Carnivore

[Jugada]

2026 Carnivore crew are basically just the evolution of the 2015 Vegan Lemon Kale crew. I won't get how so many people buy into these fads

 

[beez]

Tried it for two weeks. Lost almost 5 kilos. Digestive issues resolved. Still trying to stick to it but have been having a few cheat days. My weakness is homemade pizza. I make my own dough which is a 50/50 semolina and baker's flour mix. The crunch came when I looked at my healthy crop of oregano and basil going to waste. The basil had started seeding.

I'm glad you've seen some results. You should keep doing carnivore to some extent. Something like five days on two days off, or even just carnivore every second day. Do it for the rest of 2026 and you'll feel great.

There's clearly benefits to gut health, clear metabolic benefits, and you'll just generally feel better.

One of the more liberating (for lack of a better term) results of eating more protein is that you crave less bad food, and over time you consciously make the choice not to eat bad shit. So you feel better physically, and emotionally you feel 'proud' for making the healthier decision.

Sounds kinda lame to an extent, but it's the same positive feeling as anyone who changes their lifestyle for the better.

 

[rye]

2026 Carnivore crew are basically just the evolution of the 2015 Vegan Lemon Kale crew. I won't get how so many people buy into these fads

nobody in the carnivore circle can seem to be able to explain why removing fruit, vegetables and whole grains from your diet is a net positive without some opaque appeal to 'ancestral living' nor how they replace the key nutrients you get from those sources whilst maintaining carnivore.

 

[Jugada]

nobody in the carnivore circle can seem to be able to explain why removing fruit, vegetables and whole grains from your diet is a net positive without some opaque appeal to 'ancestral living' nor how they replace the key nutrients you get from those sources whilst maintaining carnivore.

The only real claims for it are all anecdotal bullshit really. The scare tactics that carbohydrates are bad does my head in

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

I'm glad you've seen some results. You should keep doing carnivore to some extent. Something like five days on two days off, or even just carnivore every second day. Do it for the rest of 2026 and you'll feel great.

There's clearly benefits to gut health, clear metabolic benefits, and you'll just generally feel better.

One of the more liberating (for lack of a better term) results of eating more protein is that you crave less bad food, and over time you consciously make the choice not to eat bad shit. So you feel better physically, and emotionally you feel 'proud' for making the healthier decision.

Sounds kinda lame to an extent, but it's the same positive feeling as anyone who changes their lifestyle for the better.

Yeah. I noticed a lot less inflammation, no peaks and troughs energy wise. Some days I ate three meals others two and others I only needed one.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

nobody in the carnivore circle can seem to be able to explain why removing fruit, vegetables and whole grains from your diet is a net positive without some opaque appeal to 'ancestral living' nor how they replace the key nutrients you get from those sources whilst maintaining carnivore.

I used to think the same until I started listening to the Plant Free MD podcast - Anthony Chaffee MD (a neurosurgical registrar). Plants contain defense chemicals designed to deter consumption:

• Lectins and Oxalates: He often cites these as causes of "leaky gut," systemic inflammation, and autoimmune issues.
• Phytates: He would argue that while a grain might "have" minerals, the phytates inside it bind to those minerals (like magnesium and zinc), preventing your body from actually absorbing them.
• The Argument: Removing these allows the gut to heal and increases the bioavailability of the nutrients you do consume.

Chaffee challenges the premise that plants are the best source of any nutrient. He frequently uses the following comparisons:

• Vitamin C: He argues that the requirement for Vitamin C drops significantly when you stop eating carbohydrates. Glucose and Vitamin C compete for the same receptors. On carnivore you need far less Vitamin C, which is found in sufficient amounts in fresh meat and organs.
  Fiber: He is a staunch critic of fiber, often calling it an "abrasive" that the body doesn't need. He cites studies (like the 2012 World Journal of Gastroenterology study) suggesting that stopping fiber intake can actually resolve constipation and bloating.
• Vitamin A/K2: He would point out that plants provide precursors (like Beta-carotene), which have poor conversion rates in humans, whereas meat and fat provide the active, "ready-to-use" versions (Retinol and K2).

With regard to your comment on ancestral appeals, he does talk about human evolution usually backed with stable isotope testing of ancient human remains.

• He would argue that "ancestral living" isn't a vague vibe; it’s a biological blueprint. He often states that for nearly 2 million years, humans were apex hyper-carnivores.
• His "net positive" argument is that we are a "specialised species" and that eating plants is like putting the wrong fuel in a high-performance engine.

"Plants cannot run away and they do not have claws. Their only defense is poison. Why would we assume that eating thousands of different low-level toxins every day is 'essential' for a species that thrived on megafauna fat for hundreds of thousands of years?"

 

[JHF1870]

2026 Carnivore crew are basically just the evolution of the 2015 Vegan Lemon Kale crew. I won't get how so many people buy into these fads

I fact checked it even after reading the clickbait title about carbs being toxic and nearly every point made was imcorrect or misleading.

Some of the YT comments were written by AI, some just naiive.

 

[Jugada]

I used to think the same until I started listening to the Plant Free MD podcast - Anthony Chaffee MD (a neurosurgical registrar). Plants contain defense chemicals designed to deter consumption:

• Lectins and Oxalates: He often cites these as causes of "leaky gut," systemic inflammation, and autoimmune issues.
• Phytates: He would argue that while a grain might "have" minerals, the phytates inside it bind to those minerals (like magnesium and zinc), preventing your body from actually absorbing them.
• The Argument: Removing these allows the gut to heal and increases the bioavailability of the nutrients you do consume.

Chaffee challenges the premise that plants are the best source of any nutrient. He frequently uses the following comparisons:

• Vitamin C: He argues that the requirement for Vitamin C drops significantly when you stop eating carbohydrates. Glucose and Vitamin C compete for the same receptors. On carnivore you need far less Vitamin C, which is found in sufficient amounts in fresh meat and organs.
  Fiber: He is a staunch critic of fiber, often calling it an "abrasive" that the body doesn't need. He cites studies (like the 2012 World Journal of Gastroenterology study) suggesting that stopping fiber intake can actually resolve constipation and bloating.
• Vitamin A/K2: He would point out that plants provide precursors (like Beta-carotene), which have poor conversion rates in humans, whereas meat and fat provide the active, "ready-to-use" versions (Retinol and K2).

With regard to your comment on ancestral appeals, he does talk about human evolution usually backed with stable isotope testing of ancient human remains.

• He would argue that "ancestral living" isn't a vague vibe; it’s a biological blueprint. He often states that for nearly 2 million years, humans were apex hyper-carnivores.
• His "net positive" argument is that we are a "specialised species" and that eating plants is like putting the wrong fuel in a high-performance engine.

"Plants cannot run away and they do not have claws. Their only defense is poison. Why would we assume that eating thousands of different low-level toxins every day is 'essential' for a species that thrived on megafauna fat for hundreds of thousands of years?"

The fact the guy is a critic of fiber should already be a red flag that anything he is telling you should go straight in the bin

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

The fact the guy is a critic of fiber should already be a red flag that anything he is telling you should go straight in the bin

The fact that you apparently believe fibre is an essential nutrient tells me you might be reacting like some who's got sand in their fanny, for no good reason.

It's not a nutrient. It's not absorbed by our bodies. It comes from the cell walls of plants. For a plant it provides support. Our bodies don't contain fibre. Our body architecture is supported by bone and cartilage. So why do people think it's important to include fibre in our diet? The biggest reason that I believed in the 'fibre is essential' myth was due to it's purported protective effects in relation to digestive health but almost two decades ago the myth that it is protective against colon cancer and constipation etc started to be challenged.

In the World Journal of Gastroenterology in 2007, Doctors Tan and Seow-Choen published a review of medical studies conducted over the previous 35 years about fiber and colon health and concluded:

“A strong case cannot be made for a protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal polyp or cancer. Neither has fiber been found to be useful in chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome. It is also not useful in the treatment of perianal conditions. The fiber deficit-diverticulosis theory should also be challenged…we often choose to believe a lie, as a lie repeated often enough by enough people becomes accepted as the truth. We urge clinicians to keep an open mind. Myths about fiber must be debunked and truth installed.”

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Tan and Seow-Choe called insoluble fibre ...

​

“the ultimate junk food”​

“neither digestible nor absorbable and devoid of nutrition.”​

 

[JHF1870]

Tan and Seow-Choe called insoluble fibre ...

​

“the ultimate junk food”​

“neither digestible nor absorbable and devoid of nutrition.”​

Now share the rest of it

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Now share the rest of it

I've spent two posts outlining what these two researchers said simply because they started the myth debunking process. If you still want to discuss fibre maybe we should start talking about the two different types and why we are told that ...

• soluble fibre is good for us because it "slows things down"
• insoluble fibre is good for us because it "speeds things up"

 

[Jugada]

The fact that you apparently believe fibre is an essential nutrient tells me you might be reacting like some who's got sand in their fanny, for no good reason.

It's not a nutrient. It's not absorbed by our bodies. It comes from the cell walls of plants. For a plant it provides support. Our bodies don't contain fibre. Our body architecture is supported by bone and cartilage. So why do people think it's important to include fibre in our diet? The biggest reason that I believed in the 'fibre is essential' myth was due to it's purported protective effects in relation to digestive health but almost two decades ago the myth that it is protective against colon cancer and constipation etc started to be challenged.

In the World Journal of Gastroenterology in 2007, Doctors Tan and Seow-Choen published a review of medical studies conducted over the previous 35 years about fiber and colon health and concluded:

Mate you are so far down the rabbit hole.

You are basically quoting word for word from an article written by the same person who promotes cookbooks to fight cancer and other complete bull shit. I don't know how people get to this point where they are seeking out obvious garbage to fit what they already want to believe but don't bring this horse shit in and try to claim you're being in any way scientific

Just say you like eating meat and don't want to eat anything else

 

[beez]

The fact that you apparently believe fibre is an essential nutrient tells me you might be reacting like some who's got sand in their fanny, for no good reason.

It's not a nutrient. It's not absorbed by our bodies. It comes from the cell walls of plants. For a plant it provides support. Our bodies don't contain fibre. Our body architecture is supported by bone and cartilage. So why do people think it's important to include fibre in our diet? The biggest reason that I believed in the 'fibre is essential' myth was due to it's purported protective effects in relation to digestive health but almost two decades ago the myth that it is protective against colon cancer and constipation etc started to be challenged.

In the World Journal of Gastroenterology in 2007, Doctors Tan and Seow-Choen published a review of medical studies conducted over the previous 35 years about fiber and colon health and concluded:

You're probably misinterpreting some of the science due to Chaffee and others being so militant in their beliefs.

There are clear protective benefits to fibre. It should be a staple for the general population who are otherwise healthy. There are 1000s of studies and meta-analyses demonstrating fibre's net benefits in populations all across the world.

However, it is also clear that fibre can be an irritant and cause inflammation in some people; primarily due to over-consumption of processed foods. Removing fibre from one's diet for a period of time allows the gut to reset and heal.

If you feel better reducing/removing fibre, fantastic. Eating more meat will generally cause less gut irritation and reduce your consumption of bad foods. But that also doesn't mean that for you, consuming some forms of fibre in the future won't be a net positive in the long term.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

You are basically quoting word for word from an article written by the same person who promotes cookbooks to fight cancer and other complete bull shit.

Wrong. What I said about fibre is basic biology. In this dream journal you've created, what are the names of these cookbooks you're dribbling on about and who is their author?

I don't know how people get to this point where they are seeking out obvious garbage to fit what they already want to believe but don't bring this horse shit in and try to claim you're being in any way scientific

I'm not "claiming to be scientific". I'm just stating basic facts. Please outline which facts were false or kindly GAGF as you leave my thread.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

You're probably misinterpreting some of the science due to Chaffee and others being so militant in their beliefs.

There are clear protective benefits to fibre. It should be a staple for the general population who are otherwise healthy. There are 1000s of studies and meta-analyses demonstrating fibre's net benefits in populations all across the world.

However, it is also clear that fibre can be an irritant and cause inflammation in some people; primarily due to over-consumption of processed foods. Removing fibre from one's diet for a period of time allows the gut to reset and heal.

If you feel better reducing/removing fibre, fantastic. Eating more meat will generally cause less gut irritation and reduce your consumption of bad foods. But that also doesn't mean that for you, consuming some forms of fibre in the future won't be a net positive in the long term.

That's the prevailing narrative yes. However most of of those studies were observational showing correlation not causation. There's plenty of observational studies that had outcomes that fly in the face of the conclusions of the others. For instance ...

Stopping or reducing dietary fiber intake reduces constipation and its associated symptoms - PMC

AIM: To investigate the effect of reducing dietary fiber on patients with idiopathic constipation. METHODS: Sixty-three cases of idiopathic constipation presenting between May 2008 and May 2010 were enrolled into the study after colonoscopy excluded ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

If we exclude all the observational studies and focus only on randomised controlled trials the evidence for the purported benefits of fibre vanishes.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

 

[Jugada]

Wrong. What I said about fibre is basic biology. In this dream journal you've created, what are the names of these cookbooks you're dribbling on about and who is their author?



I'm not "claiming to be scientific". I'm just stating basic facts. Please outline which facts were false or kindly GAGF as you leave my thread.

Go look at the other articles written by said person you basically quoted word for word here in your argument.

Anyway this is a waste of time. Its like flat earth debates but for diets

 

[JHF1870]

LOL Paul Saladino. Absolute tosser on Instagram. Zero credibility. The guy harasses people in public.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Go look at the other articles written by said person you basically quoted word for word here in your argument.

I haven't quoted anyone word for word. This is defamation. I repeat the same question I asked you earlier. What are the names of the cookbooks you were dribbling on about and who is their author?

Anyway this is a waste of time. Its like flat earth debates but for diets

IOW you can't back up your arguments about fibre.

LOL Paul Saladino. Absolute tosser on Instagram. Zero credibility. The guy harasses people in public.

So like Jughead you can't debate the science. All you have is a pathetic ad hom argument against one of the 4 participants.

I created this thread to simply ask if anyone had tried this diet because at the time I had a few doubts about it. Since then most of the replies have been same tired old debunked arguments that were employed against the Atkins diet in the 90's.

 

[Jugada]

Genuinely got to stop calling what you are posting science

 

[JHF1870]

I haven't quoted anyone word for word. This is defamation. I repeat the same question I asked you earlier. What are the names of the cookbooks you were dribbling on about and who is their author?


IOW you can't back up your arguments about fibre.


So like Jughead you can't debate the science. All you have is a pathetic ad hom argument against one of the 4 participants.

I created this thread to simply ask if anyone had tried this diet because at the time I had a few doubts about it. Since then most of the replies have been same tired old debunked arguments that were employed against the Atkins diet in the 90's.

Saladino claims broccoli is bad for you. I'm literally not listening to a word that guy has to say on anything. I've seen countless videos of him getting attacked for the nonsense he puts up on Instgram.

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Genuinely got to stop calling what you are posting science

A foundational principle in the philosophy of science is the falsification of hypotheses. I would be happy if you would simply be willing to debate any of the objections commonly raised against the diet. We haven't seen any of that from you. All we have is "iF somEoNe saYs aNythiNg baD abOut fibrE thEn thEir adVice oN anY mattEr iS oNly fiT foR thE biN!!!!"

 

[HitTheNailOnTheHead]

Saladino claims broccoli is bad for you. I'm literally not listening to a word that guy has to say on anything. I've seen countless videos of him getting attacked for the nonsense he puts up on Instgram.

So in response to my suggestion that all you had was an ad hom argument against one of the 4 participants .... you have now produced more of the same against the same participant.

 

[Jugada]

We just ate other plants, nuts, seeds, fruit, roots etc thousands of years ago. The fact we have selectively farmed certain plants to be edible and more palatable today doesn't take anything away from their benefit