this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
5 points (100.0% liked)
Friendly Carnivore
102 readers
22 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
If you've got a paper talking about meat, metabolic health, ketones, metabolism. I'll post it. Pro or con I'll post it. I won't agree with it probably, but we can talk about it. Do you have any suggestions? Actual papers you have read, my only requirement is you've already read the paper and are willing to discuss it
The point of this paper is to talk about the undue vilification of meat with weak and perhaps even doctored evidence. However, people can be healthy eating plants, it's not necessary but it is doable - I freely admit that. Carnivore is a tool, it's a tool people should be aware of, but not everybody has to use it.
Other articles posted here imply fiber is deleterious to a proper diet, something which is the nutritional equivalent of the flat earth. I'm sure I could post articles, but arguing over the basic science of nutrition seems less fun than goading said flat earthers into buying atomic clocks.
Fibre is tolerated by most people, but it's not necessary. I welcome your primary source indicating it is actually essential
I didn't say it was essential. I'm saying it's beneficial. But that sort of rhetorical reframing is the reason why posting here is unproductive.
Great, then we are in agreement. Fibre is not essential for human health, that is the zero-carb position. Why all the fuss?
Depends on the context - in a zero-carb diet (i.e. a proper diet) fibre just bulks up stools and diminishes nutrition from proper food (meat) so you would need to increase the meat consumed. In a high-carb diet fibre diminishes the impact of the carbs (which is a benefit i agree), and bulks up stools.
Why is it beneficial? Again, primary sources that you've read only, please.