I got permabanned from the Friendly Carnivore com and I think that's really funny.
7d 11h ago by lemmy.today/u/Pat_Riot in casualconversation@piefed.social
I eat meat, but man do I see some dumb shit posted on that com. Apparently I called someone too hard on their bullshit. Hardcore carnists sure are fucking delicate. Maybe they should get a little more fiber in their diet.
At least hardcore vegans are that way for an understandable reason. Hardcore anti-vegans just do it for the love of the beef (pun absolutely intended).
Well fuckin played
That was an excellent/terrible pun. I tip my Kangol to you.
We are badly misunderstood. But that's okay, it surely seems that someone who only eats meat must be crazy in some way, since it's such a deviation from the norm.
From the community description:
We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.
Zero-carb is an elimination diet. Practitioners generally do it because they've had health problems that were resolved by the removal of various problematic foods. If you're curious, there are many testimonials here: https://www.youtube.com/@zerocarb
I was pre-diabetic, hypertensive, and had fatty liver.
(By the way, you can eat all meat on zero-carb, as long as it doesn't cause you any problems, and not just beef. It's just that ruminant meat appears to be the most optimal. It's also good to have some fish.)
Zero carb is fat based! Not meat based. For the average person they don't add any extra protein in, they just swap out carbohydrates for fat.
A zero carb carnivore eats the same amount of meat as 98% of the world.
A zero carb carnivore eats the same amount of meat as 98% of the world.
These kinds of claims are the reason why I can't take carnivores seriously.
You eat about 400g of beef a day. (some carnivores eat twice that or more. I'm making a conservative estimate) Not to mention some of the "fat" you eat is tallow. which is basically rendered from meat like beef or pork.
That's about 150kg of meat per year.
Most humans are in China and India. Chinese eat about 60kg of meat per year and India is 6 kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption
The Standard Western diet is about 15% of energy from animal protein, going carnivore does not increase that.
These kinds of claims are the reason why I can’t take carnivores seriously. - You eat about 400g of beef a day.
Which is roughly 100g of protein (400 calories), and 65g of fat (600 calories), inline with the standard western diet daily protein recommendations.
My base metabolic rate is about 3500 calories a day (yes, i've measured it). So 11% of my daily energy intake is coming from protein, and 89% is coming from fat. Carnivore is about eating more fat.
Not to mention some of the “fat” you eat is tallow. which is basically rendered from meat like beef or pork.
That doesn't change anything, unless you classify fat as meat? I don't. Fat is fat. Meat is protein.
As an example butter isn't a type of meat.
Your original claim is about the world.
Now you are talking about western diet which is only a small part of the world.
A zero carb carnivore eats the same amount of meat as 98% of the world.
Your original claim is about the world.
Sure, that is a fair point. As you have just pointed out there are populations that are not meeting their minimal protein targets for health.
As far as carnivore goes - it doesn't change the daily protein target.
I'm not sure how that connects to my comment about anti-vegans (people who hate on vegans).
Sorry, I misread your comment.
Its okay, it happens to the best of us.
FWIW zero carb carnivores are not 'vegan' vegans - we don't mind people being healthy on other diets - in fact we are happy to see their data! By and large the community is very outcome based, and will pivot in a instant if something works better.
Seems like they have a real beef with you. You really backed them into a carne.
A smoking burn! Really raking them over the coals.
Yeah, the unscientificness annoys me the most. Doctors have been practically pleading for people to eat more veggies for the past few decades.
Granted, not everyone's the same. I know a guy who's allergic or intolerant to so many things that a largely meat-based diet is his only real option. Having a support group for such cases is cool.
Instead, a lot of the posts in that sub talk about pseudo-scientific data, completely ignoring that it is far away from scientific consensus.
Yeah, the unscientificness annoys me the most.
I am happy to discuss the literature at any time with any one. Please enumerate your standards of acceptable evidence and I'll be happy to discuss in detail.
Doctors have been practically pleading for people to eat more veggies for the past few decades.
Very true! But also not supported by evidence (i.e. only weak observational epidemiology that cannot establish cause and effect). In fact, the general population has responded to these calls - saturated fat has been replaced by seed oils, the standard diet is already 75% plant based, yet outcomes are getting worse and worse and worse (diabetes, cancer, obesity, hypertension, etc). If something isn't working we can either blame people for not doing it hard enough, or adjust the hypothesis.
That said - if you find epidemiology compelling: https://discuss.online/post/40722935- Animal Based Food Beneficial Epidemiology List
Granted, not everyone’s the same. I know a guy who’s allergic or intolerant to so many things that a largely meat-based diet is his only real option. Having a support group for such cases is cool.
In the carnivore space this would count as a testimonial or case study, which is exactly what we discuss in the community. However, you dismissed this type of data as 'unscientificness'.... either testimonials are evidence, or you have to ignore your friend's experience.
a lot of the posts in that sub talk about pseudo-scientific data, completely ignoring that it is far away from scientific consensus.
science isn't litigated by consensus - we have a hypothesis we can test, and it works or it doesn't.
I wonder how many health problems a meat diet will cause? Guess they’ve never heard of gout.
Gout is terrible. It's not just for meat diets though. Lots of foods contain the things that trigger it. Hydration is the best way to fend it off.
You were removed from the community 8 months ago - https://discuss.online/modlog?page=1&actionType=All&userId=2971197
At the time the automation identified your user behavior as inorganic.
but mistakes can happen, perhaps the script was in error. would you like to be added back into the community?
Here is the guiding moderation philosophy of that community: https://hackertalks.com/post/13655318
No thanks. I just blocked it so it doesn't show up when I scroll all
Inorganic The fuck? They calling me a bot? Lol
Or you're going over specifically to troll
They sought me out by being in all. I interact with whatever catches my eye. Sometimes I'm bad about noticing what com it is. I can get a little opinionated, especially if I think I know what I'm talking about. I might talk a little shit from time to time but I don't troll, at least not intentionally.
I wonder how many health problems a meat diet will cause? Guess they’ve never heard of gout.
The only thing stupider than those communities, is when people think they're serious.
Like, you don't even understand you were being trolled by edgelords, that's a worse look than 13 year olds acting like 13 year olds on the internet bro....
I was just trying to critique someone's stock making methods this morning when I found I was banned. I didn't even think I had given them all that much shit. Lulz
Maybe they should get a little more fiber in their diet.
Fibre is not an essential nutrient, there is no need to consume it - especially if your not eating carbohydrates and producing your own short chain fatty acids.
If you don’t eat fiber you’re going to have some serious gut issues later in life. Lack of fiber has been linked to colon and other gut cancers.
Also i prefer to not be backed up for two weeks waiting to poop from lack of fiber but you do you.
also has other benefits, slowing down blood sugar absorption, and fat absorption. usually it keeps your regular too.
You'll be surprised to learn that eating no fiber at all completely relieved idiopathic constipation in a study done on the topic: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3435786/
Observational study, obviously, and correlation isn't causation. But it's easy enough to experiment on yourself. I have no constipation and consume no fibre in my diet.
Idiopathic constipation - these people were not healthy. It's a bit like saying reducing gluten for patients with celiac disease makes people healthier so no one should eat gluten.
But who cares about science when you can cherry-pick papers.
But who cares about science when you can cherry-pick papers.
Pick a lane! Either you want scientific papers, or you don't. Ignoring papers because they don't line up with your pet hypothesis is anti-science.
also has other benefits, slowing down blood sugar absorption, and fat absorption.
Yes, this is why fibre is a anti-nutrient. If you don't eat unhealthy food this isn't a positive thing.
usually it keeps your regular too.
If people enjoying bulking up their stools, good for them, but this isn't a health benefit.
Have fun with your eventual colon cancer.
cancer
We are well aware of this claim, and since we are practicing the diet to regain our health obviously the claim that meat causes colon cancer is of concern.
Thankfully, it turns out that the claim itself is unscientific: https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/full-article/meat-and-cancer
Have fun with your eventual colon cancer.
Do you have non-observational data to support this position that the lack of fibre is causal for colon cancer?
It's funny how most real scientists highly respect epidemiology—the field that uncovered the harms of smoking, forever chemicals, thalidomide etc.
The company dupont had to confess and pay a hefty fine for poisoning the planet with pfas chemicals. Clearly they aren't as smart as carnivore influncers.
Why don't they hire some lawyers to hand wave and ignore observational studies because they are "weak evidence" or bad science?
Maybe smoking is good too because it helps you lose weight, reduce anxiety and issues like ibs. You can do a 30 day test and see it for yourself.
If you find epidemiology compelling I invite you to read - https://discuss.online/post/40722935- Animal Based Food Beneficial Epidemiology List
I'll check them out.
But my initial thoughts are that those are highly cherry picked (and probably funded by meat companies, I have to check) and that the highest quality epidemiological studies like Framingham show eating plants is way better for heart and brain in the long run.
But my initial thoughts are that those are highly cherry picked
YES! All epidemiology is bullshit, by its very nature - the vast majority are cherry picking and polluted by confounders. However, if your standard for compelling evidence is epidemiology you have to account for every study going against your hypothesis.
highest quality epidemiological studies like Framingham
Why do you consider this epidemiology better quality then other epidemiology? It generates a hypothesis that needs to be tested! It has just as many confounders! If you rate quality by alignment with a pre-existing bias, you have to be aware of it.
show eating plants is way better for heart and brain in the long run.
You have to look critically at every study - In what population? In what metabolic context? Enumerate every confounder, every "controlled" variable that has assumptions baked in. Realize FFQs are highly unreliable.
I don't consider epidemiology to be bs or just hypothesis generating as do most scientists.
It finds subtle long term trends that are too impractical to find with other methods like RCTs. So if a lot of high quality epidemiology says saturated fats increase heart disease risk by 20-30% over decades then I will likely believe it. Just like it found a trend with smoking.
Why do you consider this epidemiology better quality than other epidemiology?
The same reason why any experiment can be better quality and well respected than others. You should look at a study's design, strengths, weaknesses etc and evaluate it.
Let me ask you one question back. Do you consider astronomy or evolution to be bullshit too because they are based on observation as well?
I don’t consider epidemiology to be bs or just hypothesis generating as do most scientists.
That is a curious statement, science is a procedure that requires falsifiable and testable hypotheses.
So if a lot of high quality epidemiology says saturated fats increase heart disease risk by 20-30% over decades then I will likely believe it.
Ok, so your appealing to consensus? But that is fine for personal beliefs, however, there is evidence supporting saturated fat for long term health.
You should look at a study’s design, strengths, weaknesses etc and evaluate it.
Agreed, a observational study cannot establish cause and effect - by design.
Do you consider astronomy or evolution to be bullshit too because they are based on observation as well?
Astronomy has testable falsifiable hypotheses. As does evolution. You build a model and see if new data you didn't train on fits the model. With plant based nutritional epidemology, people reject new data by leaning things like 'a lot of high quality epidemiology says' and ignoring that contradiction of the model.
These are not impossible things to test. We did it in the 1960s.
I fail to see how epidemiology is different from any other branches of science. Apart from all the successes I mentioned it has done a great deal in understanding infectious diseases.
a lot of high quality epidemiology says
With better data you can overthrow any theory or hypothesis. I don't think anyone thinks the consensus view cannot be changed or plant based results from epidemiology are unfalsifiable.
I don’t think anyone thinks the consensus view cannot be changed or plant based results from epidemiology are unfalsifiable.
Great, it does come across that way some times.
I fail to see how epidemiology is different from any other branches of science.
falsifiable hypothesis and interventional experiments would be a good start.
thanks I am familiar enough with falsifiability and interventional studies to understand what you mean.
As I said I have carefully studied epidimiology and it's historical successes. And I have directly experienced how the branch is viewed in the communities of actual scientists. I trust their judgement more than some health influencers and guys on the internet obsessed with spreading carnivore diet.
I don't think we'll make much progress here. I'll go with carnivore diet bad.
I trust their judgement more than some health influencers and guys on the internet obsessed with spreading carnivore diet.
I post the actual papers you know.... Let's take a single issue we discussed, saturated fat and cardiovascular outcomes - I've posted this paper, but here it is directly https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review
How does your reading of consensus based epidemiology reconcile such analysis?
I don’t think we’ll make much progress here. I’ll go with carnivore diet bad.
Totally fair, I'm not trying to recruit you!
I post the actual papers you know....
Fair enough. You do seem well read. I'll check out that paper and some of the other things in your community sometime.
... "non-observational data"?
What even is that? Math proofs?
Research papers are unfortunately based on a combination of observation and theories derived from more observation, but for anyone curious, just type "colon cancer dietary fiber" into Google Scholar and then put the article DOIs into Anna's Archive. (wikipedia keeps safe links for Anna's Archive).
Unfortunately observational epidemiology cannot establish cause and effect. It is only hypothesis generating, it should never make the news and absolutely should not be used to dictate patient diets. https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/full-article/epidemiological-studies
Fibre is much more important than protein but meat farmers want you to believe otherwise.
Well, that's by far the dumbest claim I've heard all day. Congratulations
Fibre is much more important than protein but meat farmers want you to believe otherwise.
That is a exciting theory; Can you provide non-observational data supporting that? Every paper I've read is observational epidemiology and always in the context of a high-carbohydrate diet.
Not for you but for your microbiome.
I'm sure nothing can go wrong if you basically have only a handful of species that all thrive on the same nutrient in your gut ...
Would you know which species does what, exactly?
There is a whole concept out there about the microbiome in the human gut and how a more diverse microbiome can protect you from a lot of things, that is all.
And if some funny thing like Clostridium difficile comes knocking I'd rather have a diverse microbiome so there is no space for it, that's all basic and boring ecology.
But for me it's EOT here, since you can't argue against a believe system.
But for me it’s EOT here, since you can’t argue against a believe system.
That is exactly the problem, you brought your belief without evidence and there is no way to persuade someone out a position they 'believed' themselves into.
And if some funny thing like Clostridium difficile comes knocking I’d rather have a diverse microbiome so there is no space for it, that’s all basic and boring ecology.
This is actually a fun myth! zero-carb carnivores have a very diverse gut microbiome. We have posted about this before - https://discuss.online/post/39760974- [Paper] Long-term adherence to the carnivore diet and its impact on the gut microbiota: a cross-sectional study - 2026
The issue is that the literature really doesn't understand the mechanisms of the gut microbiome at all, it's early days - the publication is mostly observational and associative. Lots of assumptions are being made.