this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2026
4 points (83.3% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

101 readers
28 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

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Stay on topic
  3. Don't farm rage
  4. Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
  5. No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you
  6. 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

Carnivore Resource List

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
 

TLDR - EAT MEAT

Driven by perceived health and environmental benefits, initiatives to remove red meat from recommended eating patterns are increasingly being implemented in United States institutions, including schools and hospitals. While these efforts aim to address important issues, they may inadvertently lead to unintended consequences, particularly regarding essential nutrient intake for certain populations. This perspective considers the nutritional value of red meat, examines its potential health benefits, and highlights nutritional risks when intake is reduced or eliminated. Red meat is a nutrient-dense food that provides highly bioavailable protein and several essential micronutrients often lacking in the diet, including iron, zinc, and vitamin B12. These nutrients can be limited or absent in many plant-source foods as well as in some animal-source foods. Red meat’s micronutrient profile is especially valuable for young children and women of reproductive age, including pregnant women. In addition, the protein density of red meat is beneficial for individuals managing obesity and older adults at risk of sarcopenia. Many epidemiological studies suggest potential associations between excessive red meat consumption and increased risk of certain chronic diseases, but this evidence does not conclusively implicate red meat in the development or progression of chronic disease. The nutritional and health implications of reducing red meat consumption must be balanced against the low certainty of evidence used to discourage red meat intake when making dietary recommendations.

consumers are routinely confronted with messages to not only reduce red meat intake below current consumption levels but to eliminate this whole food from their diets. The present perspective proposes that this messaging could cause more harm than good to public health if implemented in public policy or dietary guidelines. Individuals at risk for undernutrition and obesity may benefit from increased intake of key nutrients by eating animal-source foods, including red meat

Full Paper - https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2025.1525011

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Midnight@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I would encourage you to read the quote from this very article, in this very thread, in which a meat industry lobbyist says fiber is one of the elements of your diet that provide an undoubtible health benefit.

[–] xep@discuss.online 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I have read the article and resent the implication of your comment. Please see rule 1. As a moderator of two communities yourself I expected better conduct from you.

Here is, however, a good faith response:

The paper cites two textbooks in nutrition for this quote, both of which are unavailable to me. If you have indeed read these sources, I invite you to cite them here in full so we may discuss them. The introduction of a paper containing no studies about fibre is not a primary source of information about fibre, and is not generally considered adequate scientific evidence for a claim. "Undoubtible" is not a scientific term. The same statement applies to the conclusion of a scientific paper, which is generally the author's opinion.

For your future reference, c/carnivore is a community for the discussion of metabolic health and its related topics. We insist that you cite primary sources because systemic lack of rigour is how "nutrition science" is such a mess in the first place. If you do cite sources, please make sure to have read the papers beforehand, and we'd also greatly prefer that you don't cite epidemiology. If you do cite epidemiology, please keep in mind Bradford Hill.

Lastly, you may be interested in some literature on fibre.

[–] Midnight@slrpnk.net 3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

I have read the article and resent the implication of your comment. Please see rule 1. As a moderator of two communities yourself I expected better conduct from you.

I think its pretty obvious there's a decent amount of sealioning going on so I think its OK to be a bit frank.

The paper cites two textbooks in nutrition for this quote, both of which are unavailable to me. If you have indeed read these sources, I invite you to cite them here in full so we may discuss them.

I guess my question would be, is the author of this article trustworthy or not. I'm going to take a wager you didn't interrogate all the over 100 articles cited by the author with as much scrutiny as those 2. Are you able to access the ones cited that reaffirm your beliefs?

For your future reference, c/carnivore is a community for the discussion of metabolic health and its related topics.

The carnivore community is for the discussion of eating meat. Something I want to be clear, I'm not intrinsically opposed to, but the fact you're pretending otherwise makes me think you're engaged in motivated reasoning.

We insist that you cite primary sources because systemic lack of rigour is how "nutrition science" is such a mess in the first place.

This article is literally written by an industry lobbyist. This paper is one of the reasons the state of nutrition science is terrible. The amount of money pumped in to provide P hacked results is substantial and one has to consider the source when evaluating what's being said.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 2 days ago

The carnivore community is for the discussion of eating meat.

Not really - its about zero-carb metabolism, reducing inflammatory compounds and being healthy.

That is why the sidebar says

We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.

So yes Meat without carbohydrates is the way to do that, but that isn't the goal of the community, health is.

[–] xep@discuss.online 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

sealioning

Besmirching the character of participants in a discussion is not acceptable behaviour in this community. Here we try to read the data and give poeple the benefit of the doubt.

This is a formal warning.

Are you able to access the ones cited that reaffirm your beliefs?

That's not relevant to the discussion at hand, which I remind you is about the effects of fibre on the human diet. See rule 2.

pretending

Again, this isn't good faith discussion. Your warning stands.

The amount of money pumped in to provide P hacked results is substantial and one has to consider the source when evaluating what's being said.

Ah, we agree on something.