4 ms·

From my standpoint, I never understood why people focus on the meat side of this diet. I never eat more green vegetables than when I am on a keto type diet. The

From my standpoint, I never understood why people focus on the meat side of this diet. I never eat more green vegetables than when I am on a keto type diet. They are everywhere and I even have slight variations into vegetables I do not normally consider. However one point most people miss, you don't have to cut out BBQ or other meat condiments. You would be amazed how far that tablespoon actually goes and you still stay way under your carb limit. Once I discovered this the dieting got immensely easier. Same goes for types of salad dressing; I tend to the mix it yourself variety from Good Seasons. I do not let myself slip into reasoning "just one slice of bread" is okay though. You do however need to look beyond foods you are used to. Eventually it became a game for me which made the whole process more fun

chlodwig 6y ago
From my standpoint, I never understood why people focus on the meat side of this diet. I never eat more green vegetables than when I am on a keto type diet. There is a growing group of people who believe in a carnivore diet, not just a keto diet. They have an active subreddit with introductory readings, a FAQ and wiki explaining their reasoning. http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.html http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.ht... https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/wiki/faq#wiki_2._isn.27t_the_biological_design_of_the_human_body_better_suited_to_eat_fruits_and_vegetables_rather_than_meat.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/wiki/faq#wiki_2._isn.27t_t... https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/wiki/plants https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/wiki/plants https://justmeat.co/ https://justmeat.co/ The tldr is that they believe we evolved to primarily eat meat, we get the best most bioavailable nutrients from animal sources, and that most plants have various toxins in them to discourage animals from eating them, and that even when cooked these toxins aren't completely destroyed and a lot of people experience low-level inflammation and irritation from plant sources, without realizing it.
- war1025 6y ago
  Notable members of that group are Jordan Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila. I personally find Jordan Peterson's content pretty interesting. His daughter on the other hand, she seems pretty scammy. Have a hard time taking that diet seriously. But I guess if it makes people happy, good for them.
  - chlodwig 6y ago
    Every diet has its grifters, scammers, and celebrities of questionable character attached to it. Actually, every human interest group or endeavour has grifters attached. The carnivore diet being more of a fringe diet, the associated grifters are more fringe characters. Whereas something like the big label on Honey Nut Cheerios indicating that it is good for your heart -- https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/75ba3310-8be0-4e36-91e6-62f54904158a_1.85dd1d45144cfde7b6934ecba56c96e7.jpeg https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/75ba3310-8be0-4e36-91e6-62f... -- is also a grift, and it is a grift that is supported by our biggest corporations and most prestigious institutions.
    - war1025 6y ago
      Fair enough. I guess my assumption is that all diet advice is garbage and people should just figure out what works for them. The government and health system have obviously been of no help to people. I was surprised to learn when my kids were born that hospital food is just about as greasy and generally unhealthy as any fast food you're likely to come across.
- AlotOfReading 6y ago
  I highly recommend not getting your anthropology lessons from diet subs on reddit. The level of information you get is questionable at best and often informed by incorrect stereotypes with little basis in reality. A lot of the same is happening here, with people talking about specific cold-environment adaptations like high meat consumption as if they apply to all of human evolution. The current consensus is that groups outside the circumpolar regions typically ate large amounts of plant matter. In many groups it was even a majority of dietary calories, alongside things like honey and probably insects. This is archaeologically well-substantiated, even taking into account formation processes and preservation biases.
  - chlodwig 6y ago
    I get my anthropology lessons from actually reading the recommended primary sources from all-sides of the debate, and then using my own judgement about what makes the most sense and what is most convincing. What is one or two best primary sources supporting your view that our hominid ancestors of one million years ago would have been eating mostly plants?
    - AlotOfReading 6y ago
      You've fixated on a particular date (1 MYA) and understood "major component of diet" / "majority calories in some groups" to be "all of our ancestors ate mostly plants". Neither is what I said. First the date: 1 MYA was the time of H. erectus, not the AMH I was referencing. That's fine, but you'll probably be unsatisfied with the evidence from the period because it's notoriously thin. Regardless, by this time our ancestors had shifted to include megafaunal hunting and harder, diverse plant foods in their diet, so H. erectus populations were likely eating both. See [1]. For a good (slightly outdated) overview of the evidence problems, see [2]. In later periods, we can discuss things like dental microwear patterns, archaeobotany, optimal foraging models, and coprolite analysis as the evidentiary bases are so much better. Secondly, you have to understand the difference between "plants were a large component of the diet" and "carnivores". All the former means is that meat was only about 30-70% of the diet, not upwards of 90%. The exact amount would have varied hugely by group, environment, and even the season or year. The diversity of the plants eaten would also have varied for the same reasons. For instance, some groups in the Mediterranean basin in the later Upper Pleistocene were sedentary foragers who would transition to nomadic hunter-gatherers at other times. [1] http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236828 http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236828 [2] http://doi.org/10.1086/666700 http://doi.org/10.1086/666700 edit: overview of the elements of "forager diets" and the various viewpoints. There's also a large body of literature on archaeobotany, especially from temperate regions. [3] http://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23148 http://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23148

chlodwig 6y ago

From my standpoint, I never understood why people focus on the meat side of this diet. I never eat more green vegetables than when I am on a keto type diet. There is a growing group of people who believe in a carnivore diet, not just a keto diet. They have an active subreddit with introductory readings, a FAQ and wiki explaining their reasoning. http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.html http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.ht... https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/wiki/faq#wiki_2._isn.27t_the_biological_design_of_the_human_body_better_suited_to_eat_fruits_and_vegetables_rather_than_meat.3F https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/wiki/faq#wiki_2._isn.27t_t... https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/wiki/plants https://www.reddit.com/r/zerocarb/wiki/plants https://justmeat.co/ https://justmeat.co/ The tldr is that they believe we evolved to primarily eat meat, we get the best most bioavailable nutrients from animal sources, and that most plants have various toxins in them to discourage animals from eating them, and that even when cooked these toxins aren't completely destroyed and a lot of people experience low-level inflammation and irritation from plant sources, without realizing it.

war1025 6y ago
Notable members of that group are Jordan Peterson and his daughter Mikhaila. I personally find Jordan Peterson's content pretty interesting. His daughter on the other hand, she seems pretty scammy. Have a hard time taking that diet seriously. But I guess if it makes people happy, good for them.
- chlodwig 6y ago
  Every diet has its grifters, scammers, and celebrities of questionable character attached to it. Actually, every human interest group or endeavour has grifters attached. The carnivore diet being more of a fringe diet, the associated grifters are more fringe characters. Whereas something like the big label on Honey Nut Cheerios indicating that it is good for your heart -- https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/75ba3310-8be0-4e36-91e6-62f54904158a_1.85dd1d45144cfde7b6934ecba56c96e7.jpeg https://i5.walmartimages.com/asr/75ba3310-8be0-4e36-91e6-62f... -- is also a grift, and it is a grift that is supported by our biggest corporations and most prestigious institutions.
  - war1025 6y ago
    Fair enough. I guess my assumption is that all diet advice is garbage and people should just figure out what works for them. The government and health system have obviously been of no help to people. I was surprised to learn when my kids were born that hospital food is just about as greasy and generally unhealthy as any fast food you're likely to come across.
AlotOfReading 6y ago
I highly recommend not getting your anthropology lessons from diet subs on reddit. The level of information you get is questionable at best and often informed by incorrect stereotypes with little basis in reality. A lot of the same is happening here, with people talking about specific cold-environment adaptations like high meat consumption as if they apply to all of human evolution. The current consensus is that groups outside the circumpolar regions typically ate large amounts of plant matter. In many groups it was even a majority of dietary calories, alongside things like honey and probably insects. This is archaeologically well-substantiated, even taking into account formation processes and preservation biases.
- chlodwig 6y ago
  I get my anthropology lessons from actually reading the recommended primary sources from all-sides of the debate, and then using my own judgement about what makes the most sense and what is most convincing. What is one or two best primary sources supporting your view that our hominid ancestors of one million years ago would have been eating mostly plants?
  - AlotOfReading 6y ago
    You've fixated on a particular date (1 MYA) and understood "major component of diet" / "majority calories in some groups" to be "all of our ancestors ate mostly plants". Neither is what I said. First the date: 1 MYA was the time of H. erectus, not the AMH I was referencing. That's fine, but you'll probably be unsatisfied with the evidence from the period because it's notoriously thin. Regardless, by this time our ancestors had shifted to include megafaunal hunting and harder, diverse plant foods in their diet, so H. erectus populations were likely eating both. See [1]. For a good (slightly outdated) overview of the evidence problems, see [2]. In later periods, we can discuss things like dental microwear patterns, archaeobotany, optimal foraging models, and coprolite analysis as the evidentiary bases are so much better. Secondly, you have to understand the difference between "plants were a large component of the diet" and "carnivores". All the former means is that meat was only about 30-70% of the diet, not upwards of 90%. The exact amount would have varied hugely by group, environment, and even the season or year. The diversity of the plants eaten would also have varied for the same reasons. For instance, some groups in the Mediterranean basin in the later Upper Pleistocene were sedentary foragers who would transition to nomadic hunter-gatherers at other times. [1] http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236828 http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1236828 [2] http://doi.org/10.1086/666700 http://doi.org/10.1086/666700 edit: overview of the elements of "forager diets" and the various viewpoints. There's also a large body of literature on archaeobotany, especially from temperate regions. [3] http://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23148 http://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.23148