I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.

DiscussionLet's talk about it: Diets and foodsHigh fat, high animal protein die …

Please to create posts and topics.

High fat, high animal protein diet gurus: They die so young

#21 · August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm
@mmb3664

Our evolutionary history should be at the forefront of every biological discussion. As the evidence currently stands, there is no way we could have obtained enough energy from carbohydrates in most regions of human inhabitation prior to the agricultural revolution - plants were too fibrous and too low in available carbohydrates. We would have had to have gotten most energy from fat, which could only have been supplied by animals. The amount of time since the agricultural revolution is sufficient for very minor genetic adaptations to plant consumption to have increased in various populations, but most of our ability to survive on more carbs and less fat has been derived from technology. Especially in recent times, our technological development far outpaces the ability of our biology to keep up with the dramatic changes that result from that technology. Thus, we find our bodies increasingly at odds with our modern environment, including our sources of food.

When you take that evolutionary perspective, the default position must be that high fat and moderate-to-high protein is the safest diet because that is what our bodies are built around. That does not inherently mean that eating a high carb diet is bad, but if you look at what modern technologies as a whole do to our bodies, you would be an idiot not to question whether eating this new high carb diet is at odds with our biology. To obtain sufficient energy from carbs, plants must be processed to reduce the fiber content, which means they are no longer in the form in which our bodies encountered them in the past, which means they are novel. Our bodies usually don't cope so well with novelty because they have evolved for a very specific environment.

When it comes to real-world scenarios, it is very very difficult to over-eat fat due to satiety mechanisms, which is why hardly anybody is overweight on a high-fat diet in the absence of carbs. It is also difficult to overeat high-fiber low-carb plant foods. But it is extremely easy to over-eat low-fiber high-carb plant foods, even in the presence of fat. Thus, the problem always lies with excess carb consumption (so long as you're not eating refined oils).

Is it possible to eat just enough carbs and no more? Sure. But good luck getting your body to stop at just the right point, because it doesn't have the right mechanism to stop itself! This opens you up to blood glucose spikes and glycation and all the problems that come along with that. On the other hand, the body has always handled high amounts of protein because humans prior to the agricultural revolution, as well as more modern hunter-gatherers, are typically eating at the upper threshold of protein intake because that is what is most available to them. When you eat enough protein and fat, the body naturally and quite easily produces just enough glucose from gluconeogenesis, and sufficient protein intake should prevent elevated blood glucose levels in the long run. If your blood glucose levels are creeping up on a zero carb diet, it's probably because you're not eating enough protein.

I will once again recommend listening to Miki Ben-Dor. He's quite humble, readily acknowledges that humans have always been eating plants, but points out the limitations in our ability to directly quantify the amounts of plant matter in the diet, whereas isotope analysis very clearly indicates that humans have been at the top trophic level for a long time, and animals at the top trophic level are hypercarnivores.

@mmb3664

Our evolutionary history should be at the forefront of every biological discussion. As the evidence currently stands, there is no way we could have obtained enough energy from carbohydrates in most regions of human inhabitation prior to the agricultural revolution - plants were too fibrous and too low in available carbohydrates. We would have had to have gotten most energy from fat, which could only have been supplied by animals. The amount of time since the agricultural revolution is sufficient for very minor genetic adaptations to plant consumption to have increased in various populations, but most of our ability to survive on more carbs and less fat has been derived from technology. Especially in recent times, our technological development far outpaces the ability of our biology to keep up with the dramatic changes that result from that technology. Thus, we find our bodies increasingly at odds with our modern environment, including our sources of food.

When you take that evolutionary perspective, the default position must be that high fat and moderate-to-high protein is the safest diet because that is what our bodies are built around. That does not inherently mean that eating a high carb diet is bad, but if you look at what modern technologies as a whole do to our bodies, you would be an idiot not to question whether eating this new high carb diet is at odds with our biology. To obtain sufficient energy from carbs, plants must be processed to reduce the fiber content, which means they are no longer in the form in which our bodies encountered them in the past, which means they are novel. Our bodies usually don't cope so well with novelty because they have evolved for a very specific environment.

When it comes to real-world scenarios, it is very very difficult to over-eat fat due to satiety mechanisms, which is why hardly anybody is overweight on a high-fat diet in the absence of carbs. It is also difficult to overeat high-fiber low-carb plant foods. But it is extremely easy to over-eat low-fiber high-carb plant foods, even in the presence of fat. Thus, the problem always lies with excess carb consumption (so long as you're not eating refined oils).

Is it possible to eat just enough carbs and no more? Sure. But good luck getting your body to stop at just the right point, because it doesn't have the right mechanism to stop itself! This opens you up to blood glucose spikes and glycation and all the problems that come along with that. On the other hand, the body has always handled high amounts of protein because humans prior to the agricultural revolution, as well as more modern hunter-gatherers, are typically eating at the upper threshold of protein intake because that is what is most available to them. When you eat enough protein and fat, the body naturally and quite easily produces just enough glucose from gluconeogenesis, and sufficient protein intake should prevent elevated blood glucose levels in the long run. If your blood glucose levels are creeping up on a zero carb diet, it's probably because you're not eating enough protein.

I will once again recommend listening to Miki Ben-Dor. He's quite humble, readily acknowledges that humans have always been eating plants, but points out the limitations in our ability to directly quantify the amounts of plant matter in the diet, whereas isotope analysis very clearly indicates that humans have been at the top trophic level for a long time, and animals at the top trophic level are hypercarnivores.

Judy and Carnivore have reacted to this post.

#22 · August 11, 2022, 7:31 am

Quote from mmb3664 on August 11, 2022, 7:31 am
@wavygravygadzooks While I agree with a lot of what you said, that would be no fun. 🙂 Playing devil's advocate:

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

Our evolutionary history should be at the forefront of every biological discussion.

Debatable. Based on my understanding, the concept of evolution is really just a theory. Even within evolutionary theory there is debate regarding how/why organisms develop or change over time. Lamarck, for example, believed that traits could develop and change during an organism's lifetime. Darwin believed that organisms were simply born with different, mostly random traits with negative traits being weeded out via natural selection over time. You see how this becomes a fairly unscientific rabbit hole fairly quickly? Can we pinpoint what traits were developed, when, and why? Not that I can tell. Using evolution as an argument can quickly be twisted into defending whatever narrative you choose, which is why vegans and carnivores both make claims about what food is ideal for us based on our teeth or our digestive system, etc. They look at the same trait and make opposing claims on why it justifies their belief.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

As the evidence currently stands, there is no way we could have obtained enough energy from carbohydrates in most regions of human inhabitation prior to the agricultural revolution - plants were too fibrous and too low in available carbohydrates. We would have had to have gotten most energy from fat, which could only have been supplied by animals.

I agree that this is likely, but again, were humans therefore "adapted" to ingest most of their energy from fat or did they simply do so because of environmental pressures, i.e. there were no carbohydrate sources available and organisms will do what they can to survive? Does this make fat optimal fuel overall or just optimal fuel given the constraints of the environment?

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

The amount of time since the agricultural revolution is sufficient for very minor genetic adaptations to plant consumption to have increased in various populations, but most of our ability to survive on more carbs and less fat has been derived from technology. Especially in recent times, our technological development far outpaces the ability of our biology to keep up with the dramatic changes that result from that technology. Thus, we find our bodies increasingly at odds with our modern environment, including our sources of food.

I agree with some of those statements, but you are relying on the opinion that we need to somehow "adapt" to consume more plants/carbs. Seems to me like humans already have the "machinery" to process carbs, as evidenced by there being a glucose-dominant pathway within the Randle Cycle. Why would that pathway exist and why would humans be able to produce energy from glucose if it is toxic and/or we basically never came across large amounts of glucose in the past?

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

When you take that evolutionary perspective, the default position must be that high fat and moderate-to-high protein is the safest diet because that is what our bodies are built around. That does not inherently mean that eating a high carb diet is bad, but if you look at what modern technologies as a whole do to our bodies, you would be an idiot not to question whether eating this new high carb diet is at odds with our biology. To obtain sufficient energy from carbs, plants must be processed to reduce the fiber content, which means they are no longer in the form in which our bodies encountered them in the past, which means they are novel. Our bodies usually don't cope so well with novelty because they have evolved for a very specific environment.

Again, I agree with some of those statements, but as I said before, basing nutritional decisions on what we understand or theorize about evolution or what our ancestors ate, etc. can be argued as not being as scientific as people claim it to be for the reasons I mentioned above. We make a lot of assumptions and introduce a lot of bias when trying to draw conclusions on historical events.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

When it comes to real-world scenarios, it is very very difficult to over-eat fat due to satiety mechanisms, which is why hardly anybody is overweight on a high-fat diet in the absence of carbs.

Again, debatable. I personally consume a lot more energy when I eat a carnivore diet. Do I get fat? Not necessarily, but there are certain people who gain weight on keto-based diets and there are people who remain fat on keto-based diets. Also, many people have eating disorders these days and therefore, many people cannot rely on natural hunger cues to indicate when they should stop eating. This is a whole other topic on its own.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

It is also difficult to overeat high-fiber low-carb plant foods.

I personally agree 🙂

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

But it is extremely easy to over-eat low-fiber high-carb plant foods, even in the presence of fat. Thus, the problem always lies with excess carb consumption (so long as you're not eating refined oils).

Again, this is debatable. I know people who have no control over themselves regardless of what type of food they eat and people who can have a bite of a low-fiber high-carb plant food and walk away even if they enjoy the taste.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

Is it possible to eat just enough carbs and no more? Sure. But good luck getting your body to stop at just the right point, because it doesn't have the right mechanism to stop itself! This opens you up to blood glucose spikes and glycation and all the problems that come along with that. On the other hand, the body has always handled high amounts of protein because humans prior to the agricultural revolution, as well as more modern hunter-gatherers, are typically eating at the upper threshold of protein intake because that is what is most available to them.

Again, most of this was somewhat addressed in my comments above, so I won't reiterate things here. An honest question regarding glycation...is this a problem if there is no excess glucose, i.e. a person can actually manage to eat "just enough" carbs?

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

When you eat enough protein and fat, the body naturally and quite easily produces just enough glucose from gluconeogenesis, and sufficient protein intake should prevent elevated blood glucose levels in the long run. If your blood glucose levels are creeping up on a zero carb diet, it's probably because you're not eating enough protein.

I always thought the "not eating enough protein causing elevated glucose levels" was counter-intuitive. As an honest question, can you explain this mechanism? I would have thought that EXCESS protein would potentially elevate blood glucose levels on a zero carb diet due to the body needing to do something with the protein overflow once all normal functions of amino acids are satisfied. Why would too little protein cause blood glucose levels to rise? Is it due to catabolism of existing muscle tissue to supply glucose in place of dietary protein and if so, why would the body not continue to "quite easily produce just enough glucose from gluconeogenesis" and instead produce too much glucose at the expense of muscle tissue? Again, this is an honest question; I am not being facetious.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

I will once again recommend listening to Miki Ben-Dor. He's quite humble, readily acknowledges that humans have always been eating plants, but points out the limitations in our ability to directly quantify the amounts of plant matter in the diet, whereas isotope analysis very clearly indicates that humans have been at the top trophic level for a long time, and animals at the top trophic level are hypercarnivores.

I have listened to lectures/presentations by Miki and agree with your comments on him. Saying "isotope analysis very clearly indicates that humans have been at the top trophic level for a long time, and animals at the top trophic level are hypercarnivores" just indicates what humans ate, not that it is somehow optimal for our biology. You said yourself that, likely, plants were too fibrous and too low in available carbohydrates to be a primary source of fuel, so why would anyone expect historical isotope analysis to show otherwise? Arguably, we did not eat carbohydrates/plants because they were not around, not because we are designed/optimized to eat fatty meat. If there are no carbs, we need fat as an energy source and fatty animals were available for us to consume.

Finally, I know that these types of posts take a long time to write up, so I completely understand and respect if you don't respond. lol

@wavygravygadzooks While I agree with a lot of what you said, that would be no fun. 🙂 Playing devil's advocate:

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

Our evolutionary history should be at the forefront of every biological discussion.

Debatable. Based on my understanding, the concept of evolution is really just a theory. Even within evolutionary theory there is debate regarding how/why organisms develop or change over time. Lamarck, for example, believed that traits could develop and change during an organism's lifetime. Darwin believed that organisms were simply born with different, mostly random traits with negative traits being weeded out via natural selection over time. You see how this becomes a fairly unscientific rabbit hole fairly quickly? Can we pinpoint what traits were developed, when, and why? Not that I can tell. Using evolution as an argument can quickly be twisted into defending whatever narrative you choose, which is why vegans and carnivores both make claims about what food is ideal for us based on our teeth or our digestive system, etc. They look at the same trait and make opposing claims on why it justifies their belief.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

As the evidence currently stands, there is no way we could have obtained enough energy from carbohydrates in most regions of human inhabitation prior to the agricultural revolution - plants were too fibrous and too low in available carbohydrates. We would have had to have gotten most energy from fat, which could only have been supplied by animals.

I agree that this is likely, but again, were humans therefore "adapted" to ingest most of their energy from fat or did they simply do so because of environmental pressures, i.e. there were no carbohydrate sources available and organisms will do what they can to survive? Does this make fat optimal fuel overall or just optimal fuel given the constraints of the environment?

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

The amount of time since the agricultural revolution is sufficient for very minor genetic adaptations to plant consumption to have increased in various populations, but most of our ability to survive on more carbs and less fat has been derived from technology. Especially in recent times, our technological development far outpaces the ability of our biology to keep up with the dramatic changes that result from that technology. Thus, we find our bodies increasingly at odds with our modern environment, including our sources of food.

I agree with some of those statements, but you are relying on the opinion that we need to somehow "adapt" to consume more plants/carbs. Seems to me like humans already have the "machinery" to process carbs, as evidenced by there being a glucose-dominant pathway within the Randle Cycle. Why would that pathway exist and why would humans be able to produce energy from glucose if it is toxic and/or we basically never came across large amounts of glucose in the past?

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

When you take that evolutionary perspective, the default position must be that high fat and moderate-to-high protein is the safest diet because that is what our bodies are built around. That does not inherently mean that eating a high carb diet is bad, but if you look at what modern technologies as a whole do to our bodies, you would be an idiot not to question whether eating this new high carb diet is at odds with our biology. To obtain sufficient energy from carbs, plants must be processed to reduce the fiber content, which means they are no longer in the form in which our bodies encountered them in the past, which means they are novel. Our bodies usually don't cope so well with novelty because they have evolved for a very specific environment.

Again, I agree with some of those statements, but as I said before, basing nutritional decisions on what we understand or theorize about evolution or what our ancestors ate, etc. can be argued as not being as scientific as people claim it to be for the reasons I mentioned above. We make a lot of assumptions and introduce a lot of bias when trying to draw conclusions on historical events.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

When it comes to real-world scenarios, it is very very difficult to over-eat fat due to satiety mechanisms, which is why hardly anybody is overweight on a high-fat diet in the absence of carbs.

Again, debatable. I personally consume a lot more energy when I eat a carnivore diet. Do I get fat? Not necessarily, but there are certain people who gain weight on keto-based diets and there are people who remain fat on keto-based diets. Also, many people have eating disorders these days and therefore, many people cannot rely on natural hunger cues to indicate when they should stop eating. This is a whole other topic on its own.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

It is also difficult to overeat high-fiber low-carb plant foods.

I personally agree 🙂

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

But it is extremely easy to over-eat low-fiber high-carb plant foods, even in the presence of fat. Thus, the problem always lies with excess carb consumption (so long as you're not eating refined oils).

Again, this is debatable. I know people who have no control over themselves regardless of what type of food they eat and people who can have a bite of a low-fiber high-carb plant food and walk away even if they enjoy the taste.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

Is it possible to eat just enough carbs and no more? Sure. But good luck getting your body to stop at just the right point, because it doesn't have the right mechanism to stop itself! This opens you up to blood glucose spikes and glycation and all the problems that come along with that. On the other hand, the body has always handled high amounts of protein because humans prior to the agricultural revolution, as well as more modern hunter-gatherers, are typically eating at the upper threshold of protein intake because that is what is most available to them.

Again, most of this was somewhat addressed in my comments above, so I won't reiterate things here. An honest question regarding glycation...is this a problem if there is no excess glucose, i.e. a person can actually manage to eat "just enough" carbs?

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

When you eat enough protein and fat, the body naturally and quite easily produces just enough glucose from gluconeogenesis, and sufficient protein intake should prevent elevated blood glucose levels in the long run. If your blood glucose levels are creeping up on a zero carb diet, it's probably because you're not eating enough protein.

I always thought the "not eating enough protein causing elevated glucose levels" was counter-intuitive. As an honest question, can you explain this mechanism? I would have thought that EXCESS protein would potentially elevate blood glucose levels on a zero carb diet due to the body needing to do something with the protein overflow once all normal functions of amino acids are satisfied. Why would too little protein cause blood glucose levels to rise? Is it due to catabolism of existing muscle tissue to supply glucose in place of dietary protein and if so, why would the body not continue to "quite easily produce just enough glucose from gluconeogenesis" and instead produce too much glucose at the expense of muscle tissue? Again, this is an honest question; I am not being facetious.

Quote from wavygravygadzooks on August 10, 2022, 12:30 pm

I will once again recommend listening to Miki Ben-Dor. He's quite humble, readily acknowledges that humans have always been eating plants, but points out the limitations in our ability to directly quantify the amounts of plant matter in the diet, whereas isotope analysis very clearly indicates that humans have been at the top trophic level for a long time, and animals at the top trophic level are hypercarnivores.

I have listened to lectures/presentations by Miki and agree with your comments on him. Saying "isotope analysis very clearly indicates that humans have been at the top trophic level for a long time, and animals at the top trophic level are hypercarnivores" just indicates what humans ate, not that it is somehow optimal for our biology. You said yourself that, likely, plants were too fibrous and too low in available carbohydrates to be a primary source of fuel, so why would anyone expect historical isotope analysis to show otherwise? Arguably, we did not eat carbohydrates/plants because they were not around, not because we are designed/optimized to eat fatty meat. If there are no carbs, we need fat as an energy source and fatty animals were available for us to consume.

Finally, I know that these types of posts take a long time to write up, so I completely understand and respect if you don't respond. lol

Retinoicon and Donald have reacted to this post.

#23 · August 17, 2022, 10:54 am

I watched the original video and skipped through others by the content creator Plant Chompers. One topic I read a lot about ten or so years ago is criticisms of the scientific work of vegan T Colin Campbell by people like Denise Minger and Chris Masterjohn. Plant Chompers thinks Campbell is a super impressive scientist. Based on my experience in statistics, everything Minger wrote seemed correct and Campbell appears to be incompetent. It would be hard to have a conversation with someone like Plant Chompers who probably would be incapable of or unwilling to understand the criticisms of Campbell by Minger.

https://deniseminger.com/tag/t-colin-campbell/

Celia, Carnivore and Andrew B have reacted to this post.

#24 · August 19, 2022, 6:17 pm

The guy putting out these videos is a biased vegan. He’s very intelligent and persuasive, but when I really think about it veganism just doesn’t make sense to me on many levels.

1. A healthy diet for a species must be healthy for their entire body (body composition, digestion, teeth, etc.) and without modern dentistry, toothpaste, toothbrushes, etc. these vegan diets would cause massive harm to oral health. In addition they lead to low muscle mass (don’t be fooled by vegans that take steroids) and require b12 supplements.

2. Every hunter gather population ever studied eats animal foods. Some exclusively. None were ever vegan.

3. I have seen examples of long term vegans who look very sick (Dr. Mcdougal for example) and long term carnivores who look very healthy (Joe Anderson for example). He seems to have missed those examples in his video.

4. I have read/watched many many anecdotal accounts of people going from veganism to carnivore and experiencing huge health benefits. I have never seen one account of the opposite (not talking about going from SAD to vegan but carnivore to vegan).

5. Logically it just doesn’t make sense to me how meat could be harmful. Without supplements it’s a necessity for human life and how could a species require something that also kills it? In addition eating protein+fat has much less of an impact on our homeostasis compared to carbs and I think that matters.

Hermes and Carnivore have reacted to this post.

#25 · August 21, 2022, 10:36 pm

T. Colin Campbell had a debate with Eric Westman ( I can look for the link or you can Google it.) The video is online. In the questions from the audience at the end, you will hear Campbell say, "I eat fish sometimes," in spite of the fact that he tells his followers that all animal protein causes cancer. He also admitted that babies need their mother's (animal) milk. He doesn't explain at what age it becomes poison: 6 months?, 12 months?, 2 years?

puddleduck, Retinoicon and 2 other users have reacted to this post.

#26 · August 23, 2022, 8:48 am

Quote from saraleah11 on August 23, 2022, 8:48 am
I did not watch all three of the mentioned videos about health Gurus dying young. I have referenced THINCS in trying to find answers to my autoimmune condition. The videos referenced, there was a brief memtion that a lot of members of THINCS were deceased, presumably young. So are we to assume that a diet high in saturated fat was the cause of their demise?

Members of THINCS and are noted professionals who question among other things the validity of the claim that saturated fat is bad for you. Some random members listed by the THINCS website as deceased were Ray Rosenman UCSF- he was a secret tobacco lobbyist. Am I to then also assume that he smoked? Barbara Neibauer, Thymic Cancer researcher, also struggled with Thymic Cancer herself for many years, which caused her death. Herbert Nehrlich Nutritionist from Australia, and a very prolific poet, left a written poetic record of foods to consume including olive oil, lard, and lots of cream. We in this forum have learned about possible dangers of overdoing these foods. Stephen Byrnes RNCP PHD was a naturopath and member of the Weston Price Foundation. No way to know if he was regularly consuming Cod Liver oil, or lots of dairy as well. Also, he died of a stroke, after having had a seizure possibly related to treatments he was getting for HIV. Nothing at all to do with a high fat diet. And Barry Groves did have a heart attack but was also said to have had a congenital heart defect, also consumed cream, cheese, butter and liver. Again, here we have learned that organ meats are not necessarily healthy to eat frequently.

We have been taught a lot in this forum, about the dangers of certain fats, oils, organ meats and dairy. I don't have time to go deep into every deceased health guru named in the videos but I myself eat a low carb diet, restrict certain fats and dairy, don't touch organ meats, and would not instantly correlate that a low carb high saturated fat diet alone was the cause of all of the deaths.

I did not watch all three of the mentioned videos about health Gurus dying young. I have referenced THINCS in trying to find answers to my autoimmune condition. The videos referenced, there was a brief memtion that a lot of members of THINCS were deceased, presumably young. So are we to assume that a diet high in saturated fat was the cause of their demise?

Members of THINCS and are noted professionals who question among other things the validity of the claim that saturated fat is bad for you. Some random members listed by the THINCS website as deceased were Ray Rosenman UCSF- he was a secret tobacco lobbyist. Am I to then also assume that he smoked? Barbara Neibauer, Thymic Cancer researcher, also struggled with Thymic Cancer herself for many years, which caused her death. Herbert Nehrlich Nutritionist from Australia, and a very prolific poet, left a written poetic record of foods to consume including olive oil, lard, and lots of cream. We in this forum have learned about possible dangers of overdoing these foods. Stephen Byrnes RNCP PHD was a naturopath and member of the Weston Price Foundation. No way to know if he was regularly consuming Cod Liver oil, or lots of dairy as well. Also, he died of a stroke, after having had a seizure possibly related to treatments he was getting for HIV. Nothing at all to do with a high fat diet. And Barry Groves did have a heart attack but was also said to have had a congenital heart defect, also consumed cream, cheese, butter and liver. Again, here we have learned that organ meats are not necessarily healthy to eat frequently.

We have been taught a lot in this forum, about the dangers of certain fats, oils, organ meats and dairy. I don't have time to go deep into every deceased health guru named in the videos but I myself eat a low carb diet, restrict certain fats and dairy, don't touch organ meats, and would not instantly correlate that a low carb high saturated fat diet alone was the cause of all of the deaths.

Retinoicon, Celia and Andrew B have reacted to this post.

#27 · August 23, 2022, 11:08 am

The primary goal is survival, and being omnivores is a huge survival advantage. The day you bring in no meat, you luckily come across some berries. The day you bring in no roots, you luckily catch a fish, etc.

Personally, and I'm not really sure how I know this, it's a feeling or intuition: Meat is the center of the human diet whenever possible. You stop and eat some berries, it didn't feel like a *meal*. You stop and eat some meat, and it did.

If you have the desire (or need) to drop plant foods, I feel like you will still survive eating only animal foods. I'm not sure I believe the opposite is true, in the very long run.

I do sort of feel like it would be a very lucky life indeed if a human being never had to resort to eating plants, however.

Andrew B has reacted to this post.

#28 · July 31, 2023, 3:57 pm

Quote from Jessica2 on July 31, 2023, 3:32 pm

Chalk one up to NOT being vegan long term?:

https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/vegan-influencer-starved-to-death-friends/

What a tragic case of anorexia justified using orthorexic rationalization. 😔

Even though I have heard some remarkable cancer recovery stories of those who healed on Gerson Therapy, I can’t help but feel vegetable juicing is dangerous... If I were forced to chose between veggie juice or unfortified skim milk, I’d chose skim milk. 🤷‍♀️

#29 · July 31, 2023, 6:52 pm

@jessica2 I saw her unappetizing bowl of sunflower sprouts. 😕 You’re right, usually raw fruitarians consume nuts and seeds (it’d be difficult to get enough calories without eating cooked starches or something otherwise). The nutrient deficiencies she developed on such a limited diet, along with the excessive carotenoids in the juice, probably exacerbated her anorexia majorly... 😔 It’s a disease that doesn’t make much sense from the outside, but is as hard as a drug addiction to escape once it has taken hold.

Another sad raw vegan case study is that of Matt Monarch, whose colon was so damaged by Crohn’s disease it had to be surgically removed. He had been big on raw juice fasts for years prior...but his diet was more calorically dense, as he ate “superfoods” like nuts, seeds, raw cacao, coconut, and dried fruits...but yeah...not good. ☹️

Deleted user has reacted to this post.

#30 · July 31, 2023, 8:09 pm

Quote from puddleduck on July 31, 2023, 3:57 pm

Quote from Jessica2 on July 31, 2023, 3:32 pm

Chalk one up to NOT being vegan long term?:

https://nypost.com/2023/07/31/vegan-influencer-starved-to-death-friends/

Very very sad, I saw some pics of her on Twitter today and she looked emaciated and clearly not well. But it was weird because she was holding a bunch of fruits and vegetables and smiling the entire time.

Hermes and Deleted user have reacted to this post.

High fat, high animal protein diet gurus: They die so young

Share this:

Like this: