https://feddit.org/post/13994826/7165181
Everything I downvoted was because I genuinely do not think it’s good. Like meat is not going to cure cancer.
I actually really like eating meat I just try to life a life that gives others room to enjoy this earth too without mutually destroying it.
Please tell me how I am the asshole :)
This would be a great discussion post for the !carnivore@dubvee.org community
https://www.dietdoctor.com/red-meat-and-colon-cancer-the-evidence-remains-weak
TLDR The evidence against red meat is extremely weak, and has tremendous healthy user bias, especially since most people in epidemiology surveys have a carbohydrate metabolism. For a true comparison against carnivore eaters we would need to see a ketogenic metabolism.
Post a real source next time.
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat
I welcome you to post in !carnivore@discuss.online
The IARC is not evidence, its expert opinion, which is a form of appeal to authority
https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat#cancer
At the above link they go over the associations in detail. I point this out to demonstrate there are other experts with different opinions. This is the problem with expert opinion.
The WHO is accurate here, I quoted the relevant parts and the IARC press release confirms the WHO parts I quoted. YOUR statement that the evidence is weak and biased is not supported.
The IARC is a body that reviewed associative data and published an opinion, that is the definition of expert opinion.
So if you want to actually review the studies…
https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat#cancer
If you are satisfied with the WHO as your absolutely authority on truth, I respect that, but then there isn’t much point in us talking.
Lol comparing it to cigarette smoke and then saying it’s totally fine is some manipulative shit. Cigarettes are less carcinogenic than sleeping in Chernobyl overnight, does that make cigarettes safe?
The WHO is more like the minimum. They only publish established science and are very slow. If they say it is true, then it is super true. However, it could be WORSE than what they say or there could be other issues, because the WHO only announces established things using exact language. If that means red meat gets classified as a Group 2A carcinogen, versus cigarettes and processed meat’s Group 1 designation, then they are correct. If you don’t understand what science is as a field, you can just say that.
Ps - why arent you posting about how processed meat is bad for carnivore dieters due to the cancer risk? You claim to care about others, yet crickets on that…
Because this post is about the moderator decision.
Processed meat should be avoided, the carnivore diet is about eliminating processed foods, sugars, fructose, etc. So no need for crickets because we never promote processed meat.
This is just a SUPER version of appeal to authority. Associative epidemiology cannot establish causation.
The WHO definitively states that processed meat causes cancer.
The original post doesn’t mention to avoid carcinogenic meats like processed meats at all. It claims meat cures cancer.
Ps appeal to authority isn’t a fallacy when it is directly related to the subject and supported by evidence in their body of work, which the WHO does both and which I cited directly.
We are just talking in circles, we have different standards of evidence.
Its kind of difficult to start discussions in your communities if I’m already auto-banned for downvoting a couple of things that pop up in your all feed…
I’m happy to remove the ban if you agree with the community guidelines. Mainly be respectful of other choices, not downvoting everything you see
Nah, you actively promote the idea that the WHO and other cancer orgs are lying about red meat. I’m good not getting ass cancer
You haven’t been banned.
The WHO has not established causation. Cancer rates globally have risen geometrically since the 1900s, red meat consumption as actually gone down globally since 1900. If red meat is a problem it isn’t a new problem, so it can’t be responsible for the rise in cancer since 1900.
I meant nah to joining your sub meant to kill people through ignorance. Processed meats absolutely cause ass cancer. You have yet to say anything about how meat eaters should avoid processed meats.
In the past, people were eating things like liver, heart, brain, tongue, and other organs that have unique stores of vitamins (eg coq10). People only eat muscle meat now, rarely do they have access to organ meat that isn’t also processed. I’ve seen hunters in Alaska eat a fresh bleeding heart from a caribou - sure, THOSE guys are indicated for it. But your average person in the US is not eating a balanced diet on only carnivore and not getting enough fat soluble vitamins.
Last, our society has put carcinogens into almost everything we touch. Laundry detergent, soaps all have benzene rings. The DDT from the 70s is still here, just buried under topsoil. There’s glyphosate in every water table in the US. There’s mercury contamination from the Gold Rush in nearly the entire west coast and Appalachia. You are being simplistic with your reasoning here that because cancer rates rose, then that must mean meat is okay - lol, no. We just are poisoning ourselves, so much so that it is pushing at the boundaries of human survival: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Can you please cite the non-epidemiology study establishing this causation?
The carnivore community agrees that every part of animal needs to be eaten from tip to tail in the same proportions as in the animal.
The WHO explicitly says it causes cancer, I cited that above. Can you explain what a non-epidemology study would look like for this research? Genuinely curious what you think this is
Pffft lmfao when was the last time you ate liver? Brain?
Today i ate liver with ground beef. .
The WHO opinion isn’t research.
Don’t worry about it, I will respect your choice to ban me and block all of your communities
The way you handle your communities coupled with the type of posts that appear there make this all seem like its just pro-meat industry propaganda. I suppose if your goal is to spread shitty illogical arguments that could affect other peoples health, then banning dissent is a good idea. Keep on fighting the good fight!
BTW I’m still 50/50 that your are a bot, and about 30/70 that you are simply a person who works in the agriculture lobbying arena.
You should be banning these posts that are clearly bullshit instead of users who recognize bullshit when they see it.
Examples please? I absolutely want to change people’s health. I want to improve it! 93% of westerners have diminished metabolic health. 1 billion people have type 2 diabetes. There is no where to go but up!
What is your criteria for acceptable nutritional information?
Recommending people in general increase meat consumption, especially those in america, is absurd and dangerous. If you have your way you will shorten lives and cause awful health conditions.
Just because this carnivore diet seems to suit you, doesnt mean it suits other people. You are no different than militant vegans in my opinion.
You said you were triggered in another comment, do you want to talk about why I don’t think this is dangerous and in fact very beneficial for humanity?
trigger warning nutrition
The single biggest cause of metabolic disease is elevated carbohydrate consumption. Carnivore by virtue of having no carbohydrates is the single fastest way for metabolically unwell people to realize better metabolic health. This is a strict form of a ketogenic diet, which reduces blood sugar, brings down insulin levels - resolving many of the metabolic chronic diseases killing millions - hyper tension, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease… all of these are rooted in poor metabolic health.
Keeping insulin levels low is the key to improving the health of humanity. There are a few approaches here - from whole foods, single ingredient foods, to ketogenic (carnivore being a subset).
They only major difference between Keto and carnivore is the removal of plants, which reduces the carbohydrate load, simplifies the food plan - makes it easier to maintain. Some people have plant allergies, sensitivities - such as gluten sensitivity, allergies, ibs, chrones, etc. Carnivore reduces gut inflammation for these people.
Is Carnivore necessary for great health? No. Does Carnivore cause bad health? No. Carnivore can be part of a very strong health plan.
Carnivores on the whole are not militant, we don’t generally get bothered by what other people eat. For myself I just care about informed decisions for those in my life. I present the best data I have, and its up to them to make their own choices, which I respect.
I would agree with you if I thought the most important aspect of a healthy diet were convenience or efficiency.
The aspects I am concerned about are length and quality of life. I do not believe studies show that a carnivore diet like you propose would be beneficial for either of those things.
I accept that not everyone will thrive on the same diet but ideally I would expect people to choose the best options that optimize for long term health.
The type of diet you recommend would only be optimal for those who do care about speed and efficiency of a diet, like those who are dangerously overweight, and even in those cases it wouldnt be the recommended diet long term once the danger is mitigated.
This is also what I value
There is a overwhelming amount of data on ketogenic interventions succeeding beyond compare here. Carnivore is a type of Ketogenic metabolism. Here is my favorite medical textbook on the subject Ketogenic : The Science of Therapeutic Carbohydrate Restriction in Human Health it’s on all the pirate sites.
We simply differ on what we think is optimal.
No, we differ on what we thing is good to share with other people or not. I would not share the stuff you are even if I agreed with it, because it is not proven science and I would be concerned about causing harm to others by jumping to conclusions or mid interpreting studies, as I saw you do multiple times in response to another poster.
I think you are overconfident, ego-driven, and controlling in the way you handle your communities. If they were bigger and, frankly, more believable, I’d care more about the possible harm you could cause.
Essentially I think you are an impotent dictator, and I find that to be ridiculous so I’m making fun of it.
No. Fuck off with that shit. Already blocked that community. Thank you 😘 byeeeee!
Right, this is why you are not a good fit for that community - we can’t have a meaningful discussion.
Hence why I’m not in that community and blocked it. You are the one here evangelizing me for it 😂
Never waste a opportunity for outreach and to clear up misunderstandings. Y’all are here disparaging me and my words - which is a invitation for dialog.