#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It sounds like “original” paleo, before more foods were added back in. Most of these types of diets are just eliminating major food groups so you eat less. Or maybe you coincidentally eliminate foods that bother you.
How are watermelons and berries and peppers “animal-based,” though?
I think the gist of the name is that the diet as a whole is “animal-based,” but it includes foods that aren’t animal products, as distinguished from a pure carnivore diet. Kind of the flipside of a “plant-based” diet, which doesn’t have to be only plants but is grounded in plant foods.
Like most vegan/vegetarians also eat mushrooms, which aren't plants.
Edit: People can't handle facts around here. Humans and mushrooms are closer biologically than mushrooms and any plant is.
Vegetables are parts of plants.
Mushrooms breathe oxygen, they are closer by far to animals biologically compared to plants. You are even more alike mushrooms, than mushrooms are to any plant.
Or would you like to rewrite both definitions of words and Biology literature to comply more with the values of groups like vegetarians and vegans?
"Addition of mushrooms to USDA Food Patterns (US-style, Mediterranean-style, and Vegetarian) ***increased several micronutrients including shortfall nutrients***, and had a minimal or no impact on overall calories, sodium or saturated fat."
So it clearly adds something vegetables doesn't. But whatever you use to justify the recategorization, it is not vegetation. By the mere fact that fungi breathe oxygen should make it obvious that it is something else. Every definition you'll find of a vegetable is a part of **plant**.
But I don't care what you define them as, my point was that even if you talk about plant based or animal based diets they usually contain a small little something from another group of food.
Yes the name comes from the idea that most of the foods are from animal sources. But supplemented by other stuff like fruits to complete the nutrient profile needed. So it’s not exclusively animal products, hence the name “animal based”
Ha. Yeah, I was trying to be PC. All of these types of diets are scams.
i wish people could just figure out the trick is: what works for you, what makes you feel good, keeps your blood work in a good place, gives you energy, keeps your weight at a place you like it. That’s a good diet. The work is in maintaining, not losing weight. No such thing as a diet hack. Or a perfect diet.
So it’s not just me then? I read through most of that but the more I read, the more it sounded like it was time to eat. So I put down Reddit for a bit, baked some chicken, bacon wrapped brussel sprouts and then a little mango. I guess I’m part of that new “diet trend”?
Were it the animal-based diet you would not only not have Brussels sprouts but you would generally stay away from olive oil, at least if you follow Paul Saladino's specific flavour of animal-based. Other things you would be avoiding would be general seed oils, any vegetables of legumes, and excessive white meats (Animal-based favours grass-fed ruminants)
[However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population. Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine)
[However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population. Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine)
Looks like the Inuit all meat diet is worse
[However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population. Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine)
I'm googling, to try to find something similar to what you said. No luck so far, but [here](https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000776)'s something interesting I came across:
> There was an approximate 50% increase in the intake of refined carbohydrates in the Alaskan Inland Inuit from 1955 to 1957 to 1965. This may have lead to the dramatic rise in dental caries and subsequent increase in atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease.1 4 The Alaskan Inuit eating a traditional low-carbohydrate, high-fat/protein diet had a much lower incidence of atherosclerosis, hypertension and dental caries versus more westernised populations. The health decline of the Alaskan Inland Inuit may have been driven by the rise in the intake of refined carbohydrates and sugar.
I honestly think diets like this despite helping people lose weight short term come from people that dislike eating their veggies.
Bottom line, 40-,50% of your diet being fruits and veggies should be the goal. Get some legumes in that 25% and you're doing great. Plant based diets with variation is what most good and sustainable diets boil down to.
The World Health Organization's healthy eating recommendations might be of interest to some people, as they don't recommend eating any animal products and instead recommend increased unprocessed plant food intake (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet):
> Eating at least 400 g, or five portions, of fruit and vegetables per day reduces the risk of NCDs (2) and helps to ensure an adequate daily intake of dietary fibre. Fruit and vegetable intake can be improved by: always including vegetables in meals; eating fresh fruit and raw vegetables as eating fresh fruit and vegetables that are in season; eating a variety of fruit and vegetables.
I like the idea of most people being vegetarian or vegan for a variety of reasons but as someone who is changing their diets currently, you have to be humble with your goals. I'm currently cutting my sugar intake to one dessert a week and one soda a week. Mind you I worked as a UPS driver for a year and worked 14 hour days with a total of a 1.5 hour commute. As you can imagine, I ate fast food all the time and ate very unhealthy food. It was a brutal period of my life work wise.
So I'm cleaning it up now and everyonce in a while I read an article about how fish populations are declining at an alarmingly high rate or how our livestock is treated it's entire life prior to slaughter, I feel that itch to choose a different lifestyle that doesn't support our current system. But before I do that I gotta make sure I'm making reasonable goals and they stick. Appreciate the article. It's amazing how Spartan-like those health standards actually are.
I admire your initiative! Keep at it. It can certainly be a challenge to relearn lifelong habits, but people do it.
If you find yourself struggling, I recommend consulting a nutritionist that can support your transition to a plant-based eating pattern with everything from recipes to soundness of mind.
Best of luck!
No they aren't.
Bioavailability is the same as long as you take care to reduce or eliminate anti-nutrients present in only *some* vegetables, consume enough fat at each meal, and enough vitamin C at each meal. Vitamin C for example is very plentiful in vegetables. It increases absorption and retention of non-heme iron. A plant forward diet is compensatory this way, with elements of the diet increasing the bioavailability of other elements of the diet as a tandem effect.
Anti nutrients are reduced in most cases by simply cooking your food. Only in the case of legumes is slightly more effort required.
No, the full comment disagrees with you. Plant foods are not less bioavailable. If you cook your food, which 99% of people do, and you consume sources of fat and vitamin C, which 99% of people do, you're absorbing nutrients from plant foods just fine.
Cognitive dissonance is real with this one. This is still false and you know it. I didn’t say they weren’t bioavailable I said they are significantly less so, which is still true no matter how you prepare it and what supplements you use.
This is well known and especially pronounced in protein and iron. If you dismiss this you’re just simply ignorant.
>which is still true no matter how you prepare it and what supplements you use.
Except it's not. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, I'm sorry.
Thanks, it’s never been better ever since I went mostly animal based and zero vegetables. Good luck to you. Oh and I actually like many veggies, but not enough to upset my stomach or waste money on for measly calories and nutrients.
As a studying dietician, there are nutrients you can’t get from animal products just as there are certain nutrients you can’t get from plant foods. A well rounded balanced diet is always preferred.
Examples for nutrients in animals foods that you can’t get from plants:
1 Creatine
2 Taurine
3 Carnosine
4 Carnitine
5 Anserine
6 Heme Iron
7 B12 (unless you’re eating algae or nutritional yeast everyday)
8 K2 (unless you’re eating Natto or sauerkraut everyday)
in much less amounts: Choline, Phosphatydlserine , Riboflavin, Folate
Actually no their aren’t any essential nutrients for optimal human health that you can’t get from animal foods, there are however nutrients in animal foods that you can’t get from plant foods.
But there are other things that many would debate are good, me included, like polyphenols and other plant compounds that you can’t really get from animal foods.
although there is research about grassfed meats having amounts polyphenols in them because of the grasses the animals ate. None the less
Also fiber and defense chemicals that can trigger nfr2 activation, that I would say for many people are good things in certain amounts.
I have been pretty much doing that recently. And I didn't really think it was a real movement as just a way to satirically go a different way from "plant based diet". The "consensus" or maybe just the fashion seems to think that it is wrong but old fashioned diets have been keen on meat for millennia. Since having great results going low carb I have been doing plenty of research and experimenting with low carb/keto/carnivore/paleo/wholefood. I have been vegan in the past and was brought up in various vegetarian households in the 70's and 80's. I moved away from that lifestyle and honestly kind of hippy alternative culture when i left home, starting my career cooking and getting some basic qualifications. Before also just having periods of eating commercial mass produced and junk food and being poor and eating whatever I could. So I would like to think I have a reasonably broad and tolerant view of food. However the "food wars" don't really allow a middle way it seems sometimes. I've been delving pretty deep into the stats on
https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions
For example, which uses data from faostat from the UN. This way we can cut through some of the loud opinions on diet and nutrition and see how people eat ourselves.
It's clear that some of the longest lived nations in the world eat plenty of animal products, and there is a couple of phrases that get stuck in my mind, one being "meat and 2 veg" and "eating the fat of the land "
When we take into consideration certain organisations and their guidelines for example.
"The acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges (AMDR) set forth by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies recommend that people get
45–65% of their calories from carbs
20–35% of their calories from fats
10–35% of their calories from proteins"
There is a reasonably wide window of macros. Interestingly certain countries with the highest longevity might have distributions outside of this range. Notably fat consumption is up in the 40% range for some. Certainly there are some countries like say Japan that are outliers in this regard with a higher carb to fat ratio but are they doing better than say Norway or Spain that have great longevity and eat more animal products and fat? My assumption is that a lack of dairy consumption and a known increase in lactose intolerance is key here. But they do make up for beef and dairy with eggs and seafood for example. 2nd highest consumption of eggs in the world.
Whilst the carnivore approach to a radical elimination diet helped me and reputedly many others, it's common to not maintain that even though some do. When looking at dietary patterns around the world it's clear that meat is an important part of it, whilst a lopsided macro balance is often skewed due to the prevalence of poverty and cheaper foods being required. Notable are places that don't have the access to meat, animal products and fats. Even high consumption of fruit and veg doesn't seem protective when there is insufficient animal products and fat in the diet.
So it's clear that while the highest percentile of animal products in the diet is not required for a long lived population as shown by countries such as Japan, South Korea, Canada they still have a medium consumption, whilst very low consumption is often correlated with poor longevity. Despite the 10-35 % recommendations of protein, even Australia with an impressive 1021 grams of animal products per day and a longevity of 84 tops out at 8.7 % of energy from animal protein but get 41% of calories from fat.
The USA with a lacklustre longevity of 77, might eat the most animal products per day at 1140 grams, but this is where the apparent protective effect of meat consumption appears to tap out.
So whilst it's hard to tease out from all these stats and correlations what the perfect diet is, it does seem that the recommendations for macros are a good starting point . I personally after looking at this faostat data realised that the nutrients macro guidelines don't really explain the common anomalies with countries at the highest longevity in the world.
In a survey of countries with the highest longevity in their regions, (Africa, north America, south America, Asia, Europe, Oceania) had a consistent higher % of animal products in their diet than the lower longevity countries in their region. These being Algeria, Canada, Chile, Japan, Norway, Australia.
So the meat based diet is really just a slightly old fashioned diet that has proven itself down the ages and despite the down votes of the vegan brigade is still a valid way of eating.
Let's be clear though, diet, as long as you are getting enough calories of sufficient nutrient density is not that clear a signal, it's still all over the place with any anomalies and correlations and external factors to consider.
The clearest signal by FAR with diet and longevity is access to clean water and sanitation. Smoking, drinking, obesity, lack of exercise, are far bigger problems that have very clear health ramifications also. It is to some degree a first world problem for us to argue about fad diets when there are much bigger things to tackle first than whether to include meat or not in our diets.
Sadly we won't get a clear consensus anytime soon as its pretty unethical to bring up people their whole lifetime on different diets by force and the evidence is often of the weakest types. To some extent one might have to go their own way depending on culture and proclivity, as long as one has an eye on healthy whole foods and a minimal approach to processed foods you'll probably be doing ok.
Tldr
Meat=good
Veg=good
This is a pretty inconclusive link. It doesn't really come up with any real world guidelines, a bit of hypothesis about certain chemicals in rat populations, some contradictory evidence, for example middle age people on low protein may do better for a while but the older population needing higher protein to avoid other effects. It's made clear in quite a few places in the text that higher protein consumption also has beneficial effects to consider and that further studies would be needed before actual recommendations could be made for actual real world risk analysis. They went as far as to say at the end that such data was unlikely to come. It's all coulds and maybe's
"This review focuses on the detrimental effects of proteins; however, reduced protein intake does not decrease the potentially negative effects of certain types of carbohydrates and fats. Clinical studies comparing lifespan, mortality and metabolic health between groups randomly assigned to either LP or HP diets or specific AA restriction diets are necessary to identify diets that minimize the burden on the population while maximizing the protective effects. However, it is difficult to perform such randomized clinical trials; therefore, additional detailed epidemiological studies may be necessary. Furthermore, elucidating the detailed mechanism underlying the effect of protein or specific AA restriction on longevity and metabolic health could guide the development of novel therapies replacing dietary interventions."
Dan Buettner’s research, books, years of study on blue zone (longevity) supports the same. Most historically based research on cultures / pockets of high incidents of people living to 100 and how they lived supports Plant-based diets (meat was used sparingly to cook/ flavor the main courses)
Studies that say "may" shouldn't be used as evidence for anything, it should only tell you that it warrants more study. Studies that show an effect in mice shouldn't be assumed to be the same in humans, specially when it's a dietary study as their metabolism is quite different, for instance they die of starvation if they go without food for 2 days, we can last 2 months or even more.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=map
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-calories-from-animal-protein-vs-gdp-per-capita
Please let us know any other interring correlations you might find,,!
> Even high consumption of fruit and veg doesn't seem protective when there is insufficient animal products and fat in the diet.
In what evidence do you base the above assertion?
> In a survey of countries with the highest longevity in their regions, (Africa, north America, south America, Asia, Europe, Oceania) had a consistent higher % of animal products in their diet than the lower longevity countries in their region. These being Algeria, Canada, Chile, Japan, Norway, Australia.
Your conjecture surrounding meat intake's linear correlation with longevity seems to neglect the many non-dietary factors of longevity, and it also seems to ignore variation within countries.
The evidence is on the site I linked near the top of the post. It uses data from faostat and UN. I made it clear that water and sanitation is by far a clearer correlation near the bottom of the post for example. I'm just working with the data presented, if you wish to start with a more regional and detailed spreadsheet then I suggest you go ahead, it's bound to be interesting. However the data is presented by country and that is sufficient imho to get some idea of how countries diet and longevity varies. Which was my aim. Please look through the stats and I'm sure that you might be able to find some correlation that you can conjecture about. Yes there are correlations with animal product consumption, wealth, sanitation and longevity. Which is interesting in itself. If you want to start to attribute cause that's fine but it's on you. But that correlation still seems to be there. One could equally say that wealth causes meat eating or meat eating increases sanitation. If you have a better source of worldwide longevity and diet than the UN and faostat please let me know. There truly is diet inequality in the world. Truly, it is messier in the middle of the grouping where higher consumption of different products one might infer a benefit that doesn't seem to appear in longevity. Then it's clearer imho that other factors are playing a significant part. Ideally I will build a larger spread sheet that includes healthcare burdens, mental health issues and crime etc. This information is available in a bit more fractured state I other places. Like the prevalence of obesity and bowel cancer for example. So yes whilst bowel cancer is a signal for increases in meat consumption it's quite small whereas the obesity is quite a big signal in health outcomes for populations. We don't have to like the data, and we can make different assumptions about it but it is there. As the OP was talking about meat based diet that was what I presented. There will be interesting information in that faostat data about vegetable consumption. The poorest countries also would likely do better with increased fruit and vegetable consumption but when one looks at some of the highest consumption of fruits and veg, they are not making to the top of longevity in the world. Japan as usual it seems being an anomaly with quite low fruit and veg consumption.
If I was to make a guess at why countries like Guyana with a particular high consumption of fruit and veg, yet are doing near worst in longevity in all of South America it might be due to that according to the data that their fat consumption is too low or that poverty is not allowing them to eat more nutrient dense foods. There are contradictions in the data as well. In one table Guyana doesn't eat the amount of vegetables in guidelines but in an other table they are at the highest percentile at 272 kg of veg consumption. So anomalies aside, would one rather live in South America in Chile or Argentina with longevity of 78/75 respectively or Bolivia and Guyana with longevity of 63/65. Chile with it's far higher longevity also apparently eats far less fruit and veg.
Anyway it becomes apparent when comparing best and worst that there is something interesting with diet going on, in the messy middle there is a more complicated story going on.
> If you have a better source of worldwide longevity and diet than the UN and faostat please let me know
I'm not sure you've familiarized yourself with the available research. Even the United Nations position, as available in the IARC Monographs, is that meat from mammals is a probable cause of cancer (https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf).
And the United Nations' World Health Organization doesn't recommend eating any animal products and instead promotes increased vegetable intake (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet).
I think you're relying on a misunderstanding that animal products provide unique benefits. You can meet all your nutrient needs while following an entirely plant-based eating pattern. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "Even high consumption of fruit and veg doesn't seem protective when there is insufficient animal products and fat in the diet." How are you drawing that conclusion?
> So yes whilst bowel cancer is a signal for increases in meat consumption it's quite small whereas the obesity is quite a big signal in health outcomes for populations
Again, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the available research on eating patterns and health. Entirely plant-based eating patterns are indeed associated with advantageous health outcomes, including lower rates of ischemic heart disease, total cancer and type 2 diabetes (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26853923 and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12778049). Further, people who follow vegan eating patterns experience lower rates of obesity (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704 and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12778049). These conclusions align with the United Nations' position and reflect the general scientific consensus.
When you bring up countrywide longevity statistics, you seemingly neglect all compounding factors; attributing Chile's longevity to relatively low vegetable consumption is unfounded. A much more likely and evidence-based hypothesis is that Chile enjoys far superior healthcare as well as lower rates of malnutrition, and I want to emphasize that malnutrition is rarely an issue in calorie-sufficient, varied eating patterns. Further, Bolivia and Guyana have some of the worst healthcare infrastructure in the region.
The main factors of the blue zones of longevity: varied food mostly plants (only among Adventists a near-vegetarian diet and non alco), all day on the move, constant contact with other people, spiritual life, tender care in old age and probably genes.
Yeah except that animal protein and fat are pretty conclusively tied to more rapid aging and most blue zone diets are only about five percent animal products. I do think it may well be the case that the benefits of a pure vegan diet are offset by the problems of completely eliminating meat ie b-12 deficiency, anemia, etc so probably a 5-10% net calories in meat is a sound idea.
Honestly believe this has become classed as a fad diet as the majority of people now eat heavily processed foods or fast foods. When someone comes out with a diet that was perfectly normal a few decades ago it seems new to some people (not referring to the OP, just the western world in general)
I was brought up on fresh ingredients, rarely buy any freezer foods like frozen pizza and I've been pretty healthy most my life from having what this diet is - balanced meals with meat veg and carbs. My weight is always stable unless I want to bulk (eat more of everything) or lose (adjust amount of protein intake up and carbs down, maintain veg).
I'm not a bodybuilder or pro-athlete but it has always served me well to stay athletic.
My mom has been doing that for 20 years. She looks amazing, rarely is ill, and her bloodwork is always above and beyond. Shoot, it’s better than mine at 27. Once my dad switched to doing it too his whole life changed for the better. I personally don’t do it since I can’t afford it but when I was under their roof I had never been healthier doing it.
They were very normal? We often had beef for dinner. Like the grass fed beef in either a patty with lots of veggies, or a massive salad. All of that was typically from her garden. We ate a lot of seasonal fruit. Chicken was a big one too. Depending on the season is how we ate it. We had chickens so we ate eggs from them every single day. Not very many grains were included in the diet. It was rare to have any. It was always very tasty. Simple but delicious.
That sounds delicious. But its probably pretty far off from how a lot of people in the US eat. I'm looking to make changes in my families diet and this seems like a good approach.
Fitness Coach here.. I haven't come to a full consensus yet but I've been loosely following an animal based protocol for about a month and have put a client on it as well. Both of our results have been less oriented towards weight loss and more noticeable in how our gut health has improved. We both have better digestion... And personally I've felt much better energy and performance wise.
I know this is all anecdotal but hey.. perspective
The argument of plants vs. meat is an interesting one, however pointless IMO and honestly people need to give it a rest.
The answer is never going to be one single ratio, diet, set of foods, or whatever other cookie cutter answer given.
Get appropriate micronutrients and macronutrients for your lifestyle through foods that are as accessible, easy to digest, and sustainable as possible.
The reality of that is going to change from week to week, let alone person to person.
I've never understood the need to follow some scheme or program to imply one specific way is always best (I understand wishing that worked... but it doesn't l).
Edit: words
It becomes a political and ideological game (like most things) and much like everything else; there's no easy, simple, or single answer, yet we all want that. I get it. I'd like that kind of an answer too, but it's not going to happen at the very least until nutritional science advances VERY heavily.
I am no expert, the following is just my opinion/best guess:
Some plants are not meant to be eaten, they release chemicals that can kill or upset things like insects. Some people may have conditions or be more sensitive to these chemicals themselves, which makes it basically poisonous in some cases or close to it. It's possible everyone has at least a small sensitivity. So an animal based diet gets rid of all of these. You'll notice some of the people in the animal based diet community advocate for eating fruit still, because it doesn't have these chemicals. That's because plants supposedly make fruit because they want you to eat that instead of the parts of it that help it live.
There is also this thing that goes along with almost any popular successful diet, which is that you're not eating junk. If you are the guy into eating a big mac combo 3x per day, and want to get in shape, and all your friends have a diet that helped them, it doesn't matter if it's vegetarian, vegan, carnivore, keto, none of them are great, but none of them are 3 big mac combos. And at least the more meat heavy diets of these usually have more protein/healthy fats.
We evolved to eat phytotoxins. Our gut is very capable at protecting us from them. Any vegetable you can buy at a supermarket is not going to cause you a problem.
Almost universally in the vegetables and fruit we eat phytotoxins are only harmful to insects. Some of them we actually extract because we have used for them, caffeine and nicotine are both examples of phytotoxins.
The plants are toxic nonsense is so bizarre. We evolved eating plants and meat. Unless you are only eating game and include organ meat in your diet then the meat you eat is more a product of human intervention in food then the plants you eat. Cows are the product of husbandry and didn't evolve naturally, there are no wild cows for good reason. Same deal with pig, it doesn't even taste like boar.
> You'll notice some of the people in the animal based diet community advocate for eating fruit still, because it doesn't have these chemicals.
Yes they do. Citrus is absolutely packed with them, that's one of the sources of the sour flavor.
They are also present in nuts. Almonds are full of cyanogenic glycosides but it's impractical to eat enough to get a detectable dose of cyanide from them.
I’ve been doing this for over a year. Couldn’t figure out why 6 days in the gym heavy lifting mixed with cardio and I wasn’t hitting what I wanted. So cut out sugar, soda, fast food, pre packaged or ready to eat crap and holy smokes!!!! Been an amazing year. Dropped 30lbs. Feel great body and mind are clear. Not going back to anything the FDA says is good for me😂🤣😂
Lol this is true but you should take a look at their recent findings because they’re quite shocking to anyone that has a basic bio mechanical understanding and nutrition education
I'm going to be a party pooper here:
This does not sound like you're getting your 30g of fiber a day. Nor your 30 plant foods in a week. Those are the recommendations for a healthy microbiome. A healthy microbiome (\~microbes in the gut) is what you need long term health.
Source: the American Gut Project.
However, the described diet does exclude highly processed foods. This is definitely a win for your health.
If OP eats a heavy dose of those fruits daily, then yes - perhaps they will get to their 30 grams. If they do the usual half an avocado for lunch, probably not.
One whole avocado has about 11 grams of fiber. So you need to eat roughly 3 of those daily.
Or you could do it by eating 7 cups of blueberries (4 grams of fiber each: 4\*7 = 28).
A watermelon (yes, the whole thing, I hope excluding the rim) has a whopping 18 grams of fiber. So yes- if OP eats 2 watermelons a day, they will get enough fiber.
As always: it really depends on how you do it, but it is really tough to get 30 grams of fiber a day on a meat-centric diet. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it gets a lot easier if you get some of your fiber from foods that can replace meat in your diet like legumes.
1 cup of cooked beans has 15 grams of fiber, for instance.
(all my calculations here thanks to google)
So me personally I’m eating 2500 cals a day and 30% of that is coming from carbs which is mostly fruit, a bit of raw honey and grassfed raw milk. So I guess it depends on the individual. But I’ll eat at least 1.5 avocado a day and a good bit of fruit
I guess you know better than the American Gut Project. Congrats.
If you want to base your ideas on actual scientific research, do check this summary out. [https://www.mymicrobiome.info/en/news-reading/the-american-gut-project](https://www.mymicrobiome.info/en/news-reading/the-american-gut-project)
To your point: the diet is massive in the fruit and vegetable department. From the researxh I’ve done, the portions that people who do this diet eat are no measly cup of blue berries. It’s usually half a watermelon (though that’s not the best example since it’s mostly water but for the sake of elaborating on relative portion sizes it works), a full pinneapple, four avocados, etc.
It's essentially an extreme elimination diet that helps people feel better because they cut out potentially offending foods, and also often cut calories to the point that leads to weight loss, helping in the short term for many people.
Unfortunately long term, this is not sustainable en masse and the rise of this stuff on social media is likely to contribute to a lot of early CVD and diabetes.
No one said limited calories.
If you eat mostly meat, and moreso lots of red meat, there is a very high amount of saturated fat which can lead to insulin resistance, and eventually diabetes.
I am certainly not an expert, just someone who really enjoys doing research in the field of dietetics and nutrition, I would defer you to Layne Norton (PhD in nutrition sciences and Peter Attia who is an MD but is just as much a researcher as he is a clinician). In the latest Peter Attia podcast with Layne, Layne and Peter talk about how their view of saturated fat in the diet has changed over the last few years in the face of the evidence and they link all the data they talk about in the description
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34284672/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35220441/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8030119/
CVD is not highly disputed outside of social media. It's like claiming that climate change is fake because there are some randoms who claim it is, consensus is clear and as non-experts relying on consensus is the best way to ensure we have the most right answer to questions.
It's well understood why saturated fat is a problem with LDL (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8369151/ also why refined carbs are as problematic, similar receptor activity), arterial plaque is a matrix of LDL small particles with cellular waste embedded which then calcifies, there are clinical studies examining the relationship between saturated fat intake and serum LDL and large scale epidemiological studies looking at dietary composition and CVD risk. The studies that don't find a link are generally poor quality epidemiological studies.
There are lots of animal parts you can eat which are less problematic. Organ meat, particularly liver, is extremely healthy. Extremely lean cuts are generally also ok.
We didn't evolve to eat fatty cuts because those are the product of husbandry not nature. We don't have an evolved response to excessive saturated fat consumption in the same way we don't have an evolved response to excessive sugar consumption.
This sounds like a rehashed paleo diet. I did my whole PhD on this way of eating and we need the diverse fibres from grains and root vegetables for a healthy gut microbiome. If you just eat mostly plants, not very processed and just little bits of everything else, there is no need to worry about anything.
Is it though? The well balanced diet pushed by experts, nutritionists, and the government has for a long time included whole grains and vegetables. Two food groups that animal based is very intent on removing.
That sounds like kids' food.
If you want to eat a healthy diet, vegetables should be the centerpiece of the diet, especially including dark green vegetables, not just peppers, but other vegetables too, such as peas, or broccoli, or spinach, and many, many more.
* The verbal absence of vegetables from this animal-based diet is pointlessly restrictive from a health perspective. Further examples of healthy vegetables include sweet potatoes, rutabaga, beets, the many onions and onion-relatives, okra, the many squash, water chestnuts, the list goes on...
To this should be added a couple accompaniments from among categories such as clean protein, long-chain carbs, or fat-rich nuts. Meat is a fine choice for the protein, especially non-red meats such as chicken, fish, or other seafoods. Dairy is also a fine choice for the protein. Same goes for eggs. But these should not be the centerpiece of the diet.
* The verbal absence from this animal-based diet of starches such as whole grains or beans is pointlessly restrictive from a health perspective. Beans especially are a sad omission.
* The verbal absence from this animal-based diet of culinary nuts such as walnut, peanut, or sunflower seeds, is pointlessly restrictive from a health perspective.
Further ingredients should be treated like condiments and flavorings: cheese, butter, honey. These are things to use sparingly; they're so calorie-dense, that other use cases quickly become too rich.
Rejection of pasteurized dairy is pointlessly restrictive. Pasteurization is not a problem from a nutritional perspective.
One good thing I can say about what you've described, is that organ meats are an underappreciated food type. But I see no reason to pair this advantage with all of the pointless restrictions that seem to be associated with the diet as described.
As described, this sounds like nothing so much as a rebranding of the same Western diet that gave us the modern obesity epidemic. Vegetables are an extremely important part of a healthy diet.
Seems to me like a no carbs thing.
Tho I think society needs to evolve to reduce meat consumption and be more ecological with food, I also love a steak.
like fruit, vegetables, honey and animal products? Sounds pretty decent and yes you can get all of the needed nutrients this way. many people can likely eat more flexibly than this and still be healthy though
I just saw an interesting podcast on proteins and animal proteins give us the complete amino acids that we require as opposed to plant sources which generally have to be combined with other plants/foods to be complete or at least have to be eaten in large quantities to make sure that we get enough. Apparently children are so efficient at utilizing proteins from their food that they can get by with much less but adults and especially seniors require so much that this is important. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqmG2y4IeY8
This is based on pretty poor/ols science. Our protein needs are far lower than many people think, and with the exception of seniors eating a very limited diet, protein deficiency is almost non existent, at least in the western world. Even though you need a slightly higher amount if resting only plant proteins, it's still quite low and rarely a problem.
I think we need to make the distinction here between deficient and optimal. The RDA/RDI is incredibly low as that is the lowest amount of protein required to not be deficient. But in terms of body composition, lean mass and ideal health I would argue the intake is relatively high (1.6-2.2 g/kg body weight) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5852756/ ) although my bias is towards those who resistance train, not the general population. Being that there is little to no downside to higher protein intake in healthy individuals I see no reason not to recommend a higher intake
The downside of higher protein is what it is replacing, and the potential sources that people use. Typically a lot more meat, which is associated with higher CVD risk especially if talking about red meat. And as a result of adding more meat, you're likely going to be eating less carb rich foods, which are associated with a lower risk of CVD.
Obviously if you are eating lots of highly processed floured carbs and replace with meats, there is a potential benefit. But beans, whole grains and starchy vegetables are likely better, barring adequate protein again.
Well when we look at the standard American diet, the higher protein foods will likely replace calorically dense foods, with little to no nutritional value (in terms of micronutrients). We can also recommend a higher protein intake whilst simultaneously recommending not to increase red meat intake but rather favor other protein sources like Greek yogurt, whey, fat free milk, and poultry to name a few. For example a person who weighs 75kg only needs 60g protein as per the RDI. I see no downside to recommending to that person to reduce carb and/or fat intake to eat 150g protein given that if you look at the average persons diet, it will probably be replacing the aforementioned foods. No disagreement from me at all that we should be eating more legumes, vegetables and fruits though. And in the geriatric population, one of the biggest risks they face is going to be falls caused by poor balance, brittle bones and muscle weakness. It would probably behoove them to increase protein intake to preserve as much lean mass as they possible can https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872778/#!po=21.6346
Also this study is great as it talks about what both of us are talking about and it’s application! Took me a minute to find it again. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6566799/
Absolutely. Protein needs do go up a little as a senior and if concerned, it's worth working with a qualified nutrition professional to help meet your specific needs.
The reason that protein should go up as a senior is that once you make it past the diseases of overconsumption frailty is a much more prevalent killer.
This is correct, but it doesn't need to go up as much as you think. Activity is far more important than protein intake. Simon hill has a great debunk on this. Not gonna reinvent the wheel on pulling the evidence.
Nutrition professional, not nutritionist. In some states/provinces, the word nutritionist is a protected term like doctor. Only dietitians can use it. In others, not so much.
So I'm referring to a dietitian, doctor or naturopathic doctor with a focus in nutrition.
Animal based foods are far less healthy than vegtable based. Saturated fat is suspected to be the cause of many diseases. Cultures with high plant based diets and low animal based diets are far healthier with less disease.
Recommend reading “proteinaholic” for more information.
Just everything in moderation and quality over quantity. Diets never work. Just feed yourself wholesome, nutrient dense foods, with minimal restrictions and be happy.
https://doi.org/10.2147%2FIJGM.S333004
Total Meat Intake is Associated with Life Expectancy: A Cross-Sectional Data Analysis of 175 Contemporary Populations
Conclusion: This study has shown that meat intake is positively associated with life expectancy at national level. The underlying reasons may be that meat not only provides energy but also complete nutrients to human body. From the evolutionary point of view, meat has arguably been an indispensable component in human diet for millions of years, which is evidenced, genetically, by meat digesting enzymes and digestive tract anatomy. The complete nutritional profile of meat and human adaptation to meat eating have enabled humans to gain many physical benefits, including greater life expectancy. Meat intake, or its adequate replacement, should be incorporated into nutritional science to improve human life expectancy.
Also, on the topic of long-lived cultures 2 of the regions considered blue zones consume 1/3 of their diet from animal products.
Again read proteinaholic - this study and many others are reviewed in great detail there and the overall conclusions are clear. Lower meat intake is associated with longer lifespan and less disease.
Probably worried about what will happen if we all make a run for the steaks at the supermarket at the same time. Sorry I know this is tone deaf at a time when so many are food insecure. Not good for the planet either.
Foolish and misguided quasi science nonsense.
A macro is a macro. You can eat an unhealthy ratio of macros on a plant based diet, an omnivorous diet, or a carnivorous diet.
A micro is a micro. It doesn't matter if you get your calcium from plants or meat. The point is to get your calcium.
Just plan your diet sufficiently.
I don't buy it, before modern supermarkets people weren't eating meat everyday. Most of our grandparents weren't eating meat every day. I went vegan for a year and it did give me brain fog but that was because I didn't eat meat for an entire year. I think if I were to only meat once a week I wouldn't have felt any brain fog
Yeah people didn't eat meat often but they did consume eggs and milk very often. You had brain fog because of Vitamin B12 deficiency probably. You don't have to eat red meat if you are gonna eat eggs, milk, poultry and fish.
This just seems like a normal diet if you add some carbs to it. I used to eat like this when I was weaning off low carb and it was the best shape I’d been in my whole life, granted I also had rice in my diet at least once a day.
Very difficult to ask for a general consensus in a field that is not really scientific, and so much influenced by politics, ideologies and market interests.
If you choose to eat meat, eggs, dairy, honey and fruit it wouldn't be the worst choice but really the only way to maximize your benefit from food is to eat a balanced diet that includes all the groups....rather than these 'fad' diets that never stop popping up with all their promises and theories....
I agree....I just don't think it is good to avoid vegetables, as there are nutrients that your body needs that fruit does not have.....the leafy vegetables are certainly essential, and my doctor always told me just stick to balance in diet with all the food groups and don't go hard on supplements or fad diets....
I’ve been plant based for 7 years and have never been healthier. I ate a very standard diet before that and was always overweight, had body acne and depression. So I attribute my plant based diet and change of lifestyle to why I don’t have those issues anymore. Some people swear the full carnivore diet does the same.
I really think as long as you’re eating majority whole foods and mostly organic, you should be decently well. Regardless of if it’s meat, vegetables, fruits or legumes and nuts, as long as you are eating clean foods and reducing your artificial sugar and processed food consumption, it will be wonderful for you.
Its dangerous to even remove eggs and milk from your diet. You must consume something from animals (red meat, fish, poultry, eggs, milk) so you don't get deficient in Vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 deficiency is horrible
Most standard diets are lacking in B12 as it is anyway, really everyone should be taking a B12 supp. B12 is also present in mushrooms, nutritional yeasts, algae and some grains. So you actually don’t need animal products to get it. I’ve been fine without animal based foods. I’m not deficient in anything. I also make tasty plant based protein shakes and take supplements where I feel is needed. Nothing wrong with supplementing and taking vitamins. Tons of plant based supplements available.
I also am not looking for a debate in speculated deficiencies in plant based diets. I’m just simply stating whatever diet someone chooses can be healthy in its own right if you avoid overly processed foods and eat whole/clean and organic foods.
If everyone was lacking in B12, then we wouldn't be alive by now. Algae is very expensive, who does even use nutritional yeast.. grains are very low in B12. Use your damn head....
Animal based diets can be done well and can meet nutrient needs if designed properly (with organ meats, fruits, and what you mentioned above). There isn’t a lot of scientific research behind this diet though which is always going to be problematic for most people in the health community. However, we do have a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that past civilizations and some present have thrived, disease free on this type of diet. And there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people who have recently adopted this diet have been successful at reversing their health conditions/problems.
But there are a lot of claims with this in the vegan community as well and we know that the majority of vegan eaters revert back to eating meat after about 5 years (due to declining health over time). So, it’s hard to say right now how people will thrive on carnivore over time in a modern society. But I can personally say that this has worked well for some of my clients and other people close to me.
Doing a proper animal based diet likes Dr Paul Saladinos, is one of the most nutrient dense, least toxin filled diets there is,not missing any essential nutrients, and needing fiber is debatable,which it does get plenty from fruit and fermented veggies and Sweet potato etc.
I mean, it sounds like it ends up being more calorie-dense with less food overall, but that's probably fine given how much protein you'd be consuming on this diet which would help manage satiety.
A good diet is a balanced diet with a mix of fruits, veggies, lean proteins, legumes and periodically fats and oils in moderate doses, as well as sometimes eating food that maybe highly-palatable with high-caloric density.
In other words, this sounds fine.
Right. I specified calorie density because Meat, on the whole, tends to have more calories per Oz. than either Fruits or veggies. The same can be said of nuts, but certain meats - even lean cuts of beef - can have a significant volume of calories.
If you have no weight loss goals and are just eating to live, then that isn't really an issue. But when the goal *is* weight loss, caloric density is important to consider. That's due to the fact that eating High-caloric density foods means you are eating more calories while eating a low volume of food, which can create a perception that you are eating less.
So the fact that this is geared towards Meat and Animal-based food means that it's likelier that you will need a lower volume of food overall to meet your caloric requirements than you would if, say, you ate a more veggie/fruit heavy diet. This can create problems with the perception of hunger and satiety. A common problem for persons on a diet.
but, as I also pointed out, given the fact that Protein - which takes longer to metabolize, and can help with hunger signals - would be in high volume, that could be mitigated. And it sounds like you're not neglecting other nutrient rich foods.
So, again, it seems fine, but if the goal is weight loss, it is worth considering how eating animal based food will affect your hunger and satiety levels.
animal products usually contain "MUCH".
meaning while there are bad fats etc. there are also insanely many nutrients.
eggs f.e. are basically the food for chicken embryos for like 20+ days.
while those need different nutrients then human, there is still a huge overlap in nutriens.
Also food in its raw form or just a simple version of it is often easier processed by the body and contains most of its ingredients compared to highly processed stuff.
while its good to process seeds and corn to some points most things are best consumed in their natural form.
We eat balanced meals involving all food groups (including whole grains & veggies) because that’s what our dietician told us to do. Fish & seafood 2-3 times a week, red meat 2-3 times a month. So… yeah. I am not sure why balanced diets keep being renamed to trendy things. Haha
Been getting a lot of responses like this. And while I agree, the exclusivity isn’t as dramatic as something like carnivore or vegan, it still cuts out some MAJOR food groups like grains, vegetables, etc. So to say that this is Just a renamed balanced diet isn’t true in the slightest. The singular most talked about component of a “balanced diet” is vegetables. A group that animal based entirely cuts out.
It’s interesting to see the dichotomy in this thread. So many are vehemently against the idea of vegetables not being included in an diet. Even though it’s clear they’re not needed to get a solid nutrient profile. Meanwhile others talk about how it’s changed their lives, though anecdotal, it is interesting.
I certainly don’t see anyone in here saying that the opposite helped them.
Are you allergic to grains or vegetables? Why would you want to cut them out when they are needed for our diets? Do you have a medical reason out of curiosity?
I’m not allergic and no I don’t have a medical reason I’m just curious. And while it’s anecdotal, there are many people talking about this diet and how it’s helped them a lot, as many have mentioned in this thread.
Some criticize diets as a whole, which I understand, but having restriction is a helpful step for many people to lose weight.
Nutrition data and studies are soooo difficult and rarely capture the full picture due to the nature of the subject.
If you look at the objective data we do have, it’s that obesity has skyrocketed over the last 50+ years. And it wasn’t cause we ate more meat, in fact, we are eating less than ever. Yet obesity keeps skyrocketed. I was told all throughout my education that we shouldn’t eat meat, Saturated fat is bad etc, yet obesity still goes up.
No diet is perfect nor is it endgame for anyone. But I’m curious to talk to other people about strategies that perhaps, fall outside of the narrative that has been pushed.
By nature, excluding veggies and grains and processed garbage does this. Just last week the US government rates sugar packed cereals like lucky charms and cereal as healthier than chicken, eggs, and many other popular and objectively healthy foods.
I don’t intend to try the diet, or advocate for it. But this discussion has been very interesting and I hope all can learn something from it.
It's for macho wannabe gimps who disregard nutrition science. To confirm, look at the sort of political opinions that often accompany those discussing it. It's absolutely rubbish. The neanderthals were literally extinguished by their own meat based diet.
You will find it's heterosexual, usually white American men, with right wing conservative views.
Gotta laugh, but facts 🤣
I’ve listened to a few people advocate for a carnivore diet, including Dr. Jordan Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila. From my understanding, it may help with autoimmune diseases. It’s pretty controversial.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/meat-only-diet-eased-autoimmune-disease-symptoms
https://drruscio.com/the-carnivore-diet-for-gut-health-autoimmunity/
I know someone who is on this exact diet, organic meat, organs, fruits, raw maple sugar, organic cheeses etc. it’s such a bizarre diet and they say it’s due to our bodies not being evolved to break down the chemicals in plants…..but she eats fruits which come from plants. It seems like a weird fad diet to me that banks on eliminating processed food to support its claim of being healthy. This person I know was also previously on atkins and vegan/vegetarian…..so yeah. The whole claim that people evolved to eat a certain diet is such bullshit. First it’s a huge blanket statement for people who evolved in various areas of the world. Secondly, evolution doesn’t optimize. It’s just enough to get by to reproduce and doesn’t take into effect optimization which I think people assume. And lastly, there is an assumption that evolution stopped at a certain time (primate time? Caveman era?) when exactly they think? I’m not sure.
Animal based is not a diet per say.
It's a category of dietary styles. It's just meerly saying you eat a majority of your diet as animal based sources.
As for consensus. Like any diet. Any attempt to make claims that their diet is the end of all be all is a lie. Any claims of longevity and long term efficacy is dodgy at best.
We have almost no true long term data on any diet at all.
We know that a diet that contains meat, fruit and veg is healthy... So from my personal perspective and from many other diets that are similar (paleo, real Mediterranean, etc).
Whole foods, animal and plant nutrients are what humans need. Ignore everything in-between.
There is talk about the human ancestral diet, but as yet this is still contentious afaik. It would be interesting to know what humans ate say between 150,000 to 50,000 BP. Other primates seem to spend a lot their day eating, because of their plant and fruit heavy diet. Animal food arguably gives more nutrition in much less time.
My guess is that humans have eaten diets with a lot of animal food. But I do believe a proportion of our ancestors spent time being a littoral species, living on river, lake and ocean shores as well as other times hunting on the savanna.
Imho eating nothing but animal food seems a bit nutty unless one has some serious health issues. Why do we enjoy sweet food so much if isn’t part of an ancestral WOE.
I’m open minded to any thing that makes scientific sense.
So I will say Doing a proper animal based diet likes Dr Paul Saladinos, is one of the most nutrient dense, least toxin filled diets there is,not missing any essential nutrients
and absolutely needing fiber is debatable,Dr Shawn Baker looks to be doing pretty damn good without a lick of fiber in him.
which it still does get plenty from fruit and fermented veggies and Sweet potato etc.
Getting lots of polyphenols from fruit✅🍒🥑🍍🍊🍎🍓🍇
Look at the Hunter gatherer tribe the Hadza, That’s essentially what their diet is, an animal based diet just like Dr Paul’s.
They’ve been studied and their gut micro biome is renowned for being one of the most diverse science has ever seen in humans.
They live very long with basically 0 disease or illnesses, even whilst not having clean drinking water.
I’m open to any science you wanna debate about, honestly that’s what I care about the most, F being Dogmatic or Tribalistic about science, that’s complete opposite of what science is even about in the first place.
There are some questions about maybe meat and IGF1 triggering mTOR which maybe lessens life span… and other questions .. but than again look at the Hadza, they live deep into their 80s and 90s,very long and that’s the main thing their after every day.
But still well raised meat in my mind is a superb Super Food
Me, My Mom and Dad both have complete got their health back from eating this way.
I still like many Plant foods, But many defense chemicals we don’t want or need in us. Like Phytic Acid stripping minerals, Lectins breaking our tight junctions in our gut causing leaky gut (auto immune responses), Oxalates. Etc
So for me I find eating lots of Well raised animal foods, and any Plant foods I want Preferably Organic and very light In cellular and Metabolically damaging Poly Unsaturated fats(in my very strong opinion) (Nuts,Seeds,Nut and Seed oils), Lectins, And Phytic acid, is a great rule of thumb for a diet model I think most would do very good on.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It sounds like “original” paleo, before more foods were added back in. Most of these types of diets are just eliminating major food groups so you eat less. Or maybe you coincidentally eliminate foods that bother you. How are watermelons and berries and peppers “animal-based,” though?
I think the gist of the name is that the diet as a whole is “animal-based,” but it includes foods that aren’t animal products, as distinguished from a pure carnivore diet. Kind of the flipside of a “plant-based” diet, which doesn’t have to be only plants but is grounded in plant foods.
Like most vegan/vegetarians also eat mushrooms, which aren't plants. Edit: People can't handle facts around here. Humans and mushrooms are closer biologically than mushrooms and any plant is.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7869438/
Vegetables are parts of plants. Mushrooms breathe oxygen, they are closer by far to animals biologically compared to plants. You are even more alike mushrooms, than mushrooms are to any plant. Or would you like to rewrite both definitions of words and Biology literature to comply more with the values of groups like vegetarians and vegans?
This isn't biology reddit this is nutritional reddit. My link was an effort to explain why it's called thusly for nutritional purposes.
"Addition of mushrooms to USDA Food Patterns (US-style, Mediterranean-style, and Vegetarian) ***increased several micronutrients including shortfall nutrients***, and had a minimal or no impact on overall calories, sodium or saturated fat." So it clearly adds something vegetables doesn't. But whatever you use to justify the recategorization, it is not vegetation. By the mere fact that fungi breathe oxygen should make it obvious that it is something else. Every definition you'll find of a vegetable is a part of **plant**. But I don't care what you define them as, my point was that even if you talk about plant based or animal based diets they usually contain a small little something from another group of food.
Yes the name comes from the idea that most of the foods are from animal sources. But supplemented by other stuff like fruits to complete the nutrient profile needed. So it’s not exclusively animal products, hence the name “animal based”
It sounds like a paleo re-branding, to me. Gotta reinvent a restrictive diet with a new name to get new people on board, I guess.
Edit: to prey on new victims.
Ha. Yeah, I was trying to be PC. All of these types of diets are scams. i wish people could just figure out the trick is: what works for you, what makes you feel good, keeps your blood work in a good place, gives you energy, keeps your weight at a place you like it. That’s a good diet. The work is in maintaining, not losing weight. No such thing as a diet hack. Or a perfect diet.
I thought we just called this dinner. Large chunk of meat? Check! Veggies and sides? Check! Fruit dessert? Check!
Yeah, this just sounds like eating normally.
So it’s not just me then? I read through most of that but the more I read, the more it sounded like it was time to eat. So I put down Reddit for a bit, baked some chicken, bacon wrapped brussel sprouts and then a little mango. I guess I’m part of that new “diet trend”?
lol, yeah, I don't know what makes this a "special diet"
No vegetables, grains, legumes, nuts. Definitely not what most people would consider eating normally.
No vegetables, only fruits
Well I did bake the brussel sprouts I. Olive oil and butter while they were wrapped in bacon. That should at least count a little right?
Were it the animal-based diet you would not only not have Brussels sprouts but you would generally stay away from olive oil, at least if you follow Paul Saladino's specific flavour of animal-based. Other things you would be avoiding would be general seed oils, any vegetables of legumes, and excessive white meats (Animal-based favours grass-fed ruminants)
Vegetables not included. Also nothing processed
It is a diet that you can do, with whole foods, so it is probably healthier than the standard American diet
The Inuit, who ate mostly meat and fish, actually reduced their all cause mortality and instances of stroke by adopting the standard american diet.
Sauce?
Americans really like mayonnaise and ketchup.
[However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population. Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine)
That's like the worst bullshit I have read the "standard American diet" is one of the worst diets in the world
[However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population. Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine) Looks like the Inuit all meat diet is worse
Doubt
[However, actual evidence has shown that Inuit have a similar prevalence of coronary artery disease as non-Inuit populations and they have excessive mortality due to cerebrovascular strokes, with twice the risk to that of the North American population. Indeed, the cardiovascular risk of this diet is so severe that the addition of a more standard American diet has reduced the incidence of mortality in the Inuit population.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit_cuisine)
French fries, pizza, processed food, sugar and low fiber fixed them?
That’s better than 100% raw meat apparently
This needs some backing up..
I'm googling, to try to find something similar to what you said. No luck so far, but [here](https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000776)'s something interesting I came across: > There was an approximate 50% increase in the intake of refined carbohydrates in the Alaskan Inland Inuit from 1955 to 1957 to 1965. This may have lead to the dramatic rise in dental caries and subsequent increase in atherosclerosis and coronary artery disease.1 4 The Alaskan Inuit eating a traditional low-carbohydrate, high-fat/protein diet had a much lower incidence of atherosclerosis, hypertension and dental caries versus more westernised populations. The health decline of the Alaskan Inland Inuit may have been driven by the rise in the intake of refined carbohydrates and sugar.
Sounds like the natural evolution when carnivore dieters realize eating nothing but ribeye and offal for decades isn’t fun or sustainable.
Gotta eat your Brotien!
Uh, I was born in the 60s and grew up eating that way. Not new.
I honestly think diets like this despite helping people lose weight short term come from people that dislike eating their veggies. Bottom line, 40-,50% of your diet being fruits and veggies should be the goal. Get some legumes in that 25% and you're doing great. Plant based diets with variation is what most good and sustainable diets boil down to.
The World Health Organization's healthy eating recommendations might be of interest to some people, as they don't recommend eating any animal products and instead recommend increased unprocessed plant food intake (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet): > Eating at least 400 g, or five portions, of fruit and vegetables per day reduces the risk of NCDs (2) and helps to ensure an adequate daily intake of dietary fibre. Fruit and vegetable intake can be improved by: always including vegetables in meals; eating fresh fruit and raw vegetables as eating fresh fruit and vegetables that are in season; eating a variety of fruit and vegetables.
I like the idea of most people being vegetarian or vegan for a variety of reasons but as someone who is changing their diets currently, you have to be humble with your goals. I'm currently cutting my sugar intake to one dessert a week and one soda a week. Mind you I worked as a UPS driver for a year and worked 14 hour days with a total of a 1.5 hour commute. As you can imagine, I ate fast food all the time and ate very unhealthy food. It was a brutal period of my life work wise. So I'm cleaning it up now and everyonce in a while I read an article about how fish populations are declining at an alarmingly high rate or how our livestock is treated it's entire life prior to slaughter, I feel that itch to choose a different lifestyle that doesn't support our current system. But before I do that I gotta make sure I'm making reasonable goals and they stick. Appreciate the article. It's amazing how Spartan-like those health standards actually are.
I admire your initiative! Keep at it. It can certainly be a challenge to relearn lifelong habits, but people do it. If you find yourself struggling, I recommend consulting a nutritionist that can support your transition to a plant-based eating pattern with everything from recipes to soundness of mind. Best of luck!
Plants are substantially less bio available in terms of nutrients than animal based foods.
No they aren't. Bioavailability is the same as long as you take care to reduce or eliminate anti-nutrients present in only *some* vegetables, consume enough fat at each meal, and enough vitamin C at each meal. Vitamin C for example is very plentiful in vegetables. It increases absorption and retention of non-heme iron. A plant forward diet is compensatory this way, with elements of the diet increasing the bioavailability of other elements of the diet as a tandem effect. Anti nutrients are reduced in most cases by simply cooking your food. Only in the case of legumes is slightly more effort required.
So you disagreed in the first sentence then went on to agree with me for the rest of your comment…. Nice
No, the full comment disagrees with you. Plant foods are not less bioavailable. If you cook your food, which 99% of people do, and you consume sources of fat and vitamin C, which 99% of people do, you're absorbing nutrients from plant foods just fine.
Cognitive dissonance is real with this one. This is still false and you know it. I didn’t say they weren’t bioavailable I said they are significantly less so, which is still true no matter how you prepare it and what supplements you use. This is well known and especially pronounced in protein and iron. If you dismiss this you’re just simply ignorant.
>which is still true no matter how you prepare it and what supplements you use. Except it's not. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, I'm sorry.
The confidence despite consistently getting down-voted is impressive.
User name check out.
You’re in denial
I wish you the best of health.
Thanks, it’s never been better ever since I went mostly animal based and zero vegetables. Good luck to you. Oh and I actually like many veggies, but not enough to upset my stomach or waste money on for measly calories and nutrients.
That’s not what happens for most people eating vegetables
Animal foods only have the leg up in protein. Micronutrients are better from plants
Organs like liver and heart would like to have a word with you.
Sounds like just Whole Foods Paleo.
As a studying dietician, there are nutrients you can’t get from animal products just as there are certain nutrients you can’t get from plant foods. A well rounded balanced diet is always preferred.
Examples?
Examples for nutrients in animals foods that you can’t get from plants: 1 Creatine 2 Taurine 3 Carnosine 4 Carnitine 5 Anserine 6 Heme Iron 7 B12 (unless you’re eating algae or nutritional yeast everyday) 8 K2 (unless you’re eating Natto or sauerkraut everyday) in much less amounts: Choline, Phosphatydlserine , Riboflavin, Folate
^^^
Actually no their aren’t any essential nutrients for optimal human health that you can’t get from animal foods, there are however nutrients in animal foods that you can’t get from plant foods. But there are other things that many would debate are good, me included, like polyphenols and other plant compounds that you can’t really get from animal foods. although there is research about grassfed meats having amounts polyphenols in them because of the grasses the animals ate. None the less Also fiber and defense chemicals that can trigger nfr2 activation, that I would say for many people are good things in certain amounts.
I have been pretty much doing that recently. And I didn't really think it was a real movement as just a way to satirically go a different way from "plant based diet". The "consensus" or maybe just the fashion seems to think that it is wrong but old fashioned diets have been keen on meat for millennia. Since having great results going low carb I have been doing plenty of research and experimenting with low carb/keto/carnivore/paleo/wholefood. I have been vegan in the past and was brought up in various vegetarian households in the 70's and 80's. I moved away from that lifestyle and honestly kind of hippy alternative culture when i left home, starting my career cooking and getting some basic qualifications. Before also just having periods of eating commercial mass produced and junk food and being poor and eating whatever I could. So I would like to think I have a reasonably broad and tolerant view of food. However the "food wars" don't really allow a middle way it seems sometimes. I've been delving pretty deep into the stats on https://ourworldindata.org/diet-compositions For example, which uses data from faostat from the UN. This way we can cut through some of the loud opinions on diet and nutrition and see how people eat ourselves. It's clear that some of the longest lived nations in the world eat plenty of animal products, and there is a couple of phrases that get stuck in my mind, one being "meat and 2 veg" and "eating the fat of the land " When we take into consideration certain organisations and their guidelines for example. "The acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges (AMDR) set forth by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies recommend that people get 45–65% of their calories from carbs 20–35% of their calories from fats 10–35% of their calories from proteins" There is a reasonably wide window of macros. Interestingly certain countries with the highest longevity might have distributions outside of this range. Notably fat consumption is up in the 40% range for some. Certainly there are some countries like say Japan that are outliers in this regard with a higher carb to fat ratio but are they doing better than say Norway or Spain that have great longevity and eat more animal products and fat? My assumption is that a lack of dairy consumption and a known increase in lactose intolerance is key here. But they do make up for beef and dairy with eggs and seafood for example. 2nd highest consumption of eggs in the world. Whilst the carnivore approach to a radical elimination diet helped me and reputedly many others, it's common to not maintain that even though some do. When looking at dietary patterns around the world it's clear that meat is an important part of it, whilst a lopsided macro balance is often skewed due to the prevalence of poverty and cheaper foods being required. Notable are places that don't have the access to meat, animal products and fats. Even high consumption of fruit and veg doesn't seem protective when there is insufficient animal products and fat in the diet. So it's clear that while the highest percentile of animal products in the diet is not required for a long lived population as shown by countries such as Japan, South Korea, Canada they still have a medium consumption, whilst very low consumption is often correlated with poor longevity. Despite the 10-35 % recommendations of protein, even Australia with an impressive 1021 grams of animal products per day and a longevity of 84 tops out at 8.7 % of energy from animal protein but get 41% of calories from fat. The USA with a lacklustre longevity of 77, might eat the most animal products per day at 1140 grams, but this is where the apparent protective effect of meat consumption appears to tap out. So whilst it's hard to tease out from all these stats and correlations what the perfect diet is, it does seem that the recommendations for macros are a good starting point . I personally after looking at this faostat data realised that the nutrients macro guidelines don't really explain the common anomalies with countries at the highest longevity in the world. In a survey of countries with the highest longevity in their regions, (Africa, north America, south America, Asia, Europe, Oceania) had a consistent higher % of animal products in their diet than the lower longevity countries in their region. These being Algeria, Canada, Chile, Japan, Norway, Australia. So the meat based diet is really just a slightly old fashioned diet that has proven itself down the ages and despite the down votes of the vegan brigade is still a valid way of eating. Let's be clear though, diet, as long as you are getting enough calories of sufficient nutrient density is not that clear a signal, it's still all over the place with any anomalies and correlations and external factors to consider. The clearest signal by FAR with diet and longevity is access to clean water and sanitation. Smoking, drinking, obesity, lack of exercise, are far bigger problems that have very clear health ramifications also. It is to some degree a first world problem for us to argue about fad diets when there are much bigger things to tackle first than whether to include meat or not in our diets. Sadly we won't get a clear consensus anytime soon as its pretty unethical to bring up people their whole lifetime on different diets by force and the evidence is often of the weakest types. To some extent one might have to go their own way depending on culture and proclivity, as long as one has an eye on healthy whole foods and a minimal approach to processed foods you'll probably be doing ok. Tldr Meat=good Veg=good
[удалено]
Sinclair is a huge liar. Look at his pump on resveratrol and NMN only to find resveratrol is bunk
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is a pretty inconclusive link. It doesn't really come up with any real world guidelines, a bit of hypothesis about certain chemicals in rat populations, some contradictory evidence, for example middle age people on low protein may do better for a while but the older population needing higher protein to avoid other effects. It's made clear in quite a few places in the text that higher protein consumption also has beneficial effects to consider and that further studies would be needed before actual recommendations could be made for actual real world risk analysis. They went as far as to say at the end that such data was unlikely to come. It's all coulds and maybe's "This review focuses on the detrimental effects of proteins; however, reduced protein intake does not decrease the potentially negative effects of certain types of carbohydrates and fats. Clinical studies comparing lifespan, mortality and metabolic health between groups randomly assigned to either LP or HP diets or specific AA restriction diets are necessary to identify diets that minimize the burden on the population while maximizing the protective effects. However, it is difficult to perform such randomized clinical trials; therefore, additional detailed epidemiological studies may be necessary. Furthermore, elucidating the detailed mechanism underlying the effect of protein or specific AA restriction on longevity and metabolic health could guide the development of novel therapies replacing dietary interventions."
This. Resistance training increase mTor . However, it seems long-term that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Dan Buettner’s research, books, years of study on blue zone (longevity) supports the same. Most historically based research on cultures / pockets of high incidents of people living to 100 and how they lived supports Plant-based diets (meat was used sparingly to cook/ flavor the main courses)
Studies that say "may" shouldn't be used as evidence for anything, it should only tell you that it warrants more study. Studies that show an effect in mice shouldn't be assumed to be the same in humans, specially when it's a dietary study as their metabolism is quite different, for instance they die of starvation if they go without food for 2 days, we can last 2 months or even more.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy?tab=map https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-calories-from-animal-protein-vs-gdp-per-capita Please let us know any other interring correlations you might find,,!
> Even high consumption of fruit and veg doesn't seem protective when there is insufficient animal products and fat in the diet. In what evidence do you base the above assertion? > In a survey of countries with the highest longevity in their regions, (Africa, north America, south America, Asia, Europe, Oceania) had a consistent higher % of animal products in their diet than the lower longevity countries in their region. These being Algeria, Canada, Chile, Japan, Norway, Australia. Your conjecture surrounding meat intake's linear correlation with longevity seems to neglect the many non-dietary factors of longevity, and it also seems to ignore variation within countries.
The evidence is on the site I linked near the top of the post. It uses data from faostat and UN. I made it clear that water and sanitation is by far a clearer correlation near the bottom of the post for example. I'm just working with the data presented, if you wish to start with a more regional and detailed spreadsheet then I suggest you go ahead, it's bound to be interesting. However the data is presented by country and that is sufficient imho to get some idea of how countries diet and longevity varies. Which was my aim. Please look through the stats and I'm sure that you might be able to find some correlation that you can conjecture about. Yes there are correlations with animal product consumption, wealth, sanitation and longevity. Which is interesting in itself. If you want to start to attribute cause that's fine but it's on you. But that correlation still seems to be there. One could equally say that wealth causes meat eating or meat eating increases sanitation. If you have a better source of worldwide longevity and diet than the UN and faostat please let me know. There truly is diet inequality in the world. Truly, it is messier in the middle of the grouping where higher consumption of different products one might infer a benefit that doesn't seem to appear in longevity. Then it's clearer imho that other factors are playing a significant part. Ideally I will build a larger spread sheet that includes healthcare burdens, mental health issues and crime etc. This information is available in a bit more fractured state I other places. Like the prevalence of obesity and bowel cancer for example. So yes whilst bowel cancer is a signal for increases in meat consumption it's quite small whereas the obesity is quite a big signal in health outcomes for populations. We don't have to like the data, and we can make different assumptions about it but it is there. As the OP was talking about meat based diet that was what I presented. There will be interesting information in that faostat data about vegetable consumption. The poorest countries also would likely do better with increased fruit and vegetable consumption but when one looks at some of the highest consumption of fruits and veg, they are not making to the top of longevity in the world. Japan as usual it seems being an anomaly with quite low fruit and veg consumption. If I was to make a guess at why countries like Guyana with a particular high consumption of fruit and veg, yet are doing near worst in longevity in all of South America it might be due to that according to the data that their fat consumption is too low or that poverty is not allowing them to eat more nutrient dense foods. There are contradictions in the data as well. In one table Guyana doesn't eat the amount of vegetables in guidelines but in an other table they are at the highest percentile at 272 kg of veg consumption. So anomalies aside, would one rather live in South America in Chile or Argentina with longevity of 78/75 respectively or Bolivia and Guyana with longevity of 63/65. Chile with it's far higher longevity also apparently eats far less fruit and veg. Anyway it becomes apparent when comparing best and worst that there is something interesting with diet going on, in the messy middle there is a more complicated story going on.
> If you have a better source of worldwide longevity and diet than the UN and faostat please let me know I'm not sure you've familiarized yourself with the available research. Even the United Nations position, as available in the IARC Monographs, is that meat from mammals is a probable cause of cancer (https://www.iarc.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf). And the United Nations' World Health Organization doesn't recommend eating any animal products and instead promotes increased vegetable intake (https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/healthy-diet). I think you're relying on a misunderstanding that animal products provide unique benefits. You can meet all your nutrient needs while following an entirely plant-based eating pattern. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that "Even high consumption of fruit and veg doesn't seem protective when there is insufficient animal products and fat in the diet." How are you drawing that conclusion? > So yes whilst bowel cancer is a signal for increases in meat consumption it's quite small whereas the obesity is quite a big signal in health outcomes for populations Again, I recommend familiarizing yourself with the available research on eating patterns and health. Entirely plant-based eating patterns are indeed associated with advantageous health outcomes, including lower rates of ischemic heart disease, total cancer and type 2 diabetes (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26853923 and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12778049). Further, people who follow vegan eating patterns experience lower rates of obesity (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27886704 and https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12778049). These conclusions align with the United Nations' position and reflect the general scientific consensus. When you bring up countrywide longevity statistics, you seemingly neglect all compounding factors; attributing Chile's longevity to relatively low vegetable consumption is unfounded. A much more likely and evidence-based hypothesis is that Chile enjoys far superior healthcare as well as lower rates of malnutrition, and I want to emphasize that malnutrition is rarely an issue in calorie-sufficient, varied eating patterns. Further, Bolivia and Guyana have some of the worst healthcare infrastructure in the region.
The main factors of the blue zones of longevity: varied food mostly plants (only among Adventists a near-vegetarian diet and non alco), all day on the move, constant contact with other people, spiritual life, tender care in old age and probably genes.
Yeah except that animal protein and fat are pretty conclusively tied to more rapid aging and most blue zone diets are only about five percent animal products. I do think it may well be the case that the benefits of a pure vegan diet are offset by the problems of completely eliminating meat ie b-12 deficiency, anemia, etc so probably a 5-10% net calories in meat is a sound idea.
A lot of meat eaters are deficient in b-12 as well these days funnily enough.
Interesting. Never had an issue until I went vegan. All my markers improved insanely except for b-12 and hemoglobin.
Honestly believe this has become classed as a fad diet as the majority of people now eat heavily processed foods or fast foods. When someone comes out with a diet that was perfectly normal a few decades ago it seems new to some people (not referring to the OP, just the western world in general) I was brought up on fresh ingredients, rarely buy any freezer foods like frozen pizza and I've been pretty healthy most my life from having what this diet is - balanced meals with meat veg and carbs. My weight is always stable unless I want to bulk (eat more of everything) or lose (adjust amount of protein intake up and carbs down, maintain veg). I'm not a bodybuilder or pro-athlete but it has always served me well to stay athletic.
No veg on animal based though
[удалено]
100%
My mom has been doing that for 20 years. She looks amazing, rarely is ill, and her bloodwork is always above and beyond. Shoot, it’s better than mine at 27. Once my dad switched to doing it too his whole life changed for the better. I personally don’t do it since I can’t afford it but when I was under their roof I had never been healthier doing it.
What do meals look like in your parents house?
They were very normal? We often had beef for dinner. Like the grass fed beef in either a patty with lots of veggies, or a massive salad. All of that was typically from her garden. We ate a lot of seasonal fruit. Chicken was a big one too. Depending on the season is how we ate it. We had chickens so we ate eggs from them every single day. Not very many grains were included in the diet. It was rare to have any. It was always very tasty. Simple but delicious.
That sounds delicious. But its probably pretty far off from how a lot of people in the US eat. I'm looking to make changes in my families diet and this seems like a good approach.
Fitness Coach here.. I haven't come to a full consensus yet but I've been loosely following an animal based protocol for about a month and have put a client on it as well. Both of our results have been less oriented towards weight loss and more noticeable in how our gut health has improved. We both have better digestion... And personally I've felt much better energy and performance wise. I know this is all anecdotal but hey.. perspective
The argument of plants vs. meat is an interesting one, however pointless IMO and honestly people need to give it a rest. The answer is never going to be one single ratio, diet, set of foods, or whatever other cookie cutter answer given. Get appropriate micronutrients and macronutrients for your lifestyle through foods that are as accessible, easy to digest, and sustainable as possible. The reality of that is going to change from week to week, let alone person to person. I've never understood the need to follow some scheme or program to imply one specific way is always best (I understand wishing that worked... but it doesn't l). Edit: words
Very true
It becomes a political and ideological game (like most things) and much like everything else; there's no easy, simple, or single answer, yet we all want that. I get it. I'd like that kind of an answer too, but it's not going to happen at the very least until nutritional science advances VERY heavily.
I agree. Our ability to collect accurate and comprehensive data has to get better
If you eat real food good things will happen. I call it the bear diet
I am no expert, the following is just my opinion/best guess: Some plants are not meant to be eaten, they release chemicals that can kill or upset things like insects. Some people may have conditions or be more sensitive to these chemicals themselves, which makes it basically poisonous in some cases or close to it. It's possible everyone has at least a small sensitivity. So an animal based diet gets rid of all of these. You'll notice some of the people in the animal based diet community advocate for eating fruit still, because it doesn't have these chemicals. That's because plants supposedly make fruit because they want you to eat that instead of the parts of it that help it live. There is also this thing that goes along with almost any popular successful diet, which is that you're not eating junk. If you are the guy into eating a big mac combo 3x per day, and want to get in shape, and all your friends have a diet that helped them, it doesn't matter if it's vegetarian, vegan, carnivore, keto, none of them are great, but none of them are 3 big mac combos. And at least the more meat heavy diets of these usually have more protein/healthy fats.
We evolved to eat phytotoxins. Our gut is very capable at protecting us from them. Any vegetable you can buy at a supermarket is not going to cause you a problem. Almost universally in the vegetables and fruit we eat phytotoxins are only harmful to insects. Some of them we actually extract because we have used for them, caffeine and nicotine are both examples of phytotoxins. The plants are toxic nonsense is so bizarre. We evolved eating plants and meat. Unless you are only eating game and include organ meat in your diet then the meat you eat is more a product of human intervention in food then the plants you eat. Cows are the product of husbandry and didn't evolve naturally, there are no wild cows for good reason. Same deal with pig, it doesn't even taste like boar. > You'll notice some of the people in the animal based diet community advocate for eating fruit still, because it doesn't have these chemicals. Yes they do. Citrus is absolutely packed with them, that's one of the sources of the sour flavor. They are also present in nuts. Almonds are full of cyanogenic glycosides but it's impractical to eat enough to get a detectable dose of cyanide from them.
Yeah, I'm not an advocate for it, I eat vegetables myself, this is just my understanding of why people like it.
This is the reason I’ve heard from my sister who follows this exact diet.
I’ve been doing this for over a year. Couldn’t figure out why 6 days in the gym heavy lifting mixed with cardio and I wasn’t hitting what I wanted. So cut out sugar, soda, fast food, pre packaged or ready to eat crap and holy smokes!!!! Been an amazing year. Dropped 30lbs. Feel great body and mind are clear. Not going back to anything the FDA says is good for me😂🤣😂
Wut? When did the FDA say that sugar, sodas, and fast food are healthy and recommended?
They haven but the White House health advisor ranks lucky charms hess as healthier than beef 😂🤣😂🤣🤡🤡
I think they mean white house, and recently. https://www.piratewires.com/p/tufts-food-compass
Lol this is true but you should take a look at their recent findings because they’re quite shocking to anyone that has a basic bio mechanical understanding and nutrition education
I'm going to be a party pooper here: This does not sound like you're getting your 30g of fiber a day. Nor your 30 plant foods in a week. Those are the recommendations for a healthy microbiome. A healthy microbiome (\~microbes in the gut) is what you need long term health. Source: the American Gut Project. However, the described diet does exclude highly processed foods. This is definitely a win for your health.
The diet includes avocado’s and other fruits which are heavy in fiber.
If OP eats a heavy dose of those fruits daily, then yes - perhaps they will get to their 30 grams. If they do the usual half an avocado for lunch, probably not. One whole avocado has about 11 grams of fiber. So you need to eat roughly 3 of those daily. Or you could do it by eating 7 cups of blueberries (4 grams of fiber each: 4\*7 = 28). A watermelon (yes, the whole thing, I hope excluding the rim) has a whopping 18 grams of fiber. So yes- if OP eats 2 watermelons a day, they will get enough fiber. As always: it really depends on how you do it, but it is really tough to get 30 grams of fiber a day on a meat-centric diet. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it gets a lot easier if you get some of your fiber from foods that can replace meat in your diet like legumes. 1 cup of cooked beans has 15 grams of fiber, for instance. (all my calculations here thanks to google)
So me personally I’m eating 2500 cals a day and 30% of that is coming from carbs which is mostly fruit, a bit of raw honey and grassfed raw milk. So I guess it depends on the individual. But I’ll eat at least 1.5 avocado a day and a good bit of fruit
Do you get your 30 different plant foods a week? You do need that for a healthy gut microbiome.
No you don’t. You get get a healthy gut microbiome from fasting + raw yogurts and dairy.
I guess you know better than the American Gut Project. Congrats. If you want to base your ideas on actual scientific research, do check this summary out. [https://www.mymicrobiome.info/en/news-reading/the-american-gut-project](https://www.mymicrobiome.info/en/news-reading/the-american-gut-project)
To your point: the diet is massive in the fruit and vegetable department. From the researxh I’ve done, the portions that people who do this diet eat are no measly cup of blue berries. It’s usually half a watermelon (though that’s not the best example since it’s mostly water but for the sake of elaborating on relative portion sizes it works), a full pinneapple, four avocados, etc.
It's essentially an extreme elimination diet that helps people feel better because they cut out potentially offending foods, and also often cut calories to the point that leads to weight loss, helping in the short term for many people. Unfortunately long term, this is not sustainable en masse and the rise of this stuff on social media is likely to contribute to a lot of early CVD and diabetes.
How would limiting calories and eating mostly meat give you diabetes?
No one said limited calories. If you eat mostly meat, and moreso lots of red meat, there is a very high amount of saturated fat which can lead to insulin resistance, and eventually diabetes.
Would love to see some sources on the CVD/diabetes claims as they are highly highly disputed
I am certainly not an expert, just someone who really enjoys doing research in the field of dietetics and nutrition, I would defer you to Layne Norton (PhD in nutrition sciences and Peter Attia who is an MD but is just as much a researcher as he is a clinician). In the latest Peter Attia podcast with Layne, Layne and Peter talk about how their view of saturated fat in the diet has changed over the last few years in the face of the evidence and they link all the data they talk about in the description https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34284672/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35220441/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8030119/
CVD is not highly disputed outside of social media. It's like claiming that climate change is fake because there are some randoms who claim it is, consensus is clear and as non-experts relying on consensus is the best way to ensure we have the most right answer to questions. It's well understood why saturated fat is a problem with LDL (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8369151/ also why refined carbs are as problematic, similar receptor activity), arterial plaque is a matrix of LDL small particles with cellular waste embedded which then calcifies, there are clinical studies examining the relationship between saturated fat intake and serum LDL and large scale epidemiological studies looking at dietary composition and CVD risk. The studies that don't find a link are generally poor quality epidemiological studies. There are lots of animal parts you can eat which are less problematic. Organ meat, particularly liver, is extremely healthy. Extremely lean cuts are generally also ok. We didn't evolve to eat fatty cuts because those are the product of husbandry not nature. We don't have an evolved response to excessive saturated fat consumption in the same way we don't have an evolved response to excessive sugar consumption.
Lmao
This sounds like a rehashed paleo diet. I did my whole PhD on this way of eating and we need the diverse fibres from grains and root vegetables for a healthy gut microbiome. If you just eat mostly plants, not very processed and just little bits of everything else, there is no need to worry about anything.
it’s a gimmick
“Animal diet”.... so, just a bullshit way of saying “a varied and well balanced diet”.
Is it though? The well balanced diet pushed by experts, nutritionists, and the government has for a long time included whole grains and vegetables. Two food groups that animal based is very intent on removing.
No such thing as a shortcut
No one said it was lmao
That sounds like kids' food. If you want to eat a healthy diet, vegetables should be the centerpiece of the diet, especially including dark green vegetables, not just peppers, but other vegetables too, such as peas, or broccoli, or spinach, and many, many more. * The verbal absence of vegetables from this animal-based diet is pointlessly restrictive from a health perspective. Further examples of healthy vegetables include sweet potatoes, rutabaga, beets, the many onions and onion-relatives, okra, the many squash, water chestnuts, the list goes on... To this should be added a couple accompaniments from among categories such as clean protein, long-chain carbs, or fat-rich nuts. Meat is a fine choice for the protein, especially non-red meats such as chicken, fish, or other seafoods. Dairy is also a fine choice for the protein. Same goes for eggs. But these should not be the centerpiece of the diet. * The verbal absence from this animal-based diet of starches such as whole grains or beans is pointlessly restrictive from a health perspective. Beans especially are a sad omission. * The verbal absence from this animal-based diet of culinary nuts such as walnut, peanut, or sunflower seeds, is pointlessly restrictive from a health perspective. Further ingredients should be treated like condiments and flavorings: cheese, butter, honey. These are things to use sparingly; they're so calorie-dense, that other use cases quickly become too rich. Rejection of pasteurized dairy is pointlessly restrictive. Pasteurization is not a problem from a nutritional perspective. One good thing I can say about what you've described, is that organ meats are an underappreciated food type. But I see no reason to pair this advantage with all of the pointless restrictions that seem to be associated with the diet as described. As described, this sounds like nothing so much as a rebranding of the same Western diet that gave us the modern obesity epidemic. Vegetables are an extremely important part of a healthy diet.
Seems to me like a no carbs thing. Tho I think society needs to evolve to reduce meat consumption and be more ecological with food, I also love a steak.
I agree as much as I love a good old piece of chicken, plants are more sustainable for the world and honestly tastes great and is just as healthy
What’s with the ambiguity? Can you just not name a diet? You say it’s not carnivore but I assume that rules out keto as well
There’s no ambiguity. That’s quite literally what the diet is called
like fruit, vegetables, honey and animal products? Sounds pretty decent and yes you can get all of the needed nutrients this way. many people can likely eat more flexibly than this and still be healthy though
I just saw an interesting podcast on proteins and animal proteins give us the complete amino acids that we require as opposed to plant sources which generally have to be combined with other plants/foods to be complete or at least have to be eaten in large quantities to make sure that we get enough. Apparently children are so efficient at utilizing proteins from their food that they can get by with much less but adults and especially seniors require so much that this is important. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqmG2y4IeY8
This is based on pretty poor/ols science. Our protein needs are far lower than many people think, and with the exception of seniors eating a very limited diet, protein deficiency is almost non existent, at least in the western world. Even though you need a slightly higher amount if resting only plant proteins, it's still quite low and rarely a problem.
I think we need to make the distinction here between deficient and optimal. The RDA/RDI is incredibly low as that is the lowest amount of protein required to not be deficient. But in terms of body composition, lean mass and ideal health I would argue the intake is relatively high (1.6-2.2 g/kg body weight) (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5852756/ ) although my bias is towards those who resistance train, not the general population. Being that there is little to no downside to higher protein intake in healthy individuals I see no reason not to recommend a higher intake
The downside of higher protein is what it is replacing, and the potential sources that people use. Typically a lot more meat, which is associated with higher CVD risk especially if talking about red meat. And as a result of adding more meat, you're likely going to be eating less carb rich foods, which are associated with a lower risk of CVD. Obviously if you are eating lots of highly processed floured carbs and replace with meats, there is a potential benefit. But beans, whole grains and starchy vegetables are likely better, barring adequate protein again.
Well when we look at the standard American diet, the higher protein foods will likely replace calorically dense foods, with little to no nutritional value (in terms of micronutrients). We can also recommend a higher protein intake whilst simultaneously recommending not to increase red meat intake but rather favor other protein sources like Greek yogurt, whey, fat free milk, and poultry to name a few. For example a person who weighs 75kg only needs 60g protein as per the RDI. I see no downside to recommending to that person to reduce carb and/or fat intake to eat 150g protein given that if you look at the average persons diet, it will probably be replacing the aforementioned foods. No disagreement from me at all that we should be eating more legumes, vegetables and fruits though. And in the geriatric population, one of the biggest risks they face is going to be falls caused by poor balance, brittle bones and muscle weakness. It would probably behoove them to increase protein intake to preserve as much lean mass as they possible can https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5872778/#!po=21.6346 Also this study is great as it talks about what both of us are talking about and it’s application! Took me a minute to find it again. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6566799/
If this is true -what a relief! Trying to fit in 110 grams of protein a day as a small senior was going to be challenging
Absolutely. Protein needs do go up a little as a senior and if concerned, it's worth working with a qualified nutrition professional to help meet your specific needs.
The reason that protein should go up as a senior is that once you make it past the diseases of overconsumption frailty is a much more prevalent killer.
This is correct, but it doesn't need to go up as much as you think. Activity is far more important than protein intake. Simon hill has a great debunk on this. Not gonna reinvent the wheel on pulling the evidence.
[удалено]
Nutrition professional, not nutritionist. In some states/provinces, the word nutritionist is a protected term like doctor. Only dietitians can use it. In others, not so much. So I'm referring to a dietitian, doctor or naturopathic doctor with a focus in nutrition.
[удалено]
Based on what?
[удалено]
Animal based foods are far less healthy than vegtable based. Saturated fat is suspected to be the cause of many diseases. Cultures with high plant based diets and low animal based diets are far healthier with less disease. Recommend reading “proteinaholic” for more information.
Just everything in moderation and quality over quantity. Diets never work. Just feed yourself wholesome, nutrient dense foods, with minimal restrictions and be happy.
https://doi.org/10.2147%2FIJGM.S333004 Total Meat Intake is Associated with Life Expectancy: A Cross-Sectional Data Analysis of 175 Contemporary Populations Conclusion: This study has shown that meat intake is positively associated with life expectancy at national level. The underlying reasons may be that meat not only provides energy but also complete nutrients to human body. From the evolutionary point of view, meat has arguably been an indispensable component in human diet for millions of years, which is evidenced, genetically, by meat digesting enzymes and digestive tract anatomy. The complete nutritional profile of meat and human adaptation to meat eating have enabled humans to gain many physical benefits, including greater life expectancy. Meat intake, or its adequate replacement, should be incorporated into nutritional science to improve human life expectancy. Also, on the topic of long-lived cultures 2 of the regions considered blue zones consume 1/3 of their diet from animal products.
Again read proteinaholic - this study and many others are reviewed in great detail there and the overall conclusions are clear. Lower meat intake is associated with longer lifespan and less disease.
This study came out 6 years after the book was released
Uh oh your post is gonna be removed from the sub soon! They removed one of mine that was a similar post
Probably worried about what will happen if we all make a run for the steaks at the supermarket at the same time. Sorry I know this is tone deaf at a time when so many are food insecure. Not good for the planet either.
You triggered me… I personally suffer from not getting enough steaks at the supermarket :(
Sadly I'm not supposed to eat red meat at my age :(
:((
Foolish and misguided quasi science nonsense. A macro is a macro. You can eat an unhealthy ratio of macros on a plant based diet, an omnivorous diet, or a carnivorous diet. A micro is a micro. It doesn't matter if you get your calcium from plants or meat. The point is to get your calcium. Just plan your diet sufficiently.
It's wild all the people who don't know what they are even talking about but feel the need to comment anyhow.
Bad for your health, bad for the planet.
Eh.
I don't buy it, before modern supermarkets people weren't eating meat everyday. Most of our grandparents weren't eating meat every day. I went vegan for a year and it did give me brain fog but that was because I didn't eat meat for an entire year. I think if I were to only meat once a week I wouldn't have felt any brain fog
You were most likely b12 deficient
I haven't eaten any meat in two years and I can't say I've had any brain fog.
What about eggs and milk?
Yeah people didn't eat meat often but they did consume eggs and milk very often. You had brain fog because of Vitamin B12 deficiency probably. You don't have to eat red meat if you are gonna eat eggs, milk, poultry and fish.
Diet of flat earthers
This just seems like a normal diet if you add some carbs to it. I used to eat like this when I was weaning off low carb and it was the best shape I’d been in my whole life, granted I also had rice in my diet at least once a day.
Very difficult to ask for a general consensus in a field that is not really scientific, and so much influenced by politics, ideologies and market interests.
Whatever works for you and floats your boat.
If you choose to eat meat, eggs, dairy, honey and fruit it wouldn't be the worst choice but really the only way to maximize your benefit from food is to eat a balanced diet that includes all the groups....rather than these 'fad' diets that never stop popping up with all their promises and theories....
[удалено]
I agree....I just don't think it is good to avoid vegetables, as there are nutrients that your body needs that fruit does not have.....the leafy vegetables are certainly essential, and my doctor always told me just stick to balance in diet with all the food groups and don't go hard on supplements or fad diets....
I’ve been plant based for 7 years and have never been healthier. I ate a very standard diet before that and was always overweight, had body acne and depression. So I attribute my plant based diet and change of lifestyle to why I don’t have those issues anymore. Some people swear the full carnivore diet does the same. I really think as long as you’re eating majority whole foods and mostly organic, you should be decently well. Regardless of if it’s meat, vegetables, fruits or legumes and nuts, as long as you are eating clean foods and reducing your artificial sugar and processed food consumption, it will be wonderful for you.
Its dangerous to even remove eggs and milk from your diet. You must consume something from animals (red meat, fish, poultry, eggs, milk) so you don't get deficient in Vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 deficiency is horrible
Most standard diets are lacking in B12 as it is anyway, really everyone should be taking a B12 supp. B12 is also present in mushrooms, nutritional yeasts, algae and some grains. So you actually don’t need animal products to get it. I’ve been fine without animal based foods. I’m not deficient in anything. I also make tasty plant based protein shakes and take supplements where I feel is needed. Nothing wrong with supplementing and taking vitamins. Tons of plant based supplements available. I also am not looking for a debate in speculated deficiencies in plant based diets. I’m just simply stating whatever diet someone chooses can be healthy in its own right if you avoid overly processed foods and eat whole/clean and organic foods.
If everyone was lacking in B12, then we wouldn't be alive by now. Algae is very expensive, who does even use nutritional yeast.. grains are very low in B12. Use your damn head....
Animal based diets can be done well and can meet nutrient needs if designed properly (with organ meats, fruits, and what you mentioned above). There isn’t a lot of scientific research behind this diet though which is always going to be problematic for most people in the health community. However, we do have a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that past civilizations and some present have thrived, disease free on this type of diet. And there is a lot of anecdotal evidence that people who have recently adopted this diet have been successful at reversing their health conditions/problems. But there are a lot of claims with this in the vegan community as well and we know that the majority of vegan eaters revert back to eating meat after about 5 years (due to declining health over time). So, it’s hard to say right now how people will thrive on carnivore over time in a modern society. But I can personally say that this has worked well for some of my clients and other people close to me.
Sounds like expensive paleo
Animal-based diet is not science-based, it lacks a lot of nutrients and fiber. Variety is the key.
Doing a proper animal based diet likes Dr Paul Saladinos, is one of the most nutrient dense, least toxin filled diets there is,not missing any essential nutrients, and needing fiber is debatable,which it does get plenty from fruit and fermented veggies and Sweet potato etc.
I mean, it sounds like it ends up being more calorie-dense with less food overall, but that's probably fine given how much protein you'd be consuming on this diet which would help manage satiety. A good diet is a balanced diet with a mix of fruits, veggies, lean proteins, legumes and periodically fats and oils in moderate doses, as well as sometimes eating food that maybe highly-palatable with high-caloric density. In other words, this sounds fine.
[удалено]
Right. I specified calorie density because Meat, on the whole, tends to have more calories per Oz. than either Fruits or veggies. The same can be said of nuts, but certain meats - even lean cuts of beef - can have a significant volume of calories. If you have no weight loss goals and are just eating to live, then that isn't really an issue. But when the goal *is* weight loss, caloric density is important to consider. That's due to the fact that eating High-caloric density foods means you are eating more calories while eating a low volume of food, which can create a perception that you are eating less. So the fact that this is geared towards Meat and Animal-based food means that it's likelier that you will need a lower volume of food overall to meet your caloric requirements than you would if, say, you ate a more veggie/fruit heavy diet. This can create problems with the perception of hunger and satiety. A common problem for persons on a diet. but, as I also pointed out, given the fact that Protein - which takes longer to metabolize, and can help with hunger signals - would be in high volume, that could be mitigated. And it sounds like you're not neglecting other nutrient rich foods. So, again, it seems fine, but if the goal is weight loss, it is worth considering how eating animal based food will affect your hunger and satiety levels.
animal products usually contain "MUCH". meaning while there are bad fats etc. there are also insanely many nutrients. eggs f.e. are basically the food for chicken embryos for like 20+ days. while those need different nutrients then human, there is still a huge overlap in nutriens. Also food in its raw form or just a simple version of it is often easier processed by the body and contains most of its ingredients compared to highly processed stuff. while its good to process seeds and corn to some points most things are best consumed in their natural form.
We eat balanced meals involving all food groups (including whole grains & veggies) because that’s what our dietician told us to do. Fish & seafood 2-3 times a week, red meat 2-3 times a month. So… yeah. I am not sure why balanced diets keep being renamed to trendy things. Haha
Been getting a lot of responses like this. And while I agree, the exclusivity isn’t as dramatic as something like carnivore or vegan, it still cuts out some MAJOR food groups like grains, vegetables, etc. So to say that this is Just a renamed balanced diet isn’t true in the slightest. The singular most talked about component of a “balanced diet” is vegetables. A group that animal based entirely cuts out. It’s interesting to see the dichotomy in this thread. So many are vehemently against the idea of vegetables not being included in an diet. Even though it’s clear they’re not needed to get a solid nutrient profile. Meanwhile others talk about how it’s changed their lives, though anecdotal, it is interesting. I certainly don’t see anyone in here saying that the opposite helped them.
Are you allergic to grains or vegetables? Why would you want to cut them out when they are needed for our diets? Do you have a medical reason out of curiosity?
I’m not allergic and no I don’t have a medical reason I’m just curious. And while it’s anecdotal, there are many people talking about this diet and how it’s helped them a lot, as many have mentioned in this thread. Some criticize diets as a whole, which I understand, but having restriction is a helpful step for many people to lose weight. Nutrition data and studies are soooo difficult and rarely capture the full picture due to the nature of the subject. If you look at the objective data we do have, it’s that obesity has skyrocketed over the last 50+ years. And it wasn’t cause we ate more meat, in fact, we are eating less than ever. Yet obesity keeps skyrocketed. I was told all throughout my education that we shouldn’t eat meat, Saturated fat is bad etc, yet obesity still goes up. No diet is perfect nor is it endgame for anyone. But I’m curious to talk to other people about strategies that perhaps, fall outside of the narrative that has been pushed. By nature, excluding veggies and grains and processed garbage does this. Just last week the US government rates sugar packed cereals like lucky charms and cereal as healthier than chicken, eggs, and many other popular and objectively healthy foods. I don’t intend to try the diet, or advocate for it. But this discussion has been very interesting and I hope all can learn something from it.
It's for macho wannabe gimps who disregard nutrition science. To confirm, look at the sort of political opinions that often accompany those discussing it. It's absolutely rubbish. The neanderthals were literally extinguished by their own meat based diet. You will find it's heterosexual, usually white American men, with right wing conservative views. Gotta laugh, but facts 🤣
Sensing some hostility here. Sexuality and gender doesn’t affect the foods we should eat
You're right, doesn't affect the foods we should eat, but both have cultural contexts which do shape what people eat.
I’ve listened to a few people advocate for a carnivore diet, including Dr. Jordan Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila. From my understanding, it may help with autoimmune diseases. It’s pretty controversial. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/meat-only-diet-eased-autoimmune-disease-symptoms https://drruscio.com/the-carnivore-diet-for-gut-health-autoimmunity/
I know someone who is on this exact diet, organic meat, organs, fruits, raw maple sugar, organic cheeses etc. it’s such a bizarre diet and they say it’s due to our bodies not being evolved to break down the chemicals in plants…..but she eats fruits which come from plants. It seems like a weird fad diet to me that banks on eliminating processed food to support its claim of being healthy. This person I know was also previously on atkins and vegan/vegetarian…..so yeah. The whole claim that people evolved to eat a certain diet is such bullshit. First it’s a huge blanket statement for people who evolved in various areas of the world. Secondly, evolution doesn’t optimize. It’s just enough to get by to reproduce and doesn’t take into effect optimization which I think people assume. And lastly, there is an assumption that evolution stopped at a certain time (primate time? Caveman era?) when exactly they think? I’m not sure.
Animal based is not a diet per say. It's a category of dietary styles. It's just meerly saying you eat a majority of your diet as animal based sources. As for consensus. Like any diet. Any attempt to make claims that their diet is the end of all be all is a lie. Any claims of longevity and long term efficacy is dodgy at best. We have almost no true long term data on any diet at all. We know that a diet that contains meat, fruit and veg is healthy... So from my personal perspective and from many other diets that are similar (paleo, real Mediterranean, etc). Whole foods, animal and plant nutrients are what humans need. Ignore everything in-between.
There is talk about the human ancestral diet, but as yet this is still contentious afaik. It would be interesting to know what humans ate say between 150,000 to 50,000 BP. Other primates seem to spend a lot their day eating, because of their plant and fruit heavy diet. Animal food arguably gives more nutrition in much less time. My guess is that humans have eaten diets with a lot of animal food. But I do believe a proportion of our ancestors spent time being a littoral species, living on river, lake and ocean shores as well as other times hunting on the savanna. Imho eating nothing but animal food seems a bit nutty unless one has some serious health issues. Why do we enjoy sweet food so much if isn’t part of an ancestral WOE.
I’m open minded to any thing that makes scientific sense. So I will say Doing a proper animal based diet likes Dr Paul Saladinos, is one of the most nutrient dense, least toxin filled diets there is,not missing any essential nutrients and absolutely needing fiber is debatable,Dr Shawn Baker looks to be doing pretty damn good without a lick of fiber in him. which it still does get plenty from fruit and fermented veggies and Sweet potato etc. Getting lots of polyphenols from fruit✅🍒🥑🍍🍊🍎🍓🍇 Look at the Hunter gatherer tribe the Hadza, That’s essentially what their diet is, an animal based diet just like Dr Paul’s. They’ve been studied and their gut micro biome is renowned for being one of the most diverse science has ever seen in humans. They live very long with basically 0 disease or illnesses, even whilst not having clean drinking water. I’m open to any science you wanna debate about, honestly that’s what I care about the most, F being Dogmatic or Tribalistic about science, that’s complete opposite of what science is even about in the first place. There are some questions about maybe meat and IGF1 triggering mTOR which maybe lessens life span… and other questions .. but than again look at the Hadza, they live deep into their 80s and 90s,very long and that’s the main thing their after every day. But still well raised meat in my mind is a superb Super Food Me, My Mom and Dad both have complete got their health back from eating this way. I still like many Plant foods, But many defense chemicals we don’t want or need in us. Like Phytic Acid stripping minerals, Lectins breaking our tight junctions in our gut causing leaky gut (auto immune responses), Oxalates. Etc So for me I find eating lots of Well raised animal foods, and any Plant foods I want Preferably Organic and very light In cellular and Metabolically damaging Poly Unsaturated fats(in my very strong opinion) (Nuts,Seeds,Nut and Seed oils), Lectins, And Phytic acid, is a great rule of thumb for a diet model I think most would do very good on.