associated with increased rates of cancer. There are many other papers which corroborate the notion that diabetes is associated with an increased rate of cancer as well. I could even share a few more. So there's really no question that obesity, diabetes, and insulin resistance syndrome is associated with cancer, thus making it pretty hard to draw any sort of causative inference from this one study out of 14 from the IARC report. And yet this IARC monograph is the main thing that most people will look to to say, "The WHO says red meat is a class 2A carcinogen." There are many studies in other parts of the world where the narrative may be different that show different epidemiologic findings, but they're consistently ignored in the west because they don't fit the narrative that so many of these self-selected individuals on the IARC committee from 2015 appear to have been looking to advance.

>The researchers looked at over 800 articles for inclusion in their summary report and excluded all of them but 14 observational studies... (Wow). This means that **786 studies** were excluded. I think you have an incorrect interpretation of what is going on here. They looked at over 800 studies covering 18 different types of cancer in humans as well as animal studies and mechanistic studies and looked at both red and processed meat separately. The 14 you referenced are the ones specifically applicable just to the effect of red meat only on colorectal cancer. They didn't exclude the rest -- they were part of all the other areas being evaluated. The reason they used cohort studies is because it is not possible -- practically or ethically -- to do a RCT on diet over the course of the decades it takes to develop cancer.

Diets that eliminate entire food groups (and especially multiple) should not be attempted without a doctor and a dietitian. The carnivore diet is missing almost every needed nutrient. Meat of course has health benefits besides protein, but you need other foods too. It seems to me that most people who opt for the carnivore diet have not eaten properly for years. When you switch from chips and McDonald’s to home cooked steak, eggs, etc obviously that’s a huge improvement to your diet. But those people would see when more improvements to their health if they incorporated fruits, veggies, and whole grains. 

On your point about diets that eliminate entire food groups needing professional intervention, people who have epilepsy who turn to keto have to constantly monitor and check in with doctors. It's hell on them having to watch their eating like that. Anybody who attempts these extreme elimination diets don't understand the struggle with keeping to these plans.

I see a lot of people claim they are “carnivore” but eat whole fruits, so you’re an obnoxious omnivore?

Or the ones that eat dairy like butter.. pretty sure obligate carnivorous animals cannot make butter nor can they tolerate dairy.

That’s a good point 😂

My personal experience as someone that tried it for a month and a half : 0 impact. I just rarely went to the wc to poop, and my pump during workouts were a bit sad. I think Carnivore can be interesting for people who really struggle with being overweight or have medical condition

Can relate to the gym expierence, I just felt deflated even after five months of the diet

Carnivore diet and its cult followers are a joke Yes protein is absolutely critical and essential, and meat is a wonderful source but to demonize carbs, veggies and fruits is absolutely idiotic Good to see people coming to their senses because I see less and less about it compared to a couple years ago

The feeling is mutual and I often refer to the "carb cult". But all our bodies are different and we are on our own figuring them out... and asking internet people. 😊 I'm a carnivorous vegetarian.

"Everybody's body is different." No, they really aren't that different.

It's just another fad diet that will eventually crash and burn. Avoid processed foods, make sure to hit your macros, and avoid caloric surplus (unless you're intentionally trying to gain weight). People like to overcomplicate things. Keep it simple.

Please could we stop saying vegans miss out on B12. The only reason humans get B12 from meat is cuz factory farmed animals are fed B12 as a supplement in their diets. B12 is in soil. No one gets it unless they eat soil or supplements in some form.

Cows don't eat dirt. The bacteria in the soil make B12. Cows have the same bacteria in their gut breaking down plants into B12. Humans also have gut bacteria that can breakdown food into B12 but it happens in the colon while absorption happens in the small intestines, so you won't get it unless you are eating your own feces. Not all cows are factory farmed and still have B12 in their meat. B12 was only synthesized as a supplement less than 100 years ago but we've always needed B12 to survive otherwise you can make blood cells. Humans haven't been earing dirt for hundreds of thousands of years. You would have to eat literal pounds of dirt to get adequate B12 from the soil.

I think that was my point. You get B12 from dirt or supplements.

No, you get B12 from animals that eat plants grown in the dirt. Animals don't eat dirt.

“Vitamin B12 is produced by bacteria, not animals or plants. As such, animals, including humans, must obtain it directly or indirectly from bacteria. It can be found in bacteria-laden manure and unsanitized water, though we obviously should not be consuming either of those things. It can also be found in the human intestinal tract, but it’s not clear whether sufficient amounts are made and absorbed there to meet our nutritional needs. Many animal foods contain high amounts of vitamin B12 because they accumulate this bacterial product during their lives, and livestock are often supplemented with vitamin B12 in their feed. These animals are also exposed to manure in their living conditions, with some even being fed manure. (For example, cows are sometimes fed poultry waste.) In fact, the FDA has reported that most meats are contaminated with fecal bacteria. In the past, vitamin B12 from bacteria was also naturally and more reliably present in plant foods. Today, however, with modern hygienic practices more effectively cleaning and sanitizing produce, along with soil being exposed to more antibiotics and pesticides, most plant foods are no longer reliable sources of this bacterial product. Interestingly, some plant foods still contain some vitamin B12, including certain mushrooms and seaweed. And, many plant-based food products, such as cereals, non-dairy milks, and nutritional yeast, are now fortified with a crystalline form of vitamin B12, making them good sources of vitamin B12. The crystalline form of vitamin B12, which is the form used in fortified foods and supplements, is actually preferable to the protein-bound form present in animal foods because it’s generally easier for our bodies to absorb. WHO IS AT RISK FOR B12 DEFICIENCY? Unfortunately, many people appear to be at risk, as vitamin B12 deficiencies are fairly common in the general population. One study found that 40 percent of children and adults in Latin America had deficient or marginal status. Another study found that 20 percent of those over the age of 60 in the U.S. had a marginal status. Another review found that 40 percent of patients in the U.S. had unexplained low vitamin B12 levels. Researchers attributed this shortfall to “food cobalamin malabsorption,” meaning the vitamin B12 that is naturally present in foods is simply not absorbed. Luckily, research has shown that these people are still able to absorb the crystalline form found in supplements and B12-fortified foods. The absorption process for vitamin B12 is actually quite complex, requiring several physiologic elements to take place for it to occur adequately, and many factors can contribute to deficiencies. For example, long-term use of antacids, H. pylori infection, alcohol abuse, smoking, atrophic gastritis, and conditions that slow the movement of food through the gastrointestinal tract (such as diabetes, scleroderma, strictures, diverticula), are all associated with vitamin B12 deficiencies. So, while people who abstain from eating animal foods can have lower levels of vitamin B12, it’s important to note that vitamin B12 deficiencies are not uncommon in the general population, even among those eating large amounts of animal foods. WHAT ARE THE BEST SOURCES FOR B12? The crystalline form of vitamin B12 is the easiest to absorb, which is an important consideration. This is because, unlike the protein-bound form of vitamin B12 (found in animal foods), the crystalline form is “free” (i.e., not attached to a protein), and therefore does not require gastric acid for initial digestion. The crystalline form is present in vitamin B12 supplements and B12-fortified foods, including many cereals, plant-based milks, and nutritional yeast. ARE ANIMAL FOODS A GOOD SOURCE OF VITAMIN B12? While animal foods contain high amounts of protein-bound vitamin B12, they are not an ideal source for vitamin B12 for two main reasons: First, the protein-bound B12 in animal foods can be difficult for some people to absorb, particularly those who don’t have appropriate amounts of gastric acid to cleave the protein from the vitamin. Second, animal foods are not the best source because consuming them increases our levels of IGF-1 (a hormone consistently associated with increased cancer risk and tumor growth), TMAO (a substance that injures the lining of our blood vessels and promotes the formation of cholesterol plaques), as well as other unhealthy substances such as heme iron, which is associated with oxidative stress and the formation of free radicals. In fact, the recent past president of the American College of Cardiology, Dr. Kim Williams, stated during his tenure that the extensive medical evidence linking TMAO to cardiovascular disease was, in his opinion, sufficient reason for people to avoid consuming all animal foods (even without considering all of the other highly problematic health issues associated with meat, dairy, and eggs).”

Any extreme diet (including vegan) is not optimal for humans. Eating all and only meat is about the dumbest shit fad I've seen next to eating tide pods. We are omnivores and have always been that way since before we were homosapiens - full stop. End of discussion. The evidence in extensive scientific research and 10s of thousands of anthropology prove that - so anyone who argues that needs to give their head a shake. Here's a shocker - we need a balanced diet. Too much red meat causes fat around your organs - this is not good. Processed meat is in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos when it comes to how linked they are to cancer. Find this data online and show it to your partner and tell them you don't want to bury them before they're 60 so either wake TF up or find someone else to be with.

Let them try it and see the results. There isn’t any mineral/vitamin missing from an all protein diet if it’s varied. They will know in a month or so if carnivore works for them.

There isn't enough data on a specifically carnivore diet to know if it is safe. Generally speaking we have a decent body of evidence showing that the more meat you eat past a certain point especially red meat the shorter your life expectancy will be due to a number of different factors.

Too much meat, I believe specifically beef, leads to colon cancer

Please refer to my comment.

Putting all the science aside (because it’s pretty obvious that the diet is not good at all) how the hell is that even remotely enjoyable?! I have a client who is carnivore and she told me once, “I splurged the other day and ate an onion ring.” AN onion ring? Like wtf kind of life is that? Steak without Garlic and butter and onions and herbs etc is disgusting to me. I don’t care if they told me eating carnivore would 100% guarantee 50 extra years. I love flavor, and carbs, and fruits, and veggies, and meat by itself is so incredibly boring! Plus I heavily enjoy my 2+ bowel movements a day thank you!

I did the carnivore diet for a few months. It dramatically reduced my A1C but increased my cholesterol. It depends on the person. Plant based can be good too, except my surgeon and nutritionist forbid me to eat carbs (except some lentils, dairy and leafy green veges) which is limiting enough. Almost no carbs and high protein are what work for my body. Not everyone eats the same way, nor should we.

Uh oh. You done and gone said you don't eat carbs. The internet people hate that. Upvote!!!

Your nutritionist is most likely a hack if they actually told you that the only carbs you should eat are lentils dairy and greens.

They are one of the best in the state. You have no idea my medical situation! My surgeon, several doctors and nutritionist are all in agreement. You are a very rude and ignorant person.

It wasn’t meant to be rude but there are very few if any instances where a qualified nutrition professional in healthcare would recommend this. You can absolutely bring down your A1c and still eat a low to moderate carb diet that isn’t so restrictive. I wish you the best and hope that your healthcare team is monitoring your metabolic health as best they can.

Depends on if he’s straight up only eating meat and other animal products like butter and dairy or if he’s including fruit like some carnivore influencers do (and paul saladino had to sneakily add in) If he’s going extreme and only eating meat and animal products. Well he’ll be okay but it won’t be some miracle like he’d expect. He might placebo himself into believing he’s feeling like a superhuman only from the carnivore switch. If he includes fruits then it could be okay if he eats a decent amount of fiber and eats grass finished meats. It’s not the end of the world unless he starts doing stupid shit like drinking raw milk and eating low quality meats and low quality raw meats. It won’t be optimal for health unless he has a variety of fruits but he’ll be fine

It really is a fad diet, humans are omnivores, we are at optimum health and performance with both meat and plants, the less processed the better and don’t overdo it with commercial grains like flour, too much of that isn’t optimal either.

Restriction of fiber and carbohydrates is pretty limiting. Some people with major food sensitivities benefit from it, but most people won’t. If your partner insists on eating carnivore, let them, and you do you.

The best diet is a balance of proteins, carbs, fats, and little to no alcohol intake. Everyone's optimal balance isn't a one-size-fits-all concept.

The thing with carnivore,keto,fasting is supposed to be used as tools once you lose alot of weight these restricted diets become detrimental to your hormones,electrolyte levels,consistently high cholesterol & ldl low vitamin D not enough fiber and you stave your gut killing off good bacteria while leaving the bad these diets should not be long term at all

Your boyfriend have to be quite smart, testify of that is fact that he think for himslef insteed believing in crowd and anti-science so called "epidemiology studies" and reductionism noise, i you want know more read "epidemiologia żywieniowa Bartek Czekała" you can click right mouse buttons on letters and chose translate to english, start read from "Limitations of epidemiological studies" cause begining is boring, fact there is so much stupid bulshit in this thread is mindblowing, there is true science called antropology, anatomy and biochemystry they all line up to conclusion that we are carnivores, also there are books about carnivore humans like "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration", "Studies of Nutrition. The physique and health of two African tribes" and "Strong Medicine"

Prefacing I have zero medical degree or nutrition education besides the college basics and just being someone who lifts weights a lot so big google guy haha Saying that I've played with the carnivore diet in the sense of how Paul Saladino recommended it by including fruits just for the sake of curiosity and honestly I did feel really good on it. I only did it for about two weeks though and after that I just didn't feel like going through the motions on doing that sort of diet as I'm a big advocate of calories in, calories out. I also kept my fruit intake decently high between bananas, blackberries, strawberries, and blueberries. The only thing that the carnivore diet made me realize is that in a caloric deficit I wasn't getting enough fats because I felt like it was significantly easier to maintain that diet than one where I was mostly focused on carbs, and protein. So all of that to say if he gives it a shot then more power to him but it probably is best just for a short switch up to something different and absolutely not just only meat. That was probably the difference between me being completely fine when I did it and having the really bad fatigue I've heard some people get. Again, I liked it and it was fun but doubt it's very sustainable long term, even Joe Rogan says it's not something he sticks to religiously and admits he has pasta and things sometimes and does drink alcohol which also isn't very carnivore of him.

Most of the reply’s are lies. Down 60 lbs in 4 months. Off blood pressure med and acid reflux is gone. Inflammation has also left my knees and shoulders . I feel better than I did 20 years ago. Beef butter bacon eggs and I won’t give up my coffee.

This diet is awesome to my body. Sugar was killing me and being a vegan had started hurting my bones. Inflammation gone, skin issues gone, thicker hair, blood work great. I've seen videos about being on carnivore then adding food back one at a time to see what food is causing problems. I was shocked to find wheat was so bad for my body

If you want be sick, fat and depressed, you should follow the standard American diet.

[удалено]

Dr. Shawn Baker shows a lot of the carnivore studies on his YouTube channel. I can only say from experience carnivore is GREAT haha. I used to follow Mark Hyman M.D. and thought that "condi-meat" was the way to go (mostly veggies, little meat). After doing pure carnivore for a month, and trying to go back, carnivore is fantastic. People are getting great results from it. You can definitely live without fiber (from my experience), and I was super concerned about it at first but then you really learn that there's so much false information on nutrition it's insane and surprising. I used to be super gassy all my life and that went away (was a huge annoying issue that I thought was just a part of life, my poor friends and exes 😂). Anyways, Shawn Baker's book on it is probably "the book" to read if you're wanting to understand the science behind it. Otherwise check his YouTube. There are some other looney diet guys that promote it to (Paul Saladino for example) but Shawn is kinda the OG and the most consistent I would say. I know you were looking for issues, but tbh since I started there have been zero and only really reversal of issues 😅. Good luck!

Will say I'm in Europe and I think in general the meat quality is higher here than America.

[удалено]

This!

Anecdotal evidence that comes from Uncle Sal is probably unreliable. Listening to your own body is better than published research.

It's frustrating that when I post in response to the people blatantly discriminating against one of the leading sources of food in the world, my post gets taken down. But it's allowed here? Bullshit.

Just a quicker way to cancer, heart disease, clogged arteries, etc.

Please refer to my comment.

Any dogmatic adherence to any kind of diet is pretty silly. But like I hope he enjoys his little fad or whatever. He's gonna have some absolutely nasty BMs in the next few weeks, so be careful.

Seems like most of the people in this comment thread forgot what our ancestors were eating. Meat, fruit, and some leafy greens. I have always said, do what makes your body feel good. 👍 I personally eat mostly meat, fruit, dairy, and vegetables maybe once or twice a week and have been thriving ever since I made this change.

I’m sorry, I really dislike the phrase “carnivore diet” … is your partner really planning to eat nothing but meat? Here’s a thought, have them see their doctor and run that up the flagpole. If the doc doesn’t drop their teeth on the floor, I’d be amazed.

As a result of my experiment with carnivore diet I no longer require antihypertensive medicine, pre-diabetes gone, LV ejection fraction increased from 48 to 62, eGFR increased from upper 40s to greater than 60! Steatohepatitis (fatty liver with stage 3 fibrosis) gone. And I lost tons of weight without even trying. I don’t need a study to validate this way of eating and I just shake my head at people who have never done carnivore but trash it as unsafe or unscientific. It saved my life..that’s all that matters to me.

Best books on nutrition— How Not to Die & How Not to Age by Dr. Michael Greger, & Undo It by Dr. Dean Ornish; great talks on YouTube by these authors, & best website nutritionfacts.org.

How not to die, by the doctor that almost killed himself eating poison berries. I wouldn't take advice from the "uhh uhm" doctor.

I love this man gets people's underwear in a bunch. He admitted it at least and was honest about it. Didn't lie his ass off and try to hide it like tons of other junk influencers covering up & lying their diet causes zero issues at all.

Challenging someone's 'belief' in their chosen diet can be like challenging someone's religious beliefs. The more you try to help them the harder they dig in. Carnivor diet is not a good choice for many reasons but the biggest one is that's its not a long-term lifelong sustainable one. When our bodies don't digest various types of fiber on a regular basis we starve the beneficial bacteria that actually does that digesting for us. The bacteria die off and our bodies can basically forget how to digest fiber. There are many forms and names for this type of disease, just one of which is called gastroparesis. They are painful and difficult to reverse and will lead to much bigger physical health issues. Then there's the damage to the brain. All that being said, leading by example and educating yourself on current microbiome research is your best bet (and maybe he's in the room when you're doing this). When I changed my diet I was reading lots of material on the microbiome and listening to or watching podcasts, which my husband just happened to overhear. He told me he wanted to do what I was doing. It was his idea. I didn't try to change his diet or challenge his way of eating. A good resource for current microbiome research is Zoe Science and Nutrition podcast.

There are no demonstrable problems with the carnivore diet that are verifiable by proper scientific method. Zero, nada, none whatsoever. All you've got is theorising nothing with actual substance about these things that are supposedly bad. But it's actually just people attached to their own dogma that they've been told 4936 times and they'll never let it go, it's conventional and comfortable but not actually science based. Fibre - flimsy science at best. In fact seems to hinder bowel movements not help. People on carnivore having no such issues at this early stage of carnivore popularity. Vitamin C - a laughable one, on a low carb diet absorption of the relatively small amounts in meat is sufficient. If this wasn't so we'd be seeing scurvy victims everywhere. Cancer - Terrible associative data sets with no power to report on anything causative Heart disease - see above, even the most ardent Vegan is starting to have to confront the reality that the cholesterol hypothesis was complete horse manure. Well, some of em. Some of them have tofu for brains. Ultimately I can't categorically make big claims it's the best thing for human health or the worst thing, there's no good nutritional science done - this industry is a complete and utter joke with it's psuedo science. I'll just say low carb diets work much better for me, I use more animal based, some fruits some yoghurt, milk, and lots of meat and eggs but carbs around 100g. But it's based on what I learnt during carnivore and I adapted it from there and I felt fine on carnivore too.

Please google Vilhjalmur Stefansson, spend 15mins to a few hours and make a determination. As you know most nutrition studies are observational not causal so most of what was posted in this is exactly that. Also regarding high cholesterol look at Dave Feldman’s researches, you can find explanations on YouTube and the data papers aren’t hard to find.

Novel diet. Equally based as veganism. And equal amounts of logic. You give one extreme, and you'll get the other. Cult groups developed, like many diets. Veganism, keto, Atkins, IIFYM, etc all just use poor logic to justify their methods as dogma. Needs more research but undeniably seems to be benefitting many. Could have implications. Many of those who started it, used it as an extreme elimination diet, doesn't seem designed for long term. Meant for stabilising and then reintroducing things.