Carnivorous Diet(Only Meat)

El_Dangeroso

Small point but you only get scurvy if you eat a lot of carbohydrate with no vitamin C, but yeah, I'm just being pedantic.:D

Bottle_of_Smoke

rarnes1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be recommending the atkins diet to anyone. High Fat diets are a receipe for a heart attack.

And obesity isn't?. Atkins is the most unfairly criticised diet I've ever come across. And its only really all that high fat in the first two weeks.

corkcomp

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

And obesity isn't?. Atkins is the most unfairly criticised diet I've ever come across. And its only really all that high fat in the first two weeks.

there are plenty ways or correcting obesity without following an atkins approach (and no i dont mean surgery!)

Bottle_of_Smoke

corkcomp wrote: »

there are plenty ways or correcting obesity without following an atkins approach (and no i dont mean surgery!)

I can see a lot of benefits to it. Its fast and you don't lose lean muscle.

Flamed Diving

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I can see a lot of benefits to it. Its fast and you don't lose lean muscle.

It's fast in the opposite direction too.

El_Dangeroso

rarnes1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be recommending the atkins diet to anyone. High Fat diets are a receipe for a heart attack.

How did I miss this one!:D

That's complete tosh, Atkins diet has the ability to actually REVERSE heart plaque along with careful supplementation. They have proven this again and again. I can PM you many many links to well designed studies proving this.

I think Dean Ornish with his Ultra-low fat approach (<10%) managed to cause a small amount of regression but he could never replicate the results in further experiments.

Atkins done properly:

- Reduces Triglycerides
- Increases HDL
- Decreases small and oxidised LDL
- Reduces inflammation
- Increases adiponectin (very good thing)

And it's changes all of the above more than any other diet out there.

There is definitely more than one way to skin a cat, but this happens to be the fastest, most effective cat-skinning method out there.

metamorphosis

While i don't low carb i agree with this alright from what i have read.

jam_mac_jam

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Small point but you only get scurvy if you eat a lot of carbohydrate with no vitamin C, but yeah, I'm just being pedantic.:D

Really? I never knew that. I thought it was just from lack of vitamen C. Interesting

Bottle_of_Smoke

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's fast in the opposite direction too.

How do you mean?

If you mean in the yo-yo dieting pattern of people putting weight back on its not as bad.

With the likes of weight watchers you lose fat and lean tissue. Atkins you only lose fat. Lean tissue burns more calories so you wont put the weight back on as fast. I'd recommend atkins over weightwatchers to anyone.

Getwellsoon

This is a very dangerous diet. As a vegan, I know that you have to be super aware of what you DO decide to eat when you cut out various food groups from your diet. You can't survive healthily on meat alone, that's just ridiculous. You need vitamins and minerals from vegetables and fruit. We were NOT made to ONLY eat meat - if this was the case ALL our teeth would be sharp, like cats', dogs' and dinosaurs' teeth!! :rolleyes: We have canines and flat teeth for a reason - humans are OMNIVORES. We have teeth like this for a reason, because we SHOULD be eating a variety of foods. However, it's all down to personal choice. I've made bad choices in the past and have learned from them. You, in time, will also learn from this mistake.

Bottle_of_Smoke

signal_terror wrote:

I don't believe there's any need for supplements.Unless the animal im eating died of malnutrition,then its got everything i need.And on the topic of scurvy,the supposed levels of vitamin C needed are only valid ifcombined with glucose in the diet.As they use the same uptake mechanism and glucose regularly triumphs over the vitamin,much higher does need to be taken

Eating meat will only have the fat soluble vitamins, not the water-soluble ones.

More importantly I take it you're not going out hunting game for all your food? Think about it, the meat you eat is fed to get big, not healthy. It isn't as lean as the meat our ancestors would have eaten.

brianthebard

Saruman wrote: »

Plan on eating your meat raw then? Cooking destroys vitamins and minerals even in vegetables so if you are relying on getting yours from whatever the meat you are eating absorbed while it ate grass then you will be wanting to eat your meat before it has even hit the ground at the slaughter house.

Meat you buy in the supermarket has been dead for quite a while and frozen which means it has to be fully cooked, unless its a steak in which case if you have it rare you will still get some minerals from it but you would have to live off rare steak. Chicken and other poultry would do you very little good as it has to be thoroughly cooked which eliminates most of not all of the vitamins and leaves you with protein.

I'm sorry but you seem to be suggesting that cooking kills the majority or all of a foods nutritional value, this is not the case at all, minerals and vitamins will still be present unless charred to dust. (in fact I'm pretty sure that is how they test food for their nutritional content, so even then...)
Tbh while people might not like what the OP is saying, apart from their comment on vegetables he's got a point, and I'm going to excuse him that one cause he's 17.
I would love for instance to see anyone who says fibre is essential to provide a source explicitly proving this beyond doubt, as they have suggested is the case.
Bottle of smoke, modern animals have been specially bred to be as lean as possible in most cases, your post doesn't hold water.

I shouldn't have to make this clear, but just in case; I don't follow a diet like the op's, nor do I want to. But it is working for them and will almost certainly continue to work long term.

El_Dangeroso

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Eating meat will only have the fat soluble vitamins, not the water-soluble ones.

More importantly I take it you're not going out hunting game for all your food? Think about it, the meat you eat is fed to get big, not healthy. It isn't as lean as the meat our ancestors would have eaten.

Meat is full of B vitamins which are water-soluble, with the exception of B3, which is in liver. In fact you can ONLY get B12 from animal sources, and most vegans are in danger of deficiency unless they supplement or eat veg which still have some soil and therefore bacteria on them (is bacteria vegan? )

While your correct in saying a lot of game today is on the leaner side, paleolithic man was really fond of very fatty woolly mammoth and other large game which is why humans hunted all of them into extinction.

But I get what people are saying, you have to be precise with your diet in order to eat this way and I don't recommend it. But the fact remains that it is possible to get every single vitamin and mineral required from meat and fish alone, it's a LOT of hard work though.

My objection would be founded on the possible stress on the liver from prolonged neoglucogenesis and possible long-term effect on thyroid function.

The OP isn't going to die if he continues this in the short-term, and anyway he's gonna get bored and fall off the wagon.

Sapsorrow

signal terror wrote: »

@Aard

Why?If you're talking about a lack of fiber,then you should no fiber does not really have any benefits and is in fact quite bad for your intestines.It is just a way of the cereal companies to make money from the non-edible part of the grain.

And I don't see anything wrong with eating once or twice a day.We arn't designed to eat at set intervals throughout the day.I eat when i'm hungry,i don't when I'm not.

@mrsdewinter

Tbh I do think that article has some good points,however I believe it is due to overpopulation of humans that livestock are taking such a toll and the fact that they are being fed the grains also used for human consumption driving up food prices.So although I see your point, I don't believe I,personally will make much of a difference in the long run however my health will be adversely affected so I'm going to stick where im at.

As for it getting boring..seriously?
Beef,lamb,pork,duck,chicken,turkey,fish,bison and all different combination's..I don't think i could ever get tired of those.

@corkcomp

Yeah i didn't say a stone of fat,I said mostly fat,which i did and it is quite well documented other people doing the same.

And as stated above,I eat when hungry,its my body's way of telling me to eat and i trust it over whatever traditions are society may have adopted(breakfast,lunch,dinner).How often do you think our ancestors ate of even hunter-gatherer tribes still in existence(which are some of the healthiest specimens on the planet).

@i-digress



No,I don't believe they are needed what so ever.For one cheese is dairy,so only acessable since the agricultural revolution,we were not designed with that in mind.Have you ever eaten raw lettuce,you'll be asleep in minutes.See plants don't want to be eaten,they cant run away or fight like animals can so they have their own defenses(poison).Only through breeding out these poisons by humans have m,any plants become safe to eat(Although they still contain many).So once again,we were not designed with these in mind.Have you noticed a lot of children don't like eating vegetables?Why do you think that is?It';s because we are evolutionary not designed to eat them.Only through years of being told its good for you do people accept them(I know many people who still do not eat them willingly).

@Saruman
I don't believe there's any need for supplements.Unless the animal im eating died of malnutrition,then its got everything i need.And on the topic of scurvy,the supposed levels of vitamin C needed are only valid ifcombined with glucose in the diet.As they use the same uptake mechanism and glucose regularly triumphs over the vitamin,much higher does need to be taken.

@rarnes1

There is no solid evidence liking heart disease of blocked areries with high levels of natural fat intake.Saturated fat has been proven to be good for your heart.

@Serafijn

Well as stated above i don't believe they have a place in the human diet except possibly on the brink of starvation.As for fruit,well thats not available all year around naturally,only in autumn.So it is possible we ate some fruit in build up to winter to put on fat for the winter months.(I have a house and clothes + steady supply of food so i think i'll be alright).


Thanks for your comments guys,If anyone else has any more points to raise please go ahead.I'm looking for holes in this constantly but so far no argument that has been raised manages to deter me.

Dude no offense but pretty much everything you said there is COMPLETELY insane. I'm in my fourth year of a nutrtional science degree in UCC and I have absolutely no idea where you are mangaing to find your research papers. You need to be really carefull becuase not everything published has a good scientific method or is from a credible author or journal. Seriusly though the huge bulk of the most up to date research from epidemiological studies down to in vitro studies says the complete opposite to most of the points you made. You need to be careful or you will make yourself very unwell (and it may take a while so don't think that if it's not good for you you'll notice signs immediately either), also you're only 18 man are you really sure you're in a position to judge the validity of the research you're coming across? I didn't have a f*ck'n clue until I got well into my degree and I had thought I knew loads about nutrition from being interested in it fo years. I'm not having a go I just hate to think of the danger you're putting yourself in if you keep this up.

Sapsorrow

brianthebard wrote: »

I would love for instance to see anyone who says fibre is essential to provide a source explicitly proving this beyond doubt, as they have suggested is the case.
quote]

In nutritional science no-one can ever say they've proven any thing without a doubt it's not the way it works we have to weigh up the most well conducted and up to date research and draw our conclusions from there. Nothing is black and white unfortunately.
Another point is that you could come up with any crazy theory you can think of and some one out there has conducted a study in such a way that validates your idea no matter how crazy it is. There's a bit issue with figuring out which research is credibly conducted with no vested interests. It's pretty damn hard for even people who specialise in nutritional science to plough through the piles of shoddy work and decipher which is actuallly worth paying any attention to.

El_Dangeroso

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Dude no offense but pretty much everything you said there is COMPLETELY insane. I'm in my fourth year of a nutrtional science degree in UCC and I have absolutely no idea where you are mangaing to find your research papers. You need to be really carefull becuase not everything published has a good scientific method or is from a credible author or journal. Seriusly though the huge bulk of the most up to date research from epidemiological studies down to in vitro studies says the complete opposite to most of the points you made. You need to be careful or you will make yourself very unwell (and it may take a while so don't think that if it's not good for you you'll notice signs immediately either), also you're only 18 man are you really sure you're in a position to judge the validity of the research you're coming across? I didn't have a f*ck'n clue until I got well into my degree and I had thought I knew loads about nutrition from being interested in it fo years. I'm not having a go I just hate to think of the danger you're putting yourself in if you keep this up.

Do you really think that this diet will kill the OP? If so, of what? How long will it take? What diseases can he expect? I really really hate playing devil's advocate here, I've had MANY an argument with carnivores on other forums. Remember that a lot of 'accepted' wisdom in nutrition is based on very shaky, oft contradicted theory. Nutrition science is very very new and still not much is known, hence the (over)reliance on observational epidemiology which can't really prove anything per se.

El_Dangeroso

khrystyna100 wrote: »

In nutritional science no-one can ever say they've proven any thing without a doubt it's not the way it works we have to weigh up the most well conducted and up to date research and draw our conclusions from there. Nothing is black and white unfortunately.
Another point is that you could come up with any crazy theory you can think of and some one out there has conducted a study in such a way that validates your idea no matter how crazy it is. There's a bit issue with figuring out which research is credibly conducted with no vested interests. It's pretty damn hard for even people who specialise in nutritional science to plough through the piles of shoddy work and decipher which is actuallly worth paying any attention to.

Oh, crossed posts! I completely agree on the crap you have to wade though to get a decent study, and even then you can only judge it on what they decide to tell you, then there's the stats to figure out.. argh.

Getwellsoon

So we're in the wrong for eating plants that have been bred and modified by the human race for centuries to get rid of their natural defences, but you're NOT in the wrong for eating animals that have ALSO been inbred and ALSO modified by the human race for centuries who don't even HAVE any defences because they're kept in a cooped up environment from day one? COP ON!!! What an absolutely ridiculous argument.

There are plenty of fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and plants that can be eaten naturally without having to breed the poison out of them.

I know kids who won't eat meat. Yes it's rarer than kids who won't eat veg, but I've seen kids turn their noses up at meat until they are used to it. And you know WHY most kids won't eat their veg? It's because they are fussy and awkward and would actually prefer that smiley face potato waffle covered in ketchup or those deep fried chips (which are veggi anyway!), or the burger laced with artificial chemicals to make it taste good. Kids I know LOVE fruit, and LOVE chomping down on raw veggie sticks, just as much as they love meat. Kids also love sweets, crisps, chocolate and ketchup on bloomin everything - these aren't meat products and they love them... truth is, kids love stuff that adults in the food industry create that tastes bad for them and they see advertised on TV. So just because some kids hate vegetables you can't say the human race wasn't meant to eat veg!!! You really make me laugh. Kids are as happy with food like mash'n'beans or boiled egg and toast as they are with hot dogs or burgers!

So anyway, I think if you're so concerned with what our ancestors were doing, I think you should be catching or breeding your own meat. Or it should be roadkill. That way, you can eat meat the way it was "intended" to be eaten.

corkcomp

TBH i am amazed that this thread has not been locked by now. What we are taking about here is a 17y/o (not even legally an adult) consuming only one meal a day and eating meat, and NOTHING else? come on people, if that isnt a fad / dangerous diet, I dont know what is ...

Getwellsoon

corkcomp wrote: »

TBH i am amazed that this thread has not been locked by now. What we are taking about here is a 17y/o (not even legally an adult) consuming only one meal a day and eating meat, and NOTHING else? come on people, if that isnt a fad / dangerous diet, I dont know what is ...

True, I forgot he was 17. He hasn't got a clue!

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

TBH i am amazed that this thread has not been locked by now. What we are taking about here is a 17y/o (not even legally an adult) consuming only one meal a day and eating meat, and NOTHING else? come on people, if that isnt a fad / dangerous diet, I dont know what is ...

Tbh, the OP hasn't been back, he's probably cracked and eaten a mars bar

Bottle_of_Smoke

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Meat is full of B vitamins which are water-soluble, with the exception of B3, which is in liver. In fact you can ONLY get B12 from animal sources, and most vegans are in danger of deficiency unless they supplement or eat veg which still have some soil and therefore bacteria on them (is bacteria vegan? )

you're right there, dont know what i was thinking with the last post

getwellsoon wrote:

There are plenty of fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and plants that can be eaten naturally without having to breed the poison out of them.

Exactly, many plants "want" to be eaten so their seeds are spread around. Wouldn't be in their "interest" to poison animals who might help them this way.

I know kids who won't eat meat. Yes it's rarer than kids who won't eat veg, but I've seen kids turn their noses up at meat until they are used to it. And you know WHY most kids won't eat their veg? It's because they are fussy and awkward and would actually prefer that smiley face potato waffle covered in ketchup or those deep fried chips (which are veggi anyway!), or the burger laced with artificial chemicals to make it taste good. Kids I know LOVE fruit, and LOVE chomping down on raw veggie sticks, just as much as they love meat. Kids also love sweets, crisps, chocolate and ketchup on bloomin everything - these aren't meat products and they love them... truth is, kids love stuff that adults in the food industry create that tastes bad for them and they see advertised on TV.

I also think another reason is that kids have an evolutionary preference for high sugar/high fat foods which would have been beneficial when these resources were scarce. I think that's exactly what a happy meal is based on! Of course it doesn't mean this preference doesnt change as the kid gets older and other foods become more important

Sapsorrow

I think with a topic like this it's too easy to get carried away in arguements whilst losing sight of the broader context because as people who are interested in nutrition we (hopefully) have done a fairly good job in finding what suits us and makes us feel good and seem to think that this should suit everyone else just fine to.
People are not equal in any way, biologically we differ according to out genetic heritage, our lifestyles vary, the weather outside each of our houses may differ, our mental states will vary enourmously etc.
For this reason we should not assume that any one diet can suit everyone, some people (inuits classic example) do survive very well on a meat based diet but this doesn't necessarily mean it suits all of us equally well. Northern europeans for example have evolved a far greater capacity to tolerate lactose than asian or african americans for example and while milk may serve as a very nutritious and valuable food source for us it may do more harm than good to others.
Also just because something (such as fibre) may not have been proven to be unequivocably essential DOES NOT mean that it has no value in the human diet. So while the omission of a certain food group may not outrightly kill someone due to deficiency etc.. in the long run that person may be compromising their exposure to the potential protective or theraputic components of that food group. As an example if you cut out grains then there's a much higher chance that you are limiting your ability to consume the optimal amounts of certain minerals that may very well protect us against cancer (for example)
Fibre is a particularly complicated dietary compenent as it is a blanket term for a range of compounds that vary enourmously in their biological effects and chemical nature.
A lot of research is pointing to the theraputic and preventative advantages of including both insoluble and soluble fibre in the diet with a number of conditions typically associated with western cultures. So while a high fibre diet may be of no use to the inuits it is likely to be of use to those of us who are very likely (statisticaly) to fall victim to these diseases.
Another point is that while some may feel fibre is not essential typically it is found is foodstuffs which have other very valuable bioactive comopunds (vitamins, antioxidants etc..) in them in high quantitis and you can't necessarily consume one without the other.
Also fibre is always a heated topic esp with the low carb thing but don't forget that fibre isn't only found in grains, fruit and veg are also excellent sources of both soluble and insoluble kinds so even those of very low carb diets are reaping any benifits that fibre consumption may bestow whether such people have any faith in them or not.
Humans have survived the ages and evolved the way we have because of our innate variety seeking behaviour which means that we expose ourselves to a wide variety of foods over the course of our lifetimes which inadvertantly protects us from both toxicity and deficiency so to rule out any one food group completely is not necessarily benificial and may be harmful because we are concentrating our reliance on fewer and fewer food sources.
When argueing about the paeolithic diet and what we have evolved to eat etc we should not forget that we have not reached the end of our evolution, it is an ongoing process and while our environments and lifestyles change so to do our dietary needs and our ability to utilise and tolerate various foods, so arguements that are based on what our ancestors ate are not completely flawless. We as a race are biologically different and we live very different lives with a whole range of stresses and strains completely alien to our ancestors.
Reductionist approaches to nutrition which are completely grounded in biochemistry are likely to lose perspective of the bigger picture, we should also never assume that the scientific research we have acess to at this moment in time is completely accurate and will not be discredited in time with further technological advances. For this reason we need to combine a moderate amount of scientific knnowledge with heaps of common sense and our own previous and ongoing personal experiences when trying to make judgements about nutrition.

El_Dangeroso

khrystyna100 wrote: »

As an example if you cut out grains then there's a much higher chance that you are limiting your ability to consume the optimal amounts of certain minerals that may very well protect us against cancer (for example)

Sorry, but this statement is completely wrong. Grains contain phytates that inhibit mineral absorption. Point me to one paper that states otherwise.

As far as the evolution point goes, that's like saying if we all keep smoking cigarettes, dying earlier from cancer and emphysema in the meantime, that hopefully in about 500,000 years we will adapt to the carcinogens and they won't harm us anymore.

Sapsorrow

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Sorry, but this statement is completely wrong. Grains contain phytates that inhibit mineral absorption. Point me to one paper that states otherwise.

As far as the evolution point goes, that's like saying if we all keep smoking cigarettes, dying earlier from cancer and emphysema in the meantime, that hopefully in about 500,000 years we will adapt to the carcinogens and they won't harm us anymore.

The grain/mineral relationship was just an example of the potential effects of eliminating one food group to avoid the consumption of something that someone believes it harmfull with the risk of cutting out your consumption of other nutrients that are benificial, not an arguement against low carbing.
I find that last comment a bit pendantic to be bothered replying to (no offense )

El_Dangeroso

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as a nit-picker, but I was trying to communicate that human evolution can't possibly go fast enough to cope with toxins introduced a mere 10,000 years ago or less than 100 years ago as is the case with vegetable oils. I find investigating our evolutionary history interesting but not as a replacement for experimental science, just an interesting backdrop perhaps. It's a good place to start in any case when discussing what the natural human diet is, but mostly what it isn't.

corkcomp

I could have predicted exactly where this thread was headed, even before I read half of it! whether grains are healthy or not, or necessary or not is a bit irrelevant to the thread, the bottom line is that eating a diet of 100% meat is dumb IMO, others may not agree but each to their own.

Sapsorrow

corkcomp wrote: »

I could have predicted exactly where this thread was headed, even before I read half of it! whether grains are healthy or not, or necessary or not is a bit irrelevant to the thread, the bottom line is that eating a diet of 100% meat is dumb IMO, others may not agree but each to their own.

True I think we all came to the same conclusion at the beginning of the thread but discussing the topic is still fun esp seeing as the OP hasn't been back in a while anyway.

Sapsorrow

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

human evolution can't possibly go fast enough to cope with toxins introduced a mere 10,000 years ago

Do you mind my asking on your opinion of dairy foods? Seeing as these were also introduced around 10,000 years ago. (I'm not nit-picking, genuinely curious as I find your posts in this area interesting)
Also what about the point I made earlier about northern europeans evolving the ability to keep producing Lactase into adulthood?

El_Dangeroso

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Do you mind my asking on your opinion of dairy foods? Seeing as these were also introduced around 10,000 years ago. (I'm not nit-picking, genuinely curious as I find your posts in this area interesting)
Also what about the point I made earlier about northern europeans evolving the ability to keep producing Lactase into adulthood?

Not a huge fan of dairy, even if europeans have lactase, there are still a huge amount of dairy intolerant people about, I think it's the second or third most common allergen. I keep the casein to a minimum where I can and choose A2 casein, like goats cheese. I think generally the 80/20 rule applies there.

But yeah, this thread has gone horribly OT.

Read 'Neanderthin' by Ray Audette or 'The Paleo Diet' by Lorein Cordain if you have any further interest in the area of how our evolution influences our diet, that'll be my last contribution to this thread.