BafangFan t1_jc10qqc wrote

Going on the carnivore diet has helped my aches and pains more than anything I could have imagined.

I've been eating crap food again lately, and it feels like I've aged 10 years in the span of 1 month


BafangFan t1_j9d15iv wrote

I don't think young toddlers know what a calorie is, or how many they need - or the difference between a good calorie and a bad calorie.

So are kids making and serving their own food, and just making bad choices at it?

Or is the same thing that causes their cognitive abilities to function poorly also causing the metabolism to function poorly?

Two different people eating the exact same meal of the exact same calories can react to that meal very differently depending on how their hormones are balanced


BafangFan t1_j87cbar wrote

Here's an article about why corn is bad for cattle:

>However, evolutionarily cattle are adapted to pasture diets not corn-based diets. Cattle have complex digestive systems, consisting of the rumen, the reticulum, the omasum, and the abomasums, which allow them to digest cellulose and hemicellulose found in grass blades. The addition of corn to the diet of a steer changes the chemistry of its digestive system and leads to serious illnesses, including bloat and acidosis. This illness, which is extremely painful for cattle, brings into question the ethics of feeding cattle a corn-based diet and the ethics of the policies surrounding corn production.

Here's one about corn and humans

>A study in 115 adults with obesity and type 2 diabetes found that eating a diet with only 14% of calories coming from carbs resulted in more stable blood sugars and a reduced medication need compared to getting 53% of the daily calories from carbs (16Trusted Source).

>A 24-year Harvard study in 133,468 adults found that each additional daily serving of corn was associated with a 2-pound (0.9-kg) weight gain per 4-year interval. Potatoes, peas and other starchy vegetables did not contribute to as much weight gain (18Trusted Source).


BafangFan t1_j7fl6ft wrote

Vegetable oils are the culprit I'm picking out.

They first started as industrial waste from the cotton-picking industry, until companies found ways to detoxify it enough for human consumption.


BafangFan t1_j5n0fs4 wrote

The myth is that LDL cholesterol causes heart disease, and therefore we should lower it as much as possible. That's like saying a large amount of fire trucks in one spot causes fires.

Above 60 or 65 years old, having higher cholesterol is actually associated with more longevity.

Recent discussions have said that the body has some optimal LDL cholesterol level it's trying to maintain, and that we are artificially lowering it with fiber, seed oils and statins. So in that sense, saturated fat doesn't cause high cholesterol - but fiber and seed oils and statins are dragging us below our bodies' intended levels.

If body temp is 98.6, and people who are sick have a temp of 100.5 - then people thought that high body temp causes illness. And therefore they have done things to try to bring our temps down to 97.5 (not literally, but as an analogy that we are missing the mark in what cholesterol means and indicates).


BafangFan t1_j54qzww wrote

Diesel and gasoline are both fuels, except diesel has fewer calories and is more resistant to ignition. Therefore you should run your gasoline-engine car on diesel fuel.

>“There is no strong scientific evidence that the current population-wide upper limits on commonly consumed saturated fats in the U.S. will prevent cardiovascular disease or reduce mortality. A continued limit on these fats is therefore not justified.”

Let's stop comparing a food on its saturated fat content. The evidence does not support the Diet-Heart hypothesis that cholesterol causes heart disease.

Saturated fat is least prone to oxidation (and therefore rancidity). The reason why partially hydrogenated vegetable oils were invented was to make those poly-unsaturated fats more saturated, so the foods made with them would be more shelf-stable. PHVOs have been found to be harmful to health, but cis-chain saturated fats have not been.

>The study authors also argue that consuming anywhere from about 2,600 milligrams up to almost 5,000 milligrams of sodium per day is associated with more favorable health outcomes (compared with lower or higher consumption.) In other words, the range of what's healthy is a lot broader than what the U.S. government's guidelines advise, the researchers say

>But, he argues, in people with normal blood pressure, "there is no effect, or maybe a small effect of sodium reduction on blood pressure."

>"The good news," Graudal writes in a press release about the study, "is that around 95 percent of the global population already consumes within the range we've found to generate the least instances of mortality and cardiovascular disease."

Let's also stop claiming that less sodium in the diet is inherently better than more sodium (in relation to the previous recommendation of 2300mg of sodium per day). Double that amount has been found to be just as safe. The only people who need to worry about sodium are people with kidney disease - and kidney disease is impacted by carbohydrate intake far more than sodium intake.

My blood pressure barely dropped when I tried eliminating sodium from a whole food diet. But my BP dropped by 10x when I did multi-day fasting (while eating salt and drinking salt water to maintain electrolytes) and tried a no-carb diet (a 20-40 point drop in BP instead of a 2-4 point drop).


BafangFan t1_j4m3cq3 wrote

Humans in the past, like humans in the present, have the ability to see, smell and taste their food. We are highly sensitive to the signs of purification of meat.

I'm sure that most of our ancestors had a higher parasitic infection rate - but that doesn't necessarily cause chronic illness like what we have today.

Dogs and pigs literally eat poop - their own and others. And they live. Cats lick their butts. We are not so fragile in that sense.


BafangFan t1_j4jxr88 wrote

I think the question should be "what would humans eat if everything was abundant?"

And it seems that answer was meat - since we ate so many large animals to extinction. Perhaps we eat more plant foods now because the availability of large animals has diminished.

This is evident in the seafood industry. We are eating fish lower on the food chain because we have already eaten almost all of the fish higher on the food chain.


BafangFan t1_j4juhwo wrote

Let's remember that there used to be many more megafauna roaming the earth than today; giant sloths, woolly mammoths, tens of millions of bison across the North American Great Plains

Where did they go? It seems like we ate them all.

I used to go for walks in the woods on a near daily basis. Outside of some mushrooms and dandelions, I couldn't identify any plants that would be edible for us. I guess seasonally we have wild blackberries.


BafangFan t1_j4jtwmo wrote

There is evidence of brain surgery going back thousands of years:,France%20as%20early%20as%201685%C2%B9.

The Ancient Egyptians were the first to document the symptoms of a heart attack (and not-coincidentally, they ate a grain-based diet).

You don't really need a lot of scientific tools to recognize a large tumor that's growing abnormally on the surface of the body.

So it's not like these things weren't diagnosable a long time ago. Before glucose tests doctors would taste the urine of a patient to see if it's sweet or not.

And if nothing else, we have pictures of people before and after industrial food. New York City in 1900 was much slimmer, on average, than in 2023. You used to have to pay a carnival an admission fee to see a really fat person. Now we don't go a single day in public without seeing a few of them.


BafangFan t1_j4j4uz4 wrote

Because homo sapiens have been around for 300,000 years - and other species of homo for 2 or 3 million years. And during that time we evolved to have culture and tools and industrial revolution. We built cities and moved rivers.

However, in only the past 50 years we have had an explosion in obesity, type 2 diabetes, cancer, ADHD, depression, etc.

The foods that we ate for 300,000 years did not make us sick. We figured out what we could eat, and what we couldn't.

But now, everything in the middle of a grocery store - all the industrial food - is killing us.

And as far as leafy green vegetables go, we may have eaten them from time to time (or not), but they have virtually no calories so it's not like they would have sustained us. We can't live on plain salad - so it's a wonder if 20,000 years ago we would have even bothered eating it.

Arguably, we ate a ton of meat. And after we figured out fire and cooking we probably ate some starchy roots, like casava. But raw casava is poisonous unless treated properly, so it's unlikely we ate casava or similar roots until after we had big brains.


BafangFan t1_j4igsk9 wrote

An animals natural diet will have all it needs to survive.

Mammals, after they ween off breast milk, eat the same damn food every day (with some variance of this plant or that plant, or which animal they can catch for the day). But it's basically meat, or leaves.

This whole "varied diet" thing is a modern-day consumer-based construct.

If you were living on a Polynesian island 100 years ago your diet would have been fish, shell fish, coconuts, and whatever edible leafs, berries and roots you could find.


BafangFan t1_j4emmnt wrote

I wonder how this ties in with the Lean Mass Hyper-responders theory put out there by Dave Feldman of Cholesterol Code.

The LMHR theory seems to find that most people respond well to a keto diet in terms of blood biomarkers, but LMHR on a high fat diet have far greater increases in cholesterol.


BafangFan t1_j3j4jkx wrote

>Rather than Alzheimer’s simply involving increased production of Aβ protein, the more important issue may be a reduced ability to effectively clear the protein and stave off the creation of plaque-contributing fibrillary amyloid, Thorwald said.

>“These findings further support the use of aggregated, or fibrillary, amyloid as a biomarker for Alzheimer’s treatments,” Thorwald said. “The site in which amyloid processing occurs has less precursor and enzyme available for processing, which may suggest the removal of amyloid as a key issue during Alzheimer’s.”

The focus is still on amyloid plaques, is it not?


BafangFan t1_j3ie4jf wrote

I thought it was about the science of how to detect the degree of Alzheimer's in a person ?

I'm arguing that glucose metabolism is a more insightful indicator of Alzheimer's progression than any plaques/proteins.

And I'm arguing that if glucose metabolism is functioning poorly, the brain can alternatively use more fat/ketones; and with a non-impaired fuel source metabolism, the brain can restore some of its previous function.


BafangFan t1_j3i4zu0 wrote

Yeah, I/we could be wrong.

But the risks of diet change are very low. Maybe so diarrhea and cravings in the early stages of transition. Maybe some boredom of a limited diet.

But the rewards can be significant. People have gone from living in Groundhogs Day to being able to remember the past few months.


BafangFan t1_j3g5mdf wrote

We spend so much time and money barking up the wrong tree.

Alzheimer's is called by some researchers as Type 3 Diabetes. That indicates there is a glucose metabolism impairment in the system.

Even back in 2019 they found that scanning the brain for glucose metabolism was more accurate at predicting Alzheimer's than scanning for amyloid plaques.

The brain can run on glucose, but it can also run on fat and ketones. And both fat and ketones can ameliorate the issue of glucose metabolism impairment.

There is a growing body of anecdotal data to show improvement in Alzheimer's and dementia symptoms in people who follow a carnivore or ketogenic diet. A clinical ketogenic diet is also a standard of care in drug resistant epilepsy in children - so it's already a medically approved technique for brain impairment issues.


BafangFan t1_j2wg7nm wrote

It goes to show that it's important to change the ship's coarse early in the process.

Though if 20% is a disappointing number (after one year of diet change), is there any other treatment more effective for long-term T2D sufferers?


BafangFan t1_j2stjnh wrote

Disclaimer: is a vegan website.

For this study, you don't need a control group. This isn't comparing diets. It's saying that in the study group, before the intervention everyone had T2D. One year after intervention, 77% didn't have it. Ergo, low carb is an effective diet to put T2D into remission.