I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Carnivore and Bile Acid Malabsorption
"My nutritional perspective is mostly based on an understanding of physiology and an understanding of the components of foods along with a historical understanding of human dietary practices."
I'm pretty sure Judy Cho would say the same thing. She also has a certification in nutrition (for whatever that's worth, maybe not much, but it shows that she studied something), published a popular book (again, doesn't prove anything, but it shows she studied something in depth and cared enough to publish a book), and runs her own practice which involves troubleshooting actual problems in actual people (her success in this practice is what really matters in the end). Objectively, she has more real world experience with nutrition and patient care than you do.
"What I wrote addressed a fundamental reason why a meat only diet is far from optimal. Your response contains no rebuttal to what I wrote. Nobody cares what some nutritionist is doing, if you disagree with what I wrote the only way to weaken my argument is to rebut the points I made."
@jeremy did make an appropriate rebuttal. The rebuttal was that Judy Cho oversees clients who have been diagnosed with CIRS. In her practice, she has seen better outcomes with people on a carnivore diet than people on a mixed diet. She actually has real world experience, whereas you are simply regurgitating information you read or heard somewhere. You may not care what Judy Cho is doing, but other people do. Your idea of a "balanced" diet is not the same as what others consider to be a "balanced" diet, and based on the successes of practices like those of Judy Cho, Paleomedicina, and others that focus on eliminating plants, it is pretty clear that a plant-free diet is sufficiently "balanced" to heal people from auto-immune conditions, gastrointestinal disease, and to put cancer into remission.
"Jeremy made an appeal to authority as the basis for his argument while not addressing my points, you're doing similar. Because of that appeal to authority I examined the authority in question. Turns out the authority is highly uncredible."
No, you're wrong. An appeal to authority argument would be, "A carnivore diet is optimal because Judy Cho says so." The argument that @jeremy made is that the clinical experience Judy Cho has with clients on different diets indicates that a carnivore diet is optimal.
I don't know if there's a logical fallacy equivalent to the opposite of the appeal to authority (ad hominem attack?), but that is what you are doing when you say "Your argument is based on the claims of an ex vegan turned carnivore woman with a history of an eating disorder and hospitalization due to mental illness with no health qualifications that uses a bogus credential to create a false impression that she does." You are attempting to discredit the empirical knowledge she is providing by attacking her personal history, when in fact her personal history actually provides additional breadth of experience from which she can make inferences.
I'm pretty sure Judy Cho would say the same thing. She also has a certification in nutrition (for whatever that's worth, maybe not much, but it shows that she studied something), published a popular book (again, doesn't prove anything, but it shows she studied something in depth and cared enough to publish a book), and runs her own practice which involves troubleshooting actual problems in actual people (her success in this practice is what really matters in the end). Objectively, she has more real world experience with nutrition and patient care than you do.
You're completely missing the point which is that I'm not appealing to authority and nobody is appealing to me as an authority. You and Jeremy are appealing to Cho as an authority. You've also just admitted you know nothing about her credentials which are bogus.
@jeremy did make an appropriate rebuttal. The rebuttal was that Judy Cho oversees clients who have been diagnosed with CIRS. In her practice, she has seen better outcomes with people on a carnivore diet than people on a mixed diet. She actually has real world experience, whereas you are simply regurgitating information you read or heard somewhere. You may not care what Judy Cho is doing, but other people do. Your idea of a "balanced" diet is not the same as what others consider to be a "balanced" diet, and based on the successes of practices like those of Judy Cho, Paleomedicina, and others that focus on eliminating plants, it is pretty clear that a plant-free diet is sufficiently "balanced" to heal people from auto-immune conditions, gastrointestinal disease, and to put cancer into remission.
Nonsense. A rebuttal involves responding directly to the points of the other party and explaining why they were wrong. Imagine thinking that parroting claims one unqualified woman is making is a rebuttal to my statements about basic physiology, makes no sense. Then imagine accusing me of regurgitating information.
No, you're wrong. An appeal to authority argument would be, "A carnivore diet is optimal because Judy Cho says so." The argument that @jeremy made is that the clinical experience Judy Cho has with clients on different diets indicates that a carnivore diet is optimal.
No I'm not. Unless sound evidence is published of results she is getting it's just anecdotes and the opinion of someone that isn't a sound authority. Anecdotes that contradict actual authorities. This is all just word gymnastics though resulting from extreme fad diet dogmatism and it doesn't matter if this lady is turning water into wine it has nothing to do with my initial points.
I don't know if there's a logical fallacy equivalent to the opposite of the appeal to authority (ad hominem attack?), but that is what you are doing when you say "Your argument is based on the claims of an ex vegan turned carnivore woman with a history of an eating disorder and hospitalization due to mental illness with no health qualifications that uses a bogus credential to create a false impression that she does." You are attempting to discredit the empirical knowledge she is providing by attacking her personal history, when in fact her personal history actually provides additional breadth of experience from which she can make inferences.
No I did not write anything other than easily verifiable facts published on her own website due to her claims being used in attempts to weaken the points I initially made.
Talk about beating around the bush. If you don't want to directly debate the actual points I presented then move along.
@tommy
"I’m currently having a lot of beans every day, it’s hard to tell if it’s helping, even if it is this will probably take a long time."
are you doing the gallbladder protocol in the bean protocol? I have not read it but I read from others that do it and they do a small amount (1-2 tbsp) every half hour or so, or just frequently through the day...
My gallbladder also started to suffer after doing carnivore several years... and I seriously have the feeling that it kinda clogged up my liver. But it took a long time.
Ok, sorry for opening that can of worms.
I still think that a meat bases diet is optimal and that humans in fact are carnivores and not starch eating omnivores. Had my fair share with those type of diets. (Again, personal opinion and experience. You make your own decisions)
I think it should be based especially on red ruminant meat.
I'm not a fan of eggs (me personally am sensitive to. How do I know? Had to throw up after eating them several times in the past, even when I was a kid. I knew NOTHING about nutrition back then so no bias there.)
Nor am I a fan of chicken or too much sea food. It just doesn't make sense evolutionarily.
Same goes with dairy. Even butter is highly processed if you think about it.
Pork I am not sure about to be honest. It is really low quality nowadays so I've avoided it. It has nutrients though that are not contained in red meat. (Thiamin/B1 for example).
To include some low carb veggies is not completely wrong (my opinion again). Even Miki Ben D'Or (Paleo Antropologist - Worth checking out) has said over and over again: "Yes, we did eat plants, but we don't know how much."
I am experimenting with it at the moment. Had cravings for cooked fennel, broccoli and cauliflower so I am having it. No reactions so far, maybe little bit of bloating and bigger poops. They don't make my rosacea worse though.
Judy Cho is the only carnivore that is willing to question things.
All I wanted to know is if someone in this forum has worked with her? Gut healing / CIRS protocol etc. I am highly considering it since I think my problems are more likely to stem from a compromised immune system rather than VA toxicity.
Yea that's all. Again these are my findings.
Nina
@nina "and that humans in fact are carnivores and not starch eating omnivores."
From looking at our physiology nothing suggests that we are carnivores. Everything suggests that we evolved to eat cooked starches and meats as a core of our diet with addition of everything what is around from fruits, bugs, nuts, seeds, honey etc.. This abundance of energy from plants(full glycogen in the muscles, liver, good supply of glucose for the brain) + anabolic and nutritious animal foods and the flexibility to eat basically anything allowed us to transform to modern human who can do unthinkable things that are outside of just fighting for survival.. It is comical like carnivore people will say you that NOBODY needs carbs. Just eat meats and you will reach your maximum potential in all aspect of what you want to achieve. Basically same thing vegans will say. They just swap carbs for all animal nutrients. I can only say one thing. Just put down your device that you are using for the internet and look in a real world on real people who keep this earth running. So you can live your artificial life whatever it is.. If you really think that one style of eating is IDEAL for everyone then you live in delusions created in your bubble..
In order to believe humans are carnivorous you must deny:
- The existence of salivary amylase
- Amylase being the primary enzyme produced by the pancreas
- The differences between humans and carnivores with regards to gluconeogenesis abilities
- The existence of teeth designed for chewing plant foods
- Human instinct to also consume starch and sugar when given the opportunity to eat only meat
- Every human group eating omnivorous diets for all of recorded history
- The closest species genetically to humans chimpanzees being omnivorous
- Human nutritional requirements e.g. carnivores produce vitamin C endogenously, humans don't
It's probably nice to look at your own personal ancestors to figure out what your macro-nutrients should be.
I recently did a consult with Judy Cho's outfit. You fill out a very long symptom-oriented multiple choice questionnaire that helps them decide what your most likely problems are, then they compare that with a set of written answers you provide about diet and symptom history. In my case, they thought it was likely I had CIRS and recommended testing for it. I have not yet tested for it as it's fairly expensive and I'm debating the odds that I am experiencing inflammation from anything other than Vitamin A and oxalates coming out of storage.
I think the main reason to work with her group is that you've already tried carnivore for a length of time and still are not feeling completely healed, because they specialize in working with people on the carnivore diet. You should be prepared to test for CIRS if you consult with her, because I'm pretty sure that's now their default position for anyone who hasn't fully healed on a low Vitamin A carnivore diet. I don't think it's a completely unreasonable position to take, but it's unfortunate the testing is expensive.
If you do have CIRS, I think Judy Cho is likely to oversee your case fairly directly herself. If you don't, you will probably be consulting primarily with one of her co-workers.
You can do the visual contrast test at home for cheap. This is neither sufficient nor necessary to confirm a CIRS diagnosis in Shoemakerland, but it is a good start for little time or money.
- The existence of salivary amylase (does not directly indicate the amount of starch consumed; polar bears have genes that encode for salivary amylase; nobody is arguing whether humans ever ate starch, the question is how much, and what evidence we have suggests not much)
- Amylase being the primary enzyme produced by the pancreas (how are you defining "primary"?; cats have a pancreas and they are obligate carnivores, so the pancreas obviously serves critical functions outside of starch digestion)
- The differences between humans and carnivores with regards to gluconeogenesis abilities (humans didn't need the same level of gluconeogenesis when they had abundant access to animal fat, which appears to be the case until relatively recently in geological time; do you see Shawn Baker keeling over from lack of energy on his rowing machine or Anthony Chaffee collapsing on the rugby field?)
- The existence of teeth designed for chewing plant foods (we have the dentition of an omnivore but we don't have the jaw musculature for eating fibrous plant material; once again, nobody is arguing that humans have eaten plants, the question is how much and was it necessary when animal food was available, and the best available evidence points to very little and no we didn't need it when animal food was available)
- Human instinct to also consume starch and sugar when given the opportunity to eat only meat (this is only an argument against obligate carnivory, and nobody is arguing that humans are obligate carnivores; we are facultative carnivores)
- Every human group eating omnivorous diets for all of recorded history (if by "omnivorous" you mean eating even the tiniest shred of plants, yes, but that is an absurd definition of omnivory...even cats meet that definition; there are a number of extant indigenous groups that include inconsequential amounts of plants in their diets; all of recorded history (depending on how strict your definition) falls within the agricultural period of modern humans...confounding factor possibly?)
- The closest species genetically to humans chimpanzees being omnivorous (this doesn't matter one bit, and if you understood evolutionary biology you would know this...chimps are not capable of throwing projectiles at high speed or bipedal sprinting despite being genetically similar to us)
- Human nutritional requirements e.g. carnivores produce vitamin C endogenously, humans don't (we can get the tiny amount of Vitamin C we require from animal foods, and there is evidence to suggest that the role of Vitamin C was replaced by uric acid or other antioxidants that are derived from animal foods; regardless, carnivory is not defined by the endogenous production of Vitamin C)
Most of these points revolve around facultative carnivory vs obligate carnivory. Nobody said we were obligate carnivores, we're not. We are facultative carnivores who need meat and thrive on just meat (I'm talking about the species as a whole, there are going to be rare exceptions due to damage incurred during life or inborn genetic errors).
You believe in the published literature and only the published literature, and yet you don't seem to understand the weaknesses of the published literature. There's also only a single study published on modern carnivore diets (which showed improved outcomes). Until there is a study that shows worse outcomes on a carnivore diet, you have no grounds to say that it doesn't work based on the literature, because every other study you're going to reference has piles of confounding variables.
You haven't even tried a carnivore diet, whereas I have tried all kinds of diets short of veganism/vegetarianism and have consulted with practitioners across the dietary spectrum. As a wildlife ecologist who's personally researched and published on predator-prey dynamics, I've also spent a lot of time studying and thinking about the consequences of different evolved dietary strategies and how they relate to energetics, morphology, and ecological niches.
"You're completely missing the point which is that I'm not appealing to authority and nobody is appealing to me as an authority. You and Jeremy are appealing to Cho as an authority. You've also just admitted you know nothing about her credentials which are bogus."
Nobody said you were appealing to authority, christ! I already explained that Jeremy and I are not appealing to authority either. I can't make it any more clear. We are not citing Judy Cho per se, we are citing her work. Just because you think she's a liar does not mean we are using an appeal to authority argument. We tentatively make the assumption (which could be falsified, but is not yet falsified) that she is not outright lying, the same way that you trust whatever you read in scientific publications without having seen the original datasets or having knowledge of the statistics or study design required to judge the veracity of the authors' statements. The difference is, you trust a system that is known to be corrupt.
"Nonsense. A rebuttal involves responding directly to the points of the other party and explaining why they were wrong. Imagine thinking that parroting claims one unqualified woman is making is a rebuttal to my statements about basic physiology, makes no sense. Then imagine accusing me of regurgitating information."
You just don't accept the rebuttal because there's not a published citation. Guess what, not everything is published! Why do you think new things are published every day? Because we learn and realize that our old models are wrong. There is a single modern publication about people on carnivore diets (https://academic.oup.com/cdn/article/5/12/nzab133/6415894?login=false) with a reported 95% increase in perceived overall health. It's not a well-controlled study, but if you're going to wield all the other bullshit dietary studies out there in your favor, you'll have to accept this one along with them.
"No I'm not. Unless sound evidence is published of results she is getting it's just anecdotes and the opinion of someone that isn't a sound authority. Anecdotes that contradict actual authorities. This is all just word gymnastics though resulting from extreme fad diet dogmatism and it doesn't matter if this lady is turning water into wine it has nothing to do with my initial points."
You do realize that all the dietary recall studies that got published are technically collections of anecdotes? Nobody watched what these people were eating every day of the study. Oftentimes, they ask them to do a 24-hour food recall only once every few weeks for a study that runs for months...talk about shitty data, and that's what a lot of your arguments rest on. Like I said before, you have no idea how shaky your foundation is because you don't understand the in's and out's of peer-reviewed journal publications and academia.