this post was submitted on 17 Jun 2026
2 points (60.0% liked)
Friendly Carnivore
102 readers
56 users here now
Carnivore
The ultimate, zero carb, elimination diet
Meat Heals.
We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.
Keep being AWESOME
We welcome engaged, polite, and logical debates and questions of any type
Purpose
- lifestyle
- food
- Science
- problems
- Recipes
- Sustainability
- Regenerative lifestyle
Rules
- Be nice
- Stay on topic
- Don't farm rage
- Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
- No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you
- No LLM generated posts . Don't represent machine output as your own, and don't use machines to burn human response time.
Other terms: LCHF Carnivore, Keto Carnivore, Ketogenic Carnivore, Low Carb Carnivore, Zero Carb Carnivore, Animal Based Diet, Animal Sourced Foods
Meta
If you need to block this community and the UI won't let you, go to settings -> blocks you can add it.
[Meta] Moderation Policy for Niche Communities
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
No. Its the same rhetorical move its just different from the more aggressive "just asking questions"
I'm trying not to, but this is a short clip without any context or further readings.
I want you guys to have better educational materials.
This guy says a lot of things with coincidental or anecdotal evidence at best and that's not good evidence when also trying to position oneself as an academic expert e.g. "Dr." In the name. Dr. Mason should know better if the Dr. Is worth anything.
Take the criticism or don't, but this is a relatively small push back to the carnivore idea.
If there's more, better science on these claims, then they should be included, referenced within the talk. Something! Maybe this is just an out of context clip, but that doesn't make the argument better. It's fundamentally a bad line of reasoning that only means something to people deep in the weeds of carnivore food science. How was I, an outsider, supposed to know about the paper you're citing? How can I know he knows about it?
The other mods have pointed out I haven't been seeing your replies due to a weird federation block issue that I've resolved. Looking at your comment history in this community I need to remind you have our Rule 4 - I would reply to the earlier comments, but they didn't federate to me.
You can disagree, you can dislike, you can provide counter arguments but ad hominem attacks against people (including the people making the articles and content) isn't what we do in this community.
I've made no ad hominem attacks so far as I can tell.
I'm criticizing rhetorical style and listing my reasons why.
The closest I can see to ad hominem was putting "Dr." In quotes, but that was just for emphasis on the title since I didn't know if asterix would work e.g. Dr.
Also, my apologies for any confusion as I do have 2 accounts. I promise I'm not tying to ban evade or anything. I just forgot I switched at some point.
Here is the full talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kvh4D_osFXs
I've made a post on it for you - https://startrek.website/post/41025554 He does reference the papers that support his statements in the slides.
I can tell you from personal experience posting that almost nobody will actually watch a hour long lecture, but they will watch a 30s short.
The sunlight talk really isn't about carnivore, it's about the benefits of sunlight exposure. The very minor part of the talk discussing photosensitivity on different diets is more of an aside then the focus.
You can ask, you can watch his full lecture - but coming in swinging puts people on the back foot.
I was in error, the short clip is actually from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVqNO8rgYKk a informal 5 minute talk he gave at a keto conference (preaching to the choir so to speak), but it is based on his more formal lecture I discussed above.
Honestly I hate youtube clipping, it confuses everything.
I did watch the full lecture you linked, but I did notice it was different from the short clip.
Its a good talk and well cited. It also matches sources I had found independently with the help of my fiance who has a degree in chemistry and in nursing (alas, I am just a history fan who likes to argue).
But I'd like to point out I did say
Does my original point make sense?
I do think there's interesting science here and I honestly and truly don't want you guys getting caught in grifter style clip farming, rage baiting, circle jerkings. Dr. Mason seems to be a pretty good source, but his newer content is slipping into this sensationalist format of communication.
A lot of his newer stuff has lines like "what mainstream medicine doesn't want you to know!" "Are you smarter than you're doctor?" Which I admittedly haven't seen those videos yet, but that's a red flag that a lot of carnivore content seems to lean on.
I get it, that's how the algorithm works, but I think good information can thrive by just being packaged well.
Sure, you may disagree with the packaging but we try to look at the content. I was very disappointed to your treatment of Dr Georgia Ede
Update - you might want to just restrict yourself to the papers we discuss - https://startrek.website/search?q=%5Bpaper%5D&type=All&listingType=All&communityId=778784&page=1&sort=New&titleOnly=true
Then the format is very academic and cited.
Last warning. No more ad hominem attacks
Still not an ad hominem.
Do you want me to compile examples? I'm trying to explain my miss givings with carnivore content creators and there is employment of these tactics in their promotion of content.
I will admit my use of circle jerk was crass and for that I'm sorry, but I'm genuinely wanting to talk about what I perceive to be a bad mark on your community.
This is reasonable.
Yeah, but I can't really fix algorithmic headlines from the short end of a super niche community. I post the actual papers here too. I even change headlines to make them more factual when I can (especially the testimonial videos).
And genuinely, I deeply appreciate the work that you have done to try and rectify the clickbait aspects. It has made the content more approachable for me. I admit I'm kinda of a pain when I get curious cause I wanna fight a little when its challenging to what I know and a lot of this is pretty challenging. You've been a wonderful ambassador for this lifestyle of yours.
And genuinely, I don't know what I want you and your community to do about the algorithm gaming. The examples posted here haven't been egregious, I'm just annoyingly sensitive to it. They mostly seem to be real scientists with real science to push, but are forced to play the algo game for reach.
Maybe I just wanted y'all to be aware of it? Maybe I wanted to be aware of it? That this is part of this strange conditioning we have thanks to reddit brain to want to immediately get upset about something kinda dumb to be mad about. I don't really know.
Hopefully you got something out of our interactions because I got a lot.
Fair enough, we are aware! I'm afraid nobody is going to be dropping hundreds of millions of dollars to find out why zero-carb meat eaters don't get sunburns. The closet we have to that is the Baszucki family dropping 400m into metabolic psychiatry research. Fixing bipolar probably is a greater net positive for humanity, so I get it. If i was god dictator of earth there is a bunch of foundational science I would fund.