If we called the process of eliminating every trigger food "carnivore", then wouldn't it stand to reason that carnivore is doing it? Sounds like arguing semantics to me. Plenty of time later to do that when we've sorted out the epidemics of non-communicable diseases we have today.
Seed oils are industrially refined oils that differ greatly in chemical composition to animal fat. Intuitively, you know that they are liquid at room temperature while tallow is solid. They are clearly not the same.
The CGM was also what convinced me after reading a lot of the literature and the books that Dr. Dulaney mentioned. It's eye-opening and I would recommend everyone try wearing one if you can, especially if you have signs of metabolic syndrome, like hypertension or high triglyceride levels.
Nutritional argument/Game Changers part: This one I skipped mostly, as any argument that some particular kind of diet is more or less healthy depends on how the diet itself is structured and whether one takes it upon themselves to meet all the different macro- and micronutrients, be it with supplements or not.
I disagree. Nutrient bio-availability means that it's not how a diet is "structured" but what you eat. There are things that we require for health as a species that we can only obtain from animal sources. Since you're vegan you have no choice but to supplement, but please keep in mind that nothing in this world exists on its own. Nutrients removed from the matrix of food our body expects to receive them from aren't the same.
Every species has evolved to eat specific things. We are meant to eat the meat and associated fat of animals, preferably ruminants and fish. No other animal on this planet "structures" its diet and supplements to "meet all the different macro and micronutrients." They eat the thing that they've evolved to eat when they're hungry, and stop eating it when they're not.
Humans are the only species intelligent enough to manufacture our own food, and dumb enough to actually eat it.
It’ll be an increase of 10% to 20% in bioavailability.
This is untrue. I am replying for the sake of others in this conversation, because Zephyr is no longer allowed to post in this community after multiple attempts to get him to watch the video that we're supposed to be discussing.
Here're a handful of comparisons for bioavailability across animal sourced foods (ASF) and plant sourced foods (PSF).
Iron: Heme form: 25-30%. Non-heme, 2-3%. This is a 1000% increase.
Zinc: ASF: 1.7 PSF: 1, 70% increase. However, anti-nutrients such as phytic acid that are only found in PSFs inhibit zinc absorption, sometimes almost entirely.
Vitamin B12: only available from ASF
Vitamin A: ASF: 12, PSF: 1 (carotenoids convert into retinol at a 12:1 ratio on average). 1200% increase.
Choline: highest concentrations in ASF
Additionally there are essential fatty acids and amino acids required for growth, development and health. DHA and EPA are only found in fish and some sea vegetables. There are also unique bioactive compounds only available in ASF: creatine, anserine, taurine, cysteamine, 4-hydroxypoline, carnosine, and many others. None are bioavailable from PSFs.
If you don't consider nutrient bioavailability. I don't blame you because it's the mainstream feel-good opinion, but the position you espouse is highly reductionist and frankly ridiculous. The higher up the food chain you go, the more efficient you get per unit of nutrition because you're leveraging the work done in the prior steps of the chain.
Put simply, you can eat all grass you like as a human being and not get any nutrition, while someone eating some fatty beef to satiety will get all the nutrition they need.
But do you know what? Dr Harcombe addresses all of this in her video, much more eloquently than I can. Please, if you want to continue posting in this community, do us a courtesy and watch the video that is the subject of discussion.
We won't cite studies if you're can't be bothered to write a post, read the studies you'd like to cite for the points you've written yourself, or watch the video in the post that we're supposed to be discussing. There is no useful discussion generated in this way.
Take note of Rule 6. As it is your first time posting here we'll go easy on you :)
I encourage you to watch the video and think critically about the information presented before regurgitating facts generated by an LLM about "this diet."
If we were to bring what I think your LLM is trying to say to its logical conclusion, what we'd have to do is also remove all pets since they too produce a large amount of food related emissions. Additionally, human gas emissions should be minimized, i.e. we should eliminate foods that cause flatulence in our diet. After all, from a philosophical standpoint, it's only fair, right?
Then there is the difference in how long methane and CO2 stays in the atmosphere that we should also consider, as well as various other cofounders such as green/blue water, arable/non-arable land, and the fact that ruminants regenerate topsoil and sequester co2 in various ways. The figures your LLM provided for emissions are inaccurate. Additionally, the initial number cited by many CO2 studies as the cost of cattle beef is in itself inaccurate and has been amended by the paper's author, so you should take a look that also.
There is also the environmental and societal cost of transporting plant matter around the planet for plant-based to even be possible in the winter months, dry/arid climes, or in the far north. If we were to only consume locally produced food that is seasonally appropriate, it is not possible to sustain a purely plant-based diet in many parts of the world.
And of course, as you are already well aware, nutrient bioavailability is an order of magnitude different between plants and animals, ignoring things that plants cannot provide that we require such as vitamin b12, cholesterol, fat soluble vitamins, heme iron, or specific amino acids.
All things considered, a sustainable and regenerative zero carb diet is superior environmentally to what I think your LLM is suggesting, which is veganism.
Btw, if all you're here to do is evangelize veganism, this is the wrong community for you. If you're open to having a sincere, good faith discussion about metabolic health, then you're more than welcome.
ps. it's just a little bit hypocritical to use an LLM, a technology with massive on-going environmental and societal costs, to generate hot air about environmentalism.
Humans eating meat absolutely is a biological fact of nature, and denying this is to deny human nature. People who use the term carnist seriously are misanthropic.
If we called the process of eliminating every trigger food "carnivore", then wouldn't it stand to reason that carnivore is doing it? Sounds like arguing semantics to me. Plenty of time later to do that when we've sorted out the epidemics of non-communicable diseases we have today.
Those of us in here who are carnivore can attest to its effects. Small sample size, but incredibly consistent testimonials.
I have a friend who is the same way. He got so sick of beef he couldn't bear the thought of it, and went back to eating carbs :(
Our stomach acidity is pretty low too.
I find it helps if I drink some salt water in the morning during a fast.
Yes this is not the onion dip, it is the garlic and herb dip.
I've heard self hosting email can be tricky. How hard is it to do? From the article it seems alright.
Seed oils are industrially refined oils that differ greatly in chemical composition to animal fat. Intuitively, you know that they are liquid at room temperature while tallow is solid. They are clearly not the same.
Inside you are two cats...
He's joking.
If we're doing n=1 anecdotes, removing fibre from my diet cured my constipation.
I know this is a jokes community but strictly speaking Diabetes Type 2 is chronically elevated blood glucose.
Sorry for pedantry but metabolic health is very important to me.
My last post: https://discuss.online/post/42623247
Is an interview with a ketogenic doctor who also is a long term endurance runner. She discusses the topic with Dr. Scher, her interviewer.
Also Dr Paul Mason is a Exercise and Sports Medicine Doctor. He has a presentation on the topic you may find interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KF3buYQWJ3E
The CGM was also what convinced me after reading a lot of the literature and the books that Dr. Dulaney mentioned. It's eye-opening and I would recommend everyone try wearing one if you can, especially if you have signs of metabolic syndrome, like hypertension or high triglyceride levels.
I disagree. Nutrient bio-availability means that it's not how a diet is "structured" but what you eat. There are things that we require for health as a species that we can only obtain from animal sources. Since you're vegan you have no choice but to supplement, but please keep in mind that nothing in this world exists on its own. Nutrients removed from the matrix of food our body expects to receive them from aren't the same.
Every species has evolved to eat specific things. We are meant to eat the meat and associated fat of animals, preferably ruminants and fish. No other animal on this planet "structures" its diet and supplements to "meet all the different macro and micronutrients." They eat the thing that they've evolved to eat when they're hungry, and stop eating it when they're not.
Humans are the only species intelligent enough to manufacture our own food, and dumb enough to actually eat it.
This is untrue. I am replying for the sake of others in this conversation, because Zephyr is no longer allowed to post in this community after multiple attempts to get him to watch the video that we're supposed to be discussing.
Here're a handful of comparisons for bioavailability across animal sourced foods (ASF) and plant sourced foods (PSF).
Additionally there are essential fatty acids and amino acids required for growth, development and health. DHA and EPA are only found in fish and some sea vegetables. There are also unique bioactive compounds only available in ASF: creatine, anserine, taurine, cysteamine, 4-hydroxypoline, carnosine, and many others. None are bioavailable from PSFs.
If you don't consider nutrient bioavailability. I don't blame you because it's the mainstream feel-good opinion, but the position you espouse is highly reductionist and frankly ridiculous. The higher up the food chain you go, the more efficient you get per unit of nutrition because you're leveraging the work done in the prior steps of the chain.
Put simply, you can eat all grass you like as a human being and not get any nutrition, while someone eating some fatty beef to satiety will get all the nutrition they need.
But do you know what? Dr Harcombe addresses all of this in her video, much more eloquently than I can. Please, if you want to continue posting in this community, do us a courtesy and watch the video that is the subject of discussion.
We won't cite studies if you're can't be bothered to write a post, read the studies you'd like to cite for the points you've written yourself, or watch the video in the post that we're supposed to be discussing. There is no useful discussion generated in this way.
Take note of Rule 6. As it is your first time posting here we'll go easy on you :)
I encourage you to watch the video and think critically about the information presented before regurgitating facts generated by an LLM about "this diet."
If we were to bring what I think your LLM is trying to say to its logical conclusion, what we'd have to do is also remove all pets since they too produce a large amount of food related emissions. Additionally, human gas emissions should be minimized, i.e. we should eliminate foods that cause flatulence in our diet. After all, from a philosophical standpoint, it's only fair, right?
Then there is the difference in how long methane and CO2 stays in the atmosphere that we should also consider, as well as various other cofounders such as green/blue water, arable/non-arable land, and the fact that ruminants regenerate topsoil and sequester co2 in various ways. The figures your LLM provided for emissions are inaccurate. Additionally, the initial number cited by many CO2 studies as the cost of cattle beef is in itself inaccurate and has been amended by the paper's author, so you should take a look that also.
There is also the environmental and societal cost of transporting plant matter around the planet for plant-based to even be possible in the winter months, dry/arid climes, or in the far north. If we were to only consume locally produced food that is seasonally appropriate, it is not possible to sustain a purely plant-based diet in many parts of the world.
And of course, as you are already well aware, nutrient bioavailability is an order of magnitude different between plants and animals, ignoring things that plants cannot provide that we require such as vitamin b12, cholesterol, fat soluble vitamins, heme iron, or specific amino acids.
All things considered, a sustainable and regenerative zero carb diet is superior environmentally to what I think your LLM is suggesting, which is veganism.
Btw, if all you're here to do is evangelize veganism, this is the wrong community for you. If you're open to having a sincere, good faith discussion about metabolic health, then you're more than welcome.
ps. it's just a little bit hypocritical to use an LLM, a technology with massive on-going environmental and societal costs, to generate hot air about environmentalism.
Humans eating meat absolutely is a biological fact of nature, and denying this is to deny human nature. People who use the term carnist seriously are misanthropic.