this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2026
-2 points (41.7% 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
I wondered if indeed "most people think of meat, especially red meat, as dangerously unhealthy." And if so, with the proliferation of misinformation, are these concerns warranted.
Comprehensive Review of Red Meat Consumption and the Risk of Cancer https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10577092/ From the abstract: "The evidence is strong for the association between red meat and breast cancer and most gastric cancers."
Consumption of processed red meat and its impact on human health: A review https://academic.oup.com/ijfst/article/56/12/6115/7806301?login=false
But hey, what about the environmental concerns, after all an unhealthy environment would also be unhealthy for humans...
Sustainable meat consumption: global and regional greenhouse gas emission implications and counterfactual scenario analyses https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10668-023-03346-2 Less is better.
Meat Production and Consumption: Environmental Consequences https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211601X15001315 Less red meat, more veggies better.
The Environmental Cost of Red Meat: Striking the Right Balance Between Nutrition and Nature https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08901171221088661b
Sigh.
the environmental bits are dubiously methodized
This looks to me to be a review of food frequency questionnaire studies which are famous for being only good for hypothesis generation, and not great at that. Where their research has been tested by interventional experiments they generally don't survive, for example eggs and cholesterol.
Garbage in; garbage out
Are the rest of them the same? Bring interventional studies if you want to demonstrate causality, if your #1 reference is indicative all you've done is demonstrate you don't know or don't care about the explanatory power of different types of studies, and asking people what they ate in the last 5 years (tick the boxes in the categories on the form) are the least powerful, they don't even demonstrate correlation clearly since they are so low resolution, so prone to healthy food answer bias, and so reliant on human memory of what they ate up to half a decade ago
Anyway people have been doing carnivore or zero carb or zero fibre in modern times for 20 years, if meat was as dangerous as your poor quality studies say the would certainly be studies of the high cancer rate and heart attacks in the carnivore community
Your environment bits
We all know the problems of industrial farming. It's unsustainable
Fortunately the solution works for both me and you: permaculture
It makes soil rather than consuming it. It makes marginal land suitable for crops
Permaculture requires animals on the land to fertilise it, and crop plants to turn the shit to soil.
Much worse than beef farms though are grain farms
If only there was a article at the top of this talking about these studies and putting them in the proper context of their evidentiary strengths.
But if you prefer you can also see the same counters written in a different format here https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat#cancer
Before I read your papers, please let me know if you have actually read them and are willing to talk about each one in detail?
"If only there was a article at the top of this talking about these studies and putting them in the proper context of their evidentiary strengths." https://fedia.io/u/@jet@hackertalks.com - OP
It appears that the first comment on the blog you've posted is from 12 years ago, as I cannot find a specific date this blog post was created, let's assume that it's approximately 12 years old. This would also jibe well with the literature citations at the end of the blog post, which range fro 1930 to 2012, most recent paper 14 years ago. Allow me to note that this blog post is probably not rebutting papers, such as the ones I've cited that were published from 2021-2023 wrt the health effects, and 2015-2024 for the environmental papers, because that is how time works.
That is a weird linking standard. I think you can just use @jet@hackertalks.com and do the same thing, then anyone on any instance can use the link locally.
Have you read your papers fully? Are you willing to discuss them in detail?
Did you miss the burden of proof for categories like 'low vegetable' or 'low fiber?'
Could you explain what you mean?
Sure, check it out: https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/health-topics/burden-proof
Is this in rebuttal to Dr. Ede's article? Which part of her article are you rebutting? Which primary source are you using? Have you read the primary source and are you willing to discuss the paper?
No... It's a link to a massive global study on the burden of proof associated with like 100+ different things you might do that might affect your health... They give them ratings from 1 to 5 stars. One means pretty much nothing. 2 is still very weak. 3 is mediocre evidence and 4 or 5 are definitely worth considering.
https://vizhub.healthdata.org/burden-of-proof/
High fasting blood glucose is the biggest risk(diabetes). Worse than smoking or alcohol!
Much further you'll see the occasional "low fruit/veg/whole grain" typically associated with ischemic stroke or heart disease or cancer (these will appear multiple times for their different risk factors.)
They also offer risk curves(dose dependent.)
As far the article it seems grossly outdated. I'm pretty sure even at the time it was authored most scientists were getting rid of cholesterol recommendations across the world. Because they just don't seem to matter!
I really don't see how meat has a bad reputation. The amount of vegans and vegetarians is miniscule.... What's worse is that for all the claimed benefits, they don't actually live longer than 'healthy omnivores.' then again, neither do carnivores. Like if you look at Blue zones, all except one (7th day Adventists) enjoy meat and even alcohol.
That's the problem with restrictive diets when you're dealing with an omnivore.
It's pretty naive. Arguments from ignorance are frequent. Claiming our human ancestors didn't get heart disease or cancer? That's just fucking stupid and we do have evidence otherwise.
But then again she wraps around to the point that dietary cholesterol doesn't really matter. Which is probably correct.
So FUD? But not FUD? I dunno. Pick a lane?
Meat isn't nutritionally complete. There's really no true carnivore. Most would ultimately fall under a facultative label.
This isn't necessarily true. We feed pigs and chickens high PUFA feeds(which reduces their SFAs). This technically makes pork lard a super food(fat.)
I guess this is what you get when a psychiatrist wants to pretend they're a nutritionist.
Well, if its not worth your time to read the papers, then its not worth my time to read the papers. If your unwilling to engage in good faith discussions, I don't need to address the points raised in the sources you refuse to read yourself.
Ok? 👌
Low vegetable is a category all it's own.
And most people don't get enough fiber and they don't eat enough vegetables.
It's funny. You mix vegetarianism with carnivorism and you get the perfect omnivorous diet. Crazy!!!
Funny, I can't find a number for the minimum fibre intake for optimum health, it's almost like fibre isn't a nutrient for humans
Fiber isnt a nutrient, our bodies cant digest it.... and thus why its important.
It's valuable to us like cars are valuable to highways, except our guts have a job without cars
Out of the analogy fibre is good for blocking uptake of what you eat and slowing down too fast digestion, which is great if what you're eating isn't good for you, but which you don't want if you only eat stuff that is entirely good