Thank you for going over that like you do with papers. I like to have my beliefs and positions challenged. I want to be the best me
So many of these people the YouTube doctors interview were so sick. Makes me almost feel like a ring in coming to the diet from keto being too hard and unwilling to go back to the standard diet due to being allergic to too much of it
I don't think I want a product like this
Especially as I use a pan not a barbecue grill so heat pipes would make it hard to sear the meat
I don't think it would be easy to use with frozen steak
My original reply that no one but me could see:
To skim the papers
- Kidney stones. This says incidence in the general population might be 8.8% your link says ketogenic diets give a risk for adults of about 7%. Why would we talk about that risk reducing when there are literally thousands of conditions that are fixed by carnivore? Just for me who was pretty healthy before I went carnivore to deal with food allergies have the list below fixed
- Compares dietary fibre intake among people on the standard diet or other diets with enough people to appear in such broad statistics. We're not a big enough population to appear in those studies. We're not like those people. There's a big difference between a common low fibre diet (one eating a lot of processed foods and sugar) and a zero fibre diet
- See 2
- Micronutrients: it's already there, didn't you read the post before asking chatGPT to write this for you?
- We're happy with cardio health following the research on LMHR people. I don't have the links handy but they're open. Search LMHR study. There are two of them.
- We're happy with the cancer risk, especially with the Warburg (? spelling) effect where cancer feeds on sugar which we have little of, along with promising published anecdotes. That paper isn't comparing carnivore dieters. It compares undefined high meat consumption (which is worrying as that category often includes foods that aren't especially meat, such as pizza and hamburger (, fries, and a coke). If I have missed something here please correct me, but that looks like it is systematically reviewing crap epidemiology.
List of things this diet changed for me
- Lost visceral fat
- Feeling on my knee returned
- toenail fungus gone
- gout gone
- energy up
- Bicycling speed increased
- no reflux anymore
- allergies reduced
- don't need to eat as often
- no more staining on the toilet
- Mental clarity and stability improved
I recall seeing this set of studies before. I think I got that list from an LLM when I was trying to challenge my beliefs
If you try carnivore for 90 days it's hard to go back to another way of eating. So it felt so good - every health thing evaporated, my ability to do stuff went up, my ability to deal with adversity with a clear head is immeasurably improved
So I felt I needed to check myself. What if the mainstream advice was correct? So I asked an LLM for an assessment of carnivore and it gave me a list an awful lot like that and I was disappointed. Nothing was pertinent. All of the comparisons were normal diet versus bad diet that is characterised as low fibre, but is better described as high sugar; or ketogenic (lots of seed oils and coconut oil to treat mental illness) versus healthy people
I don't want to know about how bad versions of the standard diet are worse than good versions
I want to know about people on zerocarb compare to the alternatives
So far we only have the first LMHR study which compared carnivore dieters' heart health to matched controls from the general population and showed no harm from carnivore to heart health. The second LMHR study compared the carnivore dieters to themselves from a year before and found that the diet was not related to cardiac plaques
So the studies that say (unspecified) high meat intake causes whatever aren't convincing
There are too many bad epidemiological papers that define practically all junk food as meat and find (unsurprisingly) that a high junk food diet is unhealthy
There are too many studies that compare someone eating the standard diet, running on sugar, but also eating high fat and pretending they're like someone who eats no sugar and runs on fat. We're on a different metabolism.
I can see how your modlog got so full. Are you always like this? How do you get but in the real world?
You do seem to be putting a lot of effort into telling people they don't know what you're talking about rather than telling people what you're talking about
And calling me a liar? I made it clear which part of your comment I was addressing.
Luckily I don't need to read or write bytecode and all that matters to me is the syntax
I'm comfortable keeping my decision tree intact as it is
Well, you could make the last box list all the things carnivore appears to help, though that would probably double the length of the whole post.
You do get the if in the middle of stuff though in the form print(debug message) if $debug
You don't even need plants with feelings. Grain fields carry all the field animals like rabbits and rodents. Those animals flee from cleared land into long grass
So as combine harvesters clear the fields the animals are concentrated into smaller and smaller areas
Harvester operators call the last acre 'the bloody acre' due to the number of animals cut up by the harvester blades
You can't eat without animal deaths unless you go to the extreme of just eating fruit you pick yourself
Also the monoculture fields are destroying the land. We need permaculture solutions and there isn't a way to do that without animals to fertilize the land
The ban was for a different community. Sunshine saw their comment and went "that person sucks I'll ban them from my sub[s]"
I don't think she was a mod where the comment was made
Also she claims she accidentally hit "ban them from everywhere I moderate" instead of "also remove their posts and comments" so maybe the comment would have survived anyway
I'm glad you're trying and I hope you get past your anger