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
- 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 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.
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.
I think its pretty obvious there's a decent amount of sealioning going on so I think its OK to be a bit frank.
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?
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.
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.
Not really - its about zero-carb metabolism, reducing inflammatory compounds and being healthy.
That is why the sidebar says
So yes Meat without carbohydrates is the way to do that, but that isn't the goal of the community, health is.
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.
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.
Again, this isn't good faith discussion. Your warning stands.
Ah, we agree on something.