Carnivore Diet recovery success stories on YouTube

[GreenEdge]

I’m following a very ancestrally appropriate "Lion diet" consisting of only ruminant meat, salt and water.
For variety, I sometimes have bacon and/or eggs.

I don’t find it restrictive at all. (12:20)
Living with ME/CFS is restrictive.

When you think about it, no animal, other than humans, gets diabetes.
Now our pets are getting diabetes, so the cause must be something in their food.
Feed our pets the food they evolved to eat “raw meat”, and the diabetic diseased state will reverse.

Also, we have known since the 1920’s that, a high fat ketogenic diet can cure children with epilepsy.
Why would a diet, that works for one condition, not work for another?

Joe Rogan - Carnivore Diet Fixed Mikhaila Peterson's Arthritis (26:06)

Joe Rogan - Jordan Peterson's Carnivore Diet Cured His Depression? (28:55)

 

[LINE]

Give it a try - it could certainly help!

 

[BrightCandle]

Rats and mice get diabetes. There is a lot of bro science in the keto space and the actual science on nutrition doesn't support carnivore as a historical natural diet nor as a healthy diet.

 

[Viala]

It still may be helpful as a source of valuable information. Does it work because they eat something that the body needs or does it work because they don't eat things that are harfmul to them, or maybe it's both. The change in gut microflora surely is important here. The question is, can this effect be achieved with a more regular diet.

Do they eat only organic meat?

 

[GreenEdge]

It still may be helpful as a source of valuable information. Does it work because they eat something that the body needs or does it work because they don't eat things that are harfmul to them, or maybe it's both.

It works because they don't eat things that are harmful to them.

Animals can run and hide, but plants can only use toxins to discourage predation.
All plants contain toxins. Try eating a leaf off a scrub. That bitter taste is telling you not to eat it.

The carbohydrates raise insulin which makes you fat; and the plant toxins make you sick.
Remove plants from your diet and watch your obesity; and disease(s) reverse.

The change in gut microflora surely is important here. The question is, can this effect be achieved with a more regular diet.

How important is micro-flora?
Humans digest meat in our small intestines using enzymes.
That's why compared to other mammals:

• our small intestines are twice the size of a typical mammal.
• our large intestines are half the size of a typical mammal.
• our appendix tells us we are not herbivores. (YouTube-shorts)

Micro-flora live in our large intestines. Since this has decreased in size; not important.

Do they eat only organic meat?

No, there is very little difference. However, grass fed, grass finished will have a better Omega 3:6 ratio.

 

[Alvin2]

There is a lot of bro science in the keto space and the actual science on nutrition doesn't support carnivore as a historical natural diet nor as a healthy diet.

Correct:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/

 

[Garz]

there is a HUGE amount of distortion, misinformation and poor sceince in the - "what should humans eat space" - especially on both sides of the Plant Based vs Meat debate.

so much so that its nearly impossible to have a useful pragmatic debate on the topic.

it seems that more and more people are in general starting with what they would prefer to be true - and then looking for "evidence", quotations, celebrity endorsements or "science" to support their beliefs.

The whole topic has become politicized as there are a lot of rather poor but heavily publicised science - for instance linking meat with climate change - while failing to differentiate between factory farmed meat vs pasture raised meat (one being a carbon positive activity and one being a carbon negative) - or failing to account for carbon costs of the supply chain on one set of food stuffs - eg arable crops - but including it on the other, and then governments basing policy on this stuff nonetheless.

and on the other side of the debate - we have celebrities, podcasters, and influencers etc jumping on the Carnivore or Keto band wagons and telling millions that its how humans are supposed to eat - how wonderful their skin and hair is now etc etc

because its a contentious and divisive topic - it is absolutely perfect fodder for the algorithm driven attention economy of social media - promoting whatever gets the most clicks and watches - without a care for the division and polarisation it causes in our society.

the whole thing is a mess. people cannot agree on even the basic facts - everyone's "facts" are different - depending on their preferred belief - and from there on everything that follows is just an argument - everyone discounting the others "facts"

 

[Alvin2]

there is a HUGE amount of distortion, misinformation and poor sceince in the - "what should humans eat space" - especially on both sides of the Plant Based vs Meat debate.

so much so that its nearly impossible to have a useful pragmatic debate on the topic.

it seems that more and more people are in general starting with what they would prefer to be true - and then looking for "evidence", quotations, celebrity endorsements or "science" to support their beliefs.

The whole topic has become politicized as there are a lot of rather poor but heavily publicised science - for instance linking meat with climate change - while failing to differentiate between factory farmed meat vs pasture raised meat (one being a carbon positive activity and one being a carbon negative) - or failing to account for carbon costs of the supply chain on one set of food stuffs - eg arable crops - but including it on the other, and then governments basing policy on this stuff nonetheless.

and on the other side of the debate - we have celebrities, podcasters, and influencers etc jumping on the Carnivore or Keto band wagons and telling millions that its how humans are supposed to eat - how wonderful their skin and hair is now etc etc

because its a contentious and divisive topic - it is absolutely perfect fodder for the algorithm driven attention economy of social media - promoting whatever gets the most clicks and watches - without a care for the division and polarisation it causes in our society.

the whole thing is a mess. people cannot agree on even the basic facts - everyone's "facts" are different - depending on their preferred belief - and from there on everything that follows is just an argument - everyone discounting the others "facts"

Well put.
I have been wanting to write on this subject, if i had the cognitive functioning to do so as i have spent many years researching this.
IMO the ideal diet would be closer to mostly vegetables, some fruit, some grass fed meat, some dairy and some grain.
With little refined sugar. And of course no trans fats.

Also we have mostly mono-culture crops these days which was not the case in the past. I forget the exact numbers but something like 90% of our calories comes from 15 base crops (or something like that, i have it bookmarked somewhere).

 

[IThinkImTurningJapanese]

Animals can run and hide, but plants can only use toxins to discourage predation.

As a gardener, I can tell you that you have that so right. The herbivores that they are are trying to discourage are primarily insects. Yet, they produce substances that can cause us untold problems. Several members can relate to the issue with oxalates.

But we have evolved over millennia to tolerate such substances. The weaker cells of our bodys don't make it so well, thus the anti-cancer effects of so many plants. I take a famous plant poison, processed so that it doesn't kill me, but it is brutal on viruses and retro-viruses.

 

[Viala]

No, there is very little difference. However, grass fed, grass finished will have a better Omega 3:6 ratio.

Non grass fed meet has much much higher ratio of omega 6. We need omega 3, so I believe eating organic or non organic can make a difference in a long time. Probably aminoacid panel is also different for animals fed soy fodder, which is unnatural forage, same goes for vitamins, minerals. Organic meat would be much better, but it is expensive.

 

[Viala]

there is a HUGE amount of distortion, misinformation and poor sceince in the - "what should humans eat space" - especially on both sides of the Plant Based vs Meat debate.

so much so that its nearly impossible to have a useful pragmatic debate on the topic.

You are totally right. Nonetheless, it is an interesting and important topic, what is the healthiest diet for human beings. Should we eat grains and legumes, they were introduced only recently, or should we eat more like hunter-gatherers? To what diet our digestion is most accustomed to right now? What diet is the best to treat certain conditions? Should it be a permanent diet or only temporary? How much meat should we eat and should we eat meat at all? Would eating dairy be enough? Should we eat dairy? And then how much meat is too much or not enough? How much carbs, fats and proteins? I think there is a lot we need to learn.

I found this interesting research:
Diets of modern hunter-gatherers vary substantially in their carbohydrate content depending on ecoenvironments: results from an ethnographic analysis

In the past, attempts have been made to estimate the carbohydrate contents of preagricultural human diets.
[...] using data of plant-to-animal subsistence ratios, we calculated the carbohydrate intake (percentage of the total energy) in 229 hunter-gatherer diets throughout the world and determined how differences in ecological environments altered carbohydrate intake.

We found a wide range of carbohydrate intake (≈3%-50% of the total energy intake; median and mode, 16%-22% of the total energy). Hunter-gatherer diets were characterized by an identical carbohydrate intake (30%-35% of the total energy) over a wide range of latitude intervals (11°-40° north or south of the equator). However, with increasing latitude intervals from 41° to greater than 60°, carbohydrate intake decreased markedly from approximately equal to 20% to 9% or less of the total energy.

Hunter-gatherers living in desert and tropical grasslands consumed the most carbohydrates (≈29%-34% of the total energy). Diets of hunter-gatherers living in northern areas (tundra and northern coniferous forest) contained a very low carbohydrate content (≤15% of the total energy). In conclusion, diets of hunter-gatherers showed substantial variation in their carbohydrate content. Independent of the local environment, however, the range of energy intake from carbohydrates in the diets of most hunter-gatherer societies was markedly different (lower) from the amounts currently recommended for healthy humans.

 

[ChrisD]

FWIW, I do a lot better on a high protein/meat diet, specifically red meat - beef, lamb, venison, duck (£$€).

I originally tried to go Carnivore after a year of Keto adaptation, but quickly encountered gallbladder issues that I couldnt circumnavigate (may be genetic issues), then Keto after 2 years started straining thyroid and adrenals.

So I reverted to a balanced whole food diet with low fibre and as much meat as possible. Fish, eggs, cheese etc. As well and I do best on this but I'm still housebound, although days are much easier than the weakness I get from low red meat.

 

[GreenEdge]

Here's evidence the carnivore diet is safe long term:

 

[GreenEdge]

This man gained 17lbs (7kg) of muscle in just 30 days:

30 DAYS CARNIVORE - Life Changing Results??

 

[GreenEdge]

But we have evolved over millennia to tolerate such substances. The weaker cells of our bodys don't make it so well, thus the anti-cancer effects of so many plants. I take a famous plant poison, processed so that it doesn't kill me, but it is brutal on viruses and retro-viruses.

Yes.

Starvation food is like medicine. ———-
Processed foods - requires medicine. —-
Meat gives us life - without medicine. —-- -GreenEdge

 

[Osaca]

I think BrightCandle and Garz have said almost everything there is to say about this debate. The science behind the debate on health consequences on every possible diet are often quite wishy-washy.

However, there are some recent interesting results (for instance https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31039280/) on the Keto side of things (not the diet but supplementation of Ketones), with some of the main research coming from professional cycling. Cyclist obviously don’t follow a Keto diet, however a bunch of them have started drinking Ketogenic Esters, at very specific times, to simulate and surpass those effects. The ultimate goal being a legal form of doping where Ketones raise EPO which dramatically increases red blood cell count and survival time of red blood cells. However, EPO has not been found useful in ME/CFS.

All of this research is really still at the beginning, without any knowledge of long-term effects, but it is quite cool and has shown some significant first results, albeit it currently seems completely irrelevant for ME/CFS. There’s a decent thread by one of the researchers in the Topic in Twitter:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1598255404739284992

.

 

[GreenEdge]

Join Ribeye Rachael in this interview as she shares her inspiring journey of how she overcame chronic illnesses through the carnivore diet. Rachel discusses her initial skepticism, her struggles with various chronic conditions, and her decision to try the carnivore diet after hearing positive stories. She explains the improvements she experienced, her transition to an animal-based approach, and the role her supportive family played in her healing journey. Rachael also emphasizes the importance of addressing the nervous system and shares her unique perspective on Lyme disease and the body's innate ability to heal.

 

[musicfan50]

[snipped]

I've come back to this forum for my own needs I'm battling diabetes T2D and am confused.

I'm going to a "Free Diabetes Education" day this Saturday - but have no idea what meal plan will be pushed.

I bought the Mastering Diabetes book with Robby and Cyrus but had trouble getting to grips with it. Also Neal Barnard book.

 

[GreenEdge]

Epidemiology is based on food frequency questionnaires - Questionnaires can be used to collect quantitative and/or qualitative information. That's level 6 on the hierarchy of levels of evidence, see: https://libguides.winona.edu/ebptoolkit/Levels-Evidence

Epidemiology can only show a correlation - useful for forming a hypothesis. If the correlation is strong enough it might be worth running an experiment (eg. RCT) to prove causation, but history shows that if strength is < 2, when tested by running an experimental trial, it more often than not turns out to be false. So when they site epidemiology and say an increased risk of 65% - it makes for sensational headlines (that's all). What they're really saying is the strength of the association was only 1.65

For context, the link between smoking and lung cancer had a strength between 15 and 30. So smoking increases your risk of lung cancer between 1,500 and 3,000% and it took decades for medical authorities to accept it. Smoking also has a 4 X increased risk of CVD and heart attack.

When the WHO reported that red meat and processed meat causes cancer, the strength was 1.13 and 1.18 respectively. In other words, it's so weak, it's most likely not even real and possibly an indication that meat is so healthy that even when processed it's still good for you.

 

[GreenEdge]

I'm battling diabetes T2D and very confused.

Listen to Dr. David Unwin on YouTube. He's a UK doctor with a 50% success rate at putting T2D into remission.