Talk:Carnivore diet/Archive1

Carnivore ancestors[edit]

The given reference says we don't know how much meat our ancestors (post-chimp) ate. Dinocrisis (talk) 19:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Why was this comment deleted? Dinocrisis (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason was that you're a sockpuppet of a troll. Can't say if that's true or not, but this comment is fine.

Which reference are you referring to? ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 20:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

You were reverted by two users. We do not know how much meat was eaten but our early ancestors were omnivores and that is what the reference supports. John66 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It says chimps were omnivores.

"Although the modern “paleodiet” movement often claims that our ancestors ate large amounts of meat, we still don’t know the proportion of meat in the diet of any early human species, nor how frequently meat was eaten." Dinocrisis (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

There is a broad consensus from the scientific community that the earliest human ancestors were omnivores. Are you actually arguing they were carnivores? The source only questions the proportion of meat eaten, not your other claim. Practically nobody believes the earliest humans were carnivorous (only carnivore dieters do). Also look closer at the source:

Our Omnivorous Ancestors

The diet of our earliest ancestors, who lived about six million years ago in Africa, was probably much like that of chimpanzees, our closest living primate cousins, who generally inhabit forest and wet savanna environments in equatorial Africa. Chimpanzees mainly eat fruit and other plant parts such as leaves, flowers, and bark, along with nuts and insects. Meat from the occasional animal forms only about 3 percent of the average chimpanzee’s diet. [1].

It is comparing the diet of our earliest ancestors to the chimpanzee diet. Both were clearly omnivorous. John66 (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Our earliest ancestors are actually much earlier. They include squirrel type things, right through to amoebae. Why are you arbitrarily selecting chimp/human common ancestors as determinate of the behavior of all of our ancestors? Don't you even know that after humans split from chimps they started eating much more meat. Perhaps even full carnivore diets in some cases. We don't know. When carnivore diet advocates speculate it was an ancestral diet, they aren't talking about our "earliest" ancestors or chimps (which according to you are our earliest ancestors, which is just wrong). You're making a strawman argument. Chimps eat 3% meat, therefore all of our ancestors did. How stupid. Dinocrisis (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

John66 why are you wasting your time talking to Michael Coombs? He is cooped and banned here, even on another sock earlier today. His new account "dinocrisis" is just an impersonation of an old account DinoCrisis, a user he has a grudge against. Desert Heat (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Irrational distraction tactics. Really cheap. Dinocrisis (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Apes are omnivores, though most of their intake is herbivorous as are orangutans. The typical gorilla diet consists of eating forty plus pounds of vegetation and fruit daily. Chimpanzees like humans are omnivores. Early hominids ate just about everything including fruits and meat. "Squirrel type things" is not a scientific answer. By squirrel type things you probably are thinking of lemur or tarsier like ancestors. Walking upright on two legs is the trait that defines the hominid lineage. I see no reason why we need to be going back 55 million years or so to discuss dieting patterns of the first primates that lived in trees. The evidence that is available says that the earliest humans were omnivores. Show me some scientific literature on early humans eating a meat-only diet if you want to be taken seriously. No evidence exists. You have admitted yourself thanks to the source that nobody knows proportion of meat in the diet of any early human species, so when you claimed there were "full carnivore diets in some cases", that appears to be bullshit. John66 (talk) 23:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If the debate is about the very first humans then perhaps we should only talk about homo erectus which were definitely omnivores, the time frame should between 1.3 to 1.8 million years. You are moving goal posts if you want to go back to squirrels type things or amoebae (3.5 billion years ago). The research for me was interesting to study Hominidae which includes humans and their fossil ancestors as well as apes, orangutans, gorillas and chimpanzees. Absolutely none of these are associated with a strict meat only diet. All of the anatomical traits support an omnivore diet. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2601:283:C201:78D0:86C0:EFFF:FE1C:3876 / talk}

User "dieter" added - Cordain, Loren (2007). "Implications of Plio-pleistocene diets for modern humans". In Peter S. Ungar. Evolution of the human diet: the known, the unknown and the unknowable. pp. 264–265. "Since the evolutionary split between hominins and pongids approximately seven million years ago, the available evidence shows that all species of hominins ate an omnivorous diet composed of minimally processed, wild-plant, and animal foods". No problem with the content, the problem is that the source is Loren Cordain the main proponent of the Paleo diet. Should we be citing one fad diet to criticise another? John66 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Obvious counter[edit]

Fruit is delicious. We wouldn't find fruit delicious if it was bad for primitive humans to eat fruit. Same for eating meat, and especially cooked meat. We find disgusting things disgusting because that's nature's way of saying "it's not healthy to eat that, stop it". Cookies didn't exist 20,000 years ago, so we haven't really evolved to hate them, but give us time. CoryUsar (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Obvious counter to your obvious counter: frozen cows' milk with refined sugar and processed cacao beans is a part of a prehistoric diet by the same logic. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 06:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

A better counter would be to look at teeth and digestive system elements evolved specially for an omnivore diet. — Dysk (contribs) 10:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Even so, fruit like apples, oranges, or melons, as we know them now, didn't exist. Nor did large lettuces, cabbages, grains large enough to grind into flour, rice. Agriculture changed everything, and we can never go back. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You're using the argumentum ad fastidium fallacy. While lots of foods are delicious to most people, there is cultural relativity to disgust. E.g. only some cultures accept hakari, lutefisk, stink heads, century egg, casu marzu and other rotten stuff as even being considered as food. A lot of people don't like the smell of durian fruit and won't eat it. So no, just because it's disgusting to you doesn't mean that "nature" is telling everyone not to eat it. Bongolian (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Broccoli is minging but apparently very good for you AMassiveGay (talk) 18:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC) Haribo is delish though AMassiveGay (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Red meat consumption is linked to higher risk of death from most major causes[edit]

[2], [3], the issue is red meat. "The results show increased risks of all cause mortality and death due to nine different causes associated with both processed and unprocessed red meat, accounted for, in part, by heme iron and nitrate/nitrite from processed meat. They also show reduced risks associated with substituting white meat, particularly unprocessed white meat." Carnivore dieters are basically killing themselves, some of them eat about twenty patties a day... crazy. John66 (talk) 23:53, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The first link is just a press release cover of your second link. Also, while I have no desire to step too far from cautious skepticism to denialism, please bear in mind that cohort studies, even if well controlled, can have many conflated variables. And, if you look at the variables the authors were well aware of and tracked on page 4, you can see basically every medical outcome negative effect also correlates with increased meat consumption: smoking, obesity, percent male, low socio-economic status, percent currently being treated for a condition. They did do sensitivity analyses, but with each variable independently. I'd be a lot happier with matched pair analysis, but I guess even if someone read this study and thought the same thing, I'll need to wait a decade for such a study to finish.

Again, it's easy to slip into denialism, and evidence with this large a dataset shouldn't be disregarded with a flippant concern about controls that may even just be me misunderstanding the methodology section. Also, worth pointing out, it's not "carnivore diets" that are the problem. This very study found a mirror protective effect from white meat kcal consumption. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 00:38, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

This is why I did not add it to the article I put it on here. I am basically looking for some serious data on high red meat consumption and mortality. There are recent cohort studies done on this (from 2012 [4] as well) which back the results from the 2018 one I cited but I am trying to find a meta-analysis or systematic review. The cohort study cited above is the latest on the subject from 2018. I cannot find anything else so far from 2018 to recent. I might be wrong about this, but I see no evidence carnivore dieters eat white meat. I have had a dig around, Jordan Peterson, Shawn Baker etc seem to eat mostly beef. In fact, Peterson and his daughter eat beef only, no white meat at all. This is all very dangerous. John66 (talk) 00:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I will just use this talk-page to document the studies I have found, then we can incorporate them into the article if they are any good. I am a fan of press releases because they usually summarize the papers for laypeople such as myself. Feel free to dump anything you may find in the sections below.

Cohort studies

Reviews

Potential health hazards of eating red meat, link to the study [6]

Based on at least six cohorts, summary results for the consumption of unprocessed red meat of 100 g day-1 varied from nonsignificant to statistically significantly increased risk (11% for stroke and for breast cancer, 15% for cardiovascular mortality, 17% for colorectal and 19% for advanced prostate cancer); for the consumption of 50 g day-1 processed meat, the risks were statistically significantly increased for most of the studied diseases (4% for total prostate cancer, 8% for cancer mortality, 9% for breast, 18% for colorectal and 19% for pancreatic cancer, 13% for stroke, 22% for total and 24% for cardiovascular mortality and 32% for diabetes).

John66 (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent advertisement on Twitter[edit]

It appears the carnivore mob are not too happy about this article, https://twitter.com/travis_statham/status/1107489713785655296 and many others, this would explain the recent vandalism to the article. John66 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The carnivore diet nutters attack in lynch groups so be careful. They will come here in the dozen. American Skeptic (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

That's fine. Article's temporarily protected from excessive vandalism and we'd all be happy to address any real concerns here on the talk page. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh look, we're paid shills who deliberately try to confuse people into thinking we're Wikipedia, never mind that A) I am getting jack in cash for my time here and B) the default wiki template looks similar and C) you're an idiot if you don't check the URL after NOTICING THAT THE BLOODY FUCKING LOGO IS DIFFERENT!!! Nope, cause that would mean admitting the ability to be fooled or be at fault, and as we all know, such things never happen to you, dear twitter user... ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Contested edits[edit]

None of the edits I did were vandalism. They added much-needed precision to this article, especially with regards to confusion between association and causality, the status of current research around constipation and fiber, the reason why carnivore dieters exclude dietary carbohydrates from the diet, and the status of the medical license of Shawn Baker. Without such precisions, I'm afraid this wiki entry remains just as biased and antiscientific as what you are advocating against. Shelby Parker (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A dubious assertion. You can't disassociate epidemiology with diet entirely by handwaving about correlation not being causation. You can even look at the "obvious counter" talk section above to see that I'm not too willing to over-stetch such assertions to imply more than they do, but to go from "this could be better evidence" to "this substantial and consistent data is wrong" requires real medical evidence, with substantiating epidemiological data, not contrary bare assertions ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

True, but you have to commit to writing to the very highest standards if you don't want to conflate one with the other. That's why criteria like Bradford-Hill exist in the first place. So it's not a question of trying to wave out epidemiology, but using precise vocabulary instead of drawing hard conclusions in places where science only have questions. Which I believe is the whole point of this wiki. Shelby Parker (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hill, himself said "while such laboratory evidence can enormously strengthen the hypothesis and, indeed, may determine the actual causative agents, the lack of such evidence cannot nullify the epidemiological associations in man". You need to do better than denialism, and find the evidence that contradicts the finding before your skepticism is warranted. And again, we have multiple scientific controlled-data citations for each particular claim of risk, many using different approaches. And even you have to admit that truly controlled laboratory experimentation of diet in humans is all but impossible ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:09, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I am very much aware of the limitations of BH criteria. They were put into place to avoid falling into the trap of making inaccurate causal claims. I am also aware that most nutritional epidemiology findings fail to replicate in clinical settings, and as a scientific field, is almost as unreliable as it gets. That's the coffee-makes-you-live-longer trope for you. When a nutritional epidemiology study finds a 20% increase in relative risk, and the authors themselves are extra-cautious in the wording of their conclusions, it seems to me very much unscientific to conflate that as hard evidence - especially considering the extraordinary difficulty of accounting for biases in said studies. As a result, making an edit rewording "Red meat causes" to "Red meat is associated with" is not only more accurate, it's actually more scientific. Shelby Parker (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

On the other hand it's not hard to search google scholar for "red meat" "interventionist", not hard at all, there's quite a few, and find supporting controlled experiments/matched pair studies(and metaanalyses thereof) with similar results. That we haven't yet is maybe a bit of a sign of our laziness, but not our disregard of science. Red meat probably requires moderation if you want to optimize for long-term health. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is that we also have epidemiological data showing a lack of correlation between those same variables (for the case of colorectal cancer and red meat, for instance). And lack of association is often a strong supporter of lack of causation. Anyhow, I am not making the claim that we should dismiss epidemiology, or even food frequency questionnaires based RCTs. Despite all their faults, those are still valuable. What I am suggesting is that we should all be extra cautious with how we word scientific findings when it comes to nutritional science. In an attempt to debunk something, it is only too easy to fall into the trap of drawing precocious conclusions. Shelby Parker (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Your edits cited no reliable scientific papers. There are 0 scientific papers that support the carnivore diet, it has been described as quackery by mainstream physicians. It is blatant quackery to argue fruit or vegetables are bad for health like carnivore dieters do. There are thousands of scientific papers that show the benefits of fiber. Science is not on your side, why pretend otherwise? I also see on Twitter you are a carnivore dieter, so you are not neutral are you?! The article talk-page is for practical improvement suggestions, not pointless arguments. I see I am being attacked on Twitter by the carnivore cult now, well you lot are no different than flat-earthers. Nice little cult you have though, go around in little mob groups attacking people, LMAO. John66 (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

My edits cited one reliable scientific paper, with regards to fiber. Now you seem to be quite on edge here, so I will let you look at my actual edit once you've calmed down. They were mostly cosmetic, adding precision, and making sure the article wouldn't conflate epidemiology to absurd proportions. As for my Twitter account, I don't see that being even a problem. I didn't try to improve this article out of spite. I just feel the readers were very much mislead in an unscientific way, and this is not advisable in a wiki like this. Shelby Parker (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't buy that. "thought to cause chronic conditions", for example, is a very very very, like so incredibly broad claim. That it lacks specificity is precisely why I reverted. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:15, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, that was bad wording from me. I meant that as the current opinion of proponents of the diet. They don't avoid carbs *because they're evil*, they avoid them because they tend to think they might be linked to chronic issues. This opinion is often motivated by anecdotal improvements of chronic issues upon removing plants from the diet. But claims of morality about a macronutrient isn't really a thing. Shelby Parker (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

But you have no scientific references to support any of your opinions. You are wasting everyone's time here Shelby Parker. I noticed on your Twitter you also retreat anti-vaccine activists. You are anti-science. American Skeptic (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I am quite flattered to see I'm sparking your fighting spirit here, but I'm afraid you missed the point I was trying to make all along. As for my retreating of anti-vaxx people, I'm not sure what you mean. I am not anti-vaccine myself, but I am quite happy to engage with the subject, although it seldom happens on Twitter. I don't care much about what people think, my interest is more about what and how they discuss. Shelby Parker (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Where is the evidence linking fruits and vegetables with various chronic diseases? Firstly, what chronic diseases are we talking about and where did you get this idea from? And list non-primary medical sources. I want to see systematic reviews on this, published in peer-reviewed papers. John66 (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

There is not one scientific paper in existence that supports the carnivore diet, why do you think that is Shelby? The entire medical community and practically every physician on the planet dismisses the carnivore diet as unscientific quackery but somehow they are all wrong and you are right? John66 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I am not making a claim of being right - I happen to follow this diet because of health improvements, but I am fully aware of the absolute lack of research on the subject. I would be thrilled to read more research, though. Perhaps if anecdotal improvements pique the interest of some researchers, we could have some evidence later on. That would help pointing out the actual truth behind carnivores anecdotes. In the meantime, we should all strive to be precise with how we report scientific facts, or lackthereof. As for your comment, I'm certain that you're intelligent enough to know that arguments of authority have no place in scientific discourse. Shelby Parker (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

No, not interested in anecdotal evidence, but yes, that is was the carnivore diet boils down to, anecdotes and silly stories at the end of the day so people can share magical stories on Twitter. It does not interest me because this is the classic sign of being pseudoscientific. The carnivore diet is the total opposite of what science is all about and this is why it is ignored in the medical literature. You talk about carnivore anecdotes having "actual truth". Shawn Baker once posted on Twitter that anecdotes are more reliable than studies. The diet is pseudoscience and this article will be the top Google search in a few weeks for carnivore diet on the web. :) Here is a good source that discusses the anecdotal factor of pseudoscience "One major problem with pseudoscience is that it places a strong and selective emphasis on anecdotes, and anecdotes alone, as support for its claims and theories. In reality, personal anecdotes alone are not a viable argument against data, facts, theory, empirical observation, and objective measurement." There is nothing objective about the carnivore diet. [7] John66 (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You're right, anecdotal evidence is not enough, which is precisely why I wish for actual research to corroborate or disprove what said anecdotes. In the meantime, this wiki entry still conflates epidemiology with causality through the use of vocabulary and seems like it's misrepresenting the main ideas behind the carnivore diet, making it more satirical than accurate. You're not supposed to be The Onion wiki. Shelby Parker (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

You are running in circles and repeating the same points, right? You're all "you need research" and then go "not that one" when there is said research and when people tell you that you aren't good at researching, you still don't seem to listen. Is it so hard to reevaluate your beliefs? --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 17:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

She does not have any references. American Skeptic (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

John66 is a vegan wanker or big pharma employee, well else has he written this biased article? He is a fucking retard. Carnivore (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Do you consider genetic sequencing "big pharma"? I can be a shill too if the answer is yes. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that Shelby's comment on the article that tried to connect fruits and vegetables with various chronic diseases was not supported by any scientific references in any medical journals. The carnivore diet has been described by critics as a troll diet. Deep down you guys just do this to piss people off, don't you? Look at all this silly carnivore memes and signs on Twitter, this is an online trolling diet. Do you really deep down believe eating vegetables is bad for health? I do not think you do, it is just a way to get a reaction from people and be controversial on social media. You guys are not really that different than the vegans. And to the guy above I deny being a 'vegan wanker'. I have spent time debunking carnivore dieting, veganism and many other extremist fad diets. John66 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

He's not a wanker he's asexual. Paid Shill (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, another carnivore troll. American Skeptic (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Calm the fuck down kiddos. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 16:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Just revert and forget about troll comments, please. --It's-a me,

Lefty Green Mario! 17:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Processed meat and lung health[edit]

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/43/4/943 , https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/43/4/972 Higher processed meat consumption is associated with poorer lung function Hate meat (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Username SERIOUSLY checks out. CTB33391 (talk) 08:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Low testosterone[edit]

https://www.livestrong.com/article/542648-can-a-vegan-diet-lower-testosterone-levels/

I found this article which suggests that people who don't eat enough meat may suffer from lower testosterone, possibly even asexuality or feminine behavior. Should we add this in? Candyman (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

no because thats bullshit and isnt what the article says. AMassiveGay (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is. And asexuality is a growing problem among today's youth. Candyman (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Fuck off troll. no it isnt. read the fucking article dickhole AMassiveGay (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is likely to be Mikemikev trolling us. He was blocked on several other accounts on here where he was trying to bash asexuality. I am not aware of any scientific evidence linking dieting to asexuality. A typical tactic this person employs is to paste in links and misrepresent what they say on purpose. It is a shame so much time is wasted responding to trolls on this wiki. John66 (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

John66 is an asexual who shows signs of feminine behaviour, that is what happens on a high-carbohydrate diet. Low-carb (talk) 14:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Stop the trolling. There is no evidence linking femininity and high-carbohydrate dieting. John66 (talk) 14:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)