Carnivore Diet

[Hoodie]

You are simply way behind. You need to do more research.

Why don't you provide just a couple of the studies that show vegetable intake is associated with bad outcomes?

 

[Sapcut]

Lots to unpack (at least for me) here. Are you saying that each of those doctors support carnivore, or something other than the Standard American Diet (including avoiding saturated fat and eat veggies)? I'm not trying to be super argumentative here, I'm just trying to narrow the issue before I look through some of those physicians.

I started with Attia - who I follow and respect (although I don't think he does research). I was able to quickly find a newsletter in which he takes issue with the "Game Changers" documentary, and the Standard American Diet, but while he doesn't agree with the negative views on meat from the documentary, I didn't see that he was also taking the position that vegetables and fruit aren't good for you. I could have missed it, but I went a good bit over 10 minutes in getting to that point.

Certainly don’t mean to be argumentative here either. I just am always looking for the unbiased truth, regardless of what my culture told me the last 54 years.

Correct, some carnivore but not all but all do not support SAD. And all know without a doubt saturated fat is not only good for us be vital for the human body to survive. Not to mention it makes way to much common sense on many fronts to use the animals provided us as the most efficient sustenance on the planet.

Attia does lots of research. Lots on epigenetics as does Rhonda Patrick. He began as a ER surgeon and now mostly studies longevity I believe. He was a long distance swimmer, like 20 miles from island to island. Carb loaded before and after because of course that is what you are supposed to do. Then found out he was prediabetic….even when doing the most strenuous exercising possible. Then he figured out what was going on. So that is one real life example you can extrapolate how you wish.

 

[Hoodie]

The thing about the studies I'm posting is that they all they look at is fruit/vegetable intake and morbidity/mortality. If fruits and vegetables were associated with bad outcomes the exact same studies should show that effect. This is common sense.

In the studies I posted, why was there not an association between plant food intake and increased rates of heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.? What explains the actual results observed in the studies?

The way science works is that you base a hypothesis on an observation. For instance, basically every study ever done on it shows an association between fruit and vegetable intake and better health outcomes. That's an observation. You might then hypothesize that fruits and vegetables are good for you.

In order to hypothesize that fruits and vegetables were bad for you, you'd need a shit load of studies where you noticed that people who ate more of them had bad stuff happen to them.

Why do literally none of the studies show this?

 

[Hoodie]

Attia does lots of research. Lots on epigenetics as does Rhonda Patrick. He began as a ER surgeon and now mostly studies longevity I believe. He was a long distance swimmer, like 20 miles from island to island. Carb loaded before and after because of course that is what you are supposed to do. Then found out he was prediabetic….even when doing the most strenuous exercising possible. Then he figured out what was going on. So that is one real life example you can extrapolate how you wish.

Great.

Show me the research he did where fruit and vegetable intake was associated with adverse health outcomes.


This is a list of topics from Attia's website that he's published papers on:

Example topics include:

• Risks and benefits of exogenous hormones (e.g., testosterone)
• Combatting jet lag (the Attia Medical “jet lag protocol”)
• Fasting protocols
• Strategies to prevent DVT while traveling
• Treatment options for hyperhidrosis
• Use of rapamycin in companion dogs
• Risks and benefits of silicone breast implants
• Risks and benefits of PPIs
• Strategies to increase bone mineral density in postmenopausal women
• …and many more

Research on "combating jet lag" and "risks and benefits of silicone breast implants" does not qualify you to suggest that fruits and vegetables are bad for people.

I'll say it again. Literally no one reputable suggests that fruits and vegetables are bad for you.

 

[Sapcut]

Why don't you provide just a couple of the studies that show vegetable intake is associated with bad outcomes?

Just a quick real life close to home response. I personally didn’t know that I actually was feeling bad while eating what we all were told was good for you like fruits and veggies….until I stopped about 95%. Had no idea what no gas, no bloating, no inflammation no digestion issues felt like until I concentrated on very largely wild meat, eggs, salmon, etc. All mentioned issues gone… until I decide to eat carbs including “good fiberous plants”. And I am just guessing there are lots of other folks who have no idea how it feels to not have those issues.

 

[Hoodie]

Carb loaded before and after because of course that is what you are supposed to do. Then found out he was prediabetic….even when doing the most strenuous exercising possible. Then he figured out what was going on. So that is one real life example you can extrapolate how you wish.

You do realize that you cannot "extrapolate" literally anything from that personal anecdote, right?

 

[Hoodie]

All I'm saying here is that fitty plus years of large, often randomized trials are probably a better guide for making nutrition decisions than a dude who studies jet lag and breast implants.

I really can't say it better than that, so I'll refrain from further comment.

At the end of the day if you're happy with what you eat and how you feel, that's all that matters. We're all gonna be dead some day and, like any sane person, I like ribeyes more than kale.

 

[fwafwow]

@Sapcut maybe it was an overstatement to suggest fruits and vegetables are bad for you, at least apart from your personal anecdotal experience? Yes, I read the Carnivore Code and personally found the parts suggesting some vegetables being bad for you as *interesting* (in that I'm always open to new info) - but not based on any scientific studies.

@Hoodie As for Peter Attia - I'd like to defend him in that I don't think he calls himself a researcher, and he doesn't "study" in the research sense. But looking only at his subjects is equivalent to judging a book by its cover. I'm going to have to read (or listen to) the implant piece, as I can't imagine what possible benefits there are to them, at least medically.

 

[Sapcut]

When searching for the truth, nothing is less valuable than a biased conclusion.

 

[bdan68]

Look up doctors Shawn Baker and Paul Saladino.

 

[Hoodie]

I'm not sure how looking at multiple decades of multiple types of large studies constitutes bias. Unless you mean bias towards strong evidence. In which case, yes, I recommend all people be biased that way.

 

[Hoodie]

I did a quick search. Looks like Paul "Salad"-ino also hasn't done any actual research that would suggest fruits and vegetables are bad for you. Also he's a psychiatrist.

Shocking.

 

[fwafwow]

Not sure who is biased here.

Saladino wrote the Carnivore Code I already mentioned (and read). Is that the support for vegetables are bad?

 

[bdan68]

Plenty of other sources for the negative effects of eating vegetables, if you look, and if you have an open mind. A couple of the worst, by the way, are kale and spinach. Some are not as bad as others, of course, but none are necessary. So for me, which most of my life only ate vegetables because I was told that I needed to, for my health, I now no longer eat any. All the nutrition I need I get from meat and eggs. Why should I eat things I don't even like if it's not necessary and beneficial? The other lie we've been told for decades is that we should eat whole grains. Well that's a terrible food for humans. Cut out all wheat and corn, and see how much better you feel in a month.

 

[Hoodie]

Not sure who is biased here.

Saladino wrote the Carnivore Code I already mentioned (and read). Is that the support for vegetables are bad?

It's support in the sense that he supports the idea that vegetables are bad.

I mean support in the scientific sense. Like just one big study with lots of people followed over a long time where a curious tendency for people who eat more fruits and vegetables to get cancer/heart disease/diabetes/whatever is noted.

You have to have an observation before you have a hypothesis. He has a hypothesis that makes no sense given what we've observed.

I made a joke earlier about it being akin to saying that smoking is good for you, but it's really not that different. 85-90% of smokers won't get lung cancer. But we know that smoking is associated with it, and no one questions it.

 

[Hoodie]

Another big hurdle for the carnivore advocates to clear would be research on vegetarians. Most research suggests better health outcomes. At worst no statistically significant effect is observed.

If the "fruits/veggies are bad" hypothesis were true, we should see increased rates of disease and higher mortality in these populations. But we see the opposite.

Hard to take that data and jump to the conclusion that plants are bad.

Vegetarian, vegan diets and multiple health outcomes: A systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies - PubMed

This comprehensive meta-analysis reports a significant protective effect of a vegetarian diet versus the incidence and/or mortality from ischemic heart disease (-25%) and incidence from total cancer (-8%). Vegan diet conferred a significant reduced risk (-15%) of incidence from total cancer.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Does low meat consumption increase life expectancy in humans? - PubMed

Current prospective cohort data from adults in North America and Europe raise the possibility that a lifestyle pattern that includes a very low meat intake is associated with greater longevity.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Reduced cancer risk in vegetarians: an analysis of recent reports

This report reviews current evidence regarding the relationship between vegetarian eating patterns and cancer risk. Although plant-based diets including vegetarian and vegan diets are generally considered to be cancer protective, very few studies have ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[fwafwow]

It's support in the sense that he supports the idea that vegetables are bad.

I mean support in the scientific sense. Like just one big study with lots of people followed over a long time where a curious tendency for people who eat more fruits and vegetables to get cancer/heart disease/diabetes/whatever is noted.

You have to have an observation before you have a hypothesis. He has a hypothesis that makes no sense given what we've observed.

I made a joke earlier about it being akin to saying that smoking is good for you, but it's really not that different. 85-90% of smokers won't get lung cancer. But we know that smoking is associated with it, and no one questions it.

I agree with you - I was responding to the @bdan68 post recommending Saladino as a source. I've read the Saladino book, and just opened it again to look for some of the "vegetables are bad" points and came across a reference to a study - IN MICE - that broccoli can damage DNA. I will look in a moment in the index for kale and spinach, but I expect to find more of the same.

Saladino does do a good job of talking about the limits of epidemiology studies - when it suits his conclusion. I believe he even mentioned the "all swans are white" analogy once on a podcast. So to your point above, if vegetables were bad for us, there would seem to have been a black swan discovered already in a study. I'm not aware of one. But perhaps my mind is too closed.

Look - I don't have a problem with a meat-heavy diet - I'm cooking 1lb of ground beef with a side of whole milk cottage cheese for lunch. I just don't buy the vegetables and fruits are bad argument.

I recommend another book, especially if you like meat - Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. She argues for meat, butter and fat in our diets, goes through some of the history of the diet/heart hypothesis, P&G etc., but then does not come down on such a strident position that *only* meat and fat are essential and everything else is bad. She's also a journalist by background (not trying to sell supplements like Saladino) and she went on to found an organization (The Nutrition Coalition - https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/) that (gasp!) argued that the national dietary standards should be based on science.

 

[fwafwow]

Plenty of other sources for the negative effects of eating vegetables, if you look, and if you have an open mind.

I think my time spent looking is limited to the Saladino book. Can you point me to a source, ideally that has some science in it? I have an open mind, but I’m a skeptic.

 

[Hoodie]

I think we're basically in agreement. I do think the demonization of fat broadly has had bad public health implications. Mono and poly unsaturated fats are critical for health. People avoiding fat wholesale are going to miss out on Omega 3s, etc. I only have an issue with the claim that fruit and vegetable intake is somehow supposed to be a bad thing.

As for Saladino, I'd agree that one mouse model study on DNA damage would be extremely weak. Here's several on red meat in mice/rats suggesting the same:

DNA adductomics to study the genotoxic effects of red meat consumption with and without added animal fat in rats - PubMed

Digestion of red and processed meat has been linked to the formation of genotoxic N-nitroso compounds (NOCs) and lipid peroxidation products (LPOs) in the gut. In this study, rats were fed a meat based diet to compare the possible genotoxic effects of red vs. white meat, and the interfering role...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

High red meat diets induce greater numbers of colonic DNA double-strand breaks than white meat in rats: attenuation by high-amylose maize starch - PubMed

Human population studies show that dietary red and processed, but not white, meats are associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer but dietary fibre appears to be protective. We examined whether dietary cooked red or white meat had differential effects on colonic DNA damage in rats and...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

That's generally what these guys do in popular diet books. They'll cherry pick one or two studies, and write about them completely ignoring the broader context (i.e. the huge amount of studies available showing DNA damage from meat). They also almost always stand to make money off what they're promoting, which is actual bias. Like the kind that should make you ignore something.

Most people don't have the time or inclination to look at actual research so they just buy it without thinking about it too much. If they're coming from a shitty diet to begin with, they feel great and lose weight when they switch to a fad diet. And then bam, confirmation bias.

 

[bdan68]

You don't necessarily have to buy into the idea that eating plants is bad- but at least be open to the fact that they're not necessary, or beneficial. I'm saving so much time and money now that I'm not preparing a huge salad every day like I used to. Eating only meat is so much simpler, when it comes to both preparing meals, and shopping at the grocery store.

I don't have time to look up, and post studies here to prove my point. All I can suggest for those interested is to look up Dr. Ken Berry on Youtube and watch as many of his videos as you can. He's the reason I decided to switch from a keto diet to a carnivore diet a little over a year ago. He's also partly responsible for me originally starting the keto diet.