6 ms·

Only meat diet has some very serious downsides, though. It’s very environmentally unfriendly and because of the high cost it’s available to a very few people. T

by mtsr 4y ago

Only meat diet has some very serious downsides, though. It’s very environmentally unfriendly and because of the high cost it’s available to a very few people. That makes it rather hard to recommend, regardless of potential health upsides.

Varqu 4y ago
Any health-related downsides?
- genghizkhan 4y ago
  Not enough fibre.
  - baisq 4y ago
    If you do keto, you are allowed to eat many vegetables that are rich in fibre. But if you follow a meat-only diet will make it really difficult to poop. I wonder how carnivorous animals do it. Are they constipated all the time?
    - ddorian43 4y ago
      > But if you follow a meat-only diet will make it really difficult to poop. I wonder how carnivorous animals do it. Are they constipated all the time? Easiest poop was when I was carnivore(you poop very little amount). Being constipated means you didn't get enough fat. Having diarrhea means you got too much fat that your body couldn't absorb fast enough. At start of carnivore you'll probably have diarrhea since your body/colon isn't yet used to so much fat/meat. But then you get get used to it (1-4 week).
    - vrc 4y ago
      I believe their stomach acids are far stronger, their bowels are a faster path to exit, and they often eat adjuncts which I assume help move things along. Here’s a brief explanation from a member of Cornell faculty: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-10/1096814276.Zo.r.html http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-10/1096814276.Zo.r...
  - thelittleone 4y ago
    That's true. When I've had a lot of meat, I take a tablespoon of psyllium husk in a cup of water.
- doikor 4y ago
  Red meat consumption has been linked to colon cancers in some studies. I guess you could always limit yourself to chicken etc.
- tpush 4y ago
  If the diet is high in (processed) red meat: higher cancer risk. If the diet is (too) high in saturated fat, increased cardio vascular risk.
  - bpizzi 4y ago
    > If the diet is (too) high in saturated fat, increased cardio vascular risk. You may want to take a look at this meta-study [0]. > “A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.” [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/
    - tpush 4y ago
      The authors of that meta-analysis adjusted for serum cholesterol, which defeats the entire point. Saturated fat intake above a certain threshold is associated with CVD because it causes an uptake in serum cholesterol, eventually leading to atherosclerosis. Saying saturated fat intake doesn't correlate with CVD when ignoring serum cholesterol is entirely uninteresting, and not what anyone's claiming. See also this[0] comment on that flawed meta-analysis. [0] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393
      - bpizzi 4y ago
        Meta-analyses are not a panacea, that's clear. As I suspect you know well, two further meta-analysis came to the same conclusion: Chowdhury 2014 [0], De Souza 2015 [1]. More recently, Kang in 2018 [2] and Zhu in 2019 are also stating that they fail to find evidence of a clear association between SFA consumption and risk of CVD. Obviously, as science is what it is (and that's a good thing), those study are debatable and do have weak spots. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723079/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723079/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268692/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268692/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791641/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791641/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30954077/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30954077/
- rawgabbit 4y ago
  It may result in Gout. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/4755-gout https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/4755-gout
  - nradov 4y ago
    Gout mainly becomes an issue when high consumption of animal products is combined with high consumption of sugar (especially fructose). https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/
tomp 4y ago
"meet" isn't environmentally unfriendly some methods of meat production are but you can focus on environmentally friendly methods instead don't hate the product, hate the process
- kennethh 4y ago
  Totally agree, this is a misconception. If you look at the numbers you get different results based on how you calculate it. Meat also comes out a lot better if you compare protein instead of calories. Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab... Dark Chocolate 93.30 kg Beef (beef herd) 49.89 kg Coffee 35.66 kg Lamb & Mutton 19.85 kg Tomatoes 19.00 kg Oatmeal 1.91 kg When the tomato is grown in an open field, the production emits an average of 80 kg CO2 per ton. If the tomatoes are grown in a greenhouse, they emit up to 700 kg CO2 per ton. In tomatoes there is 1.31% protein https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/fakulteterne/teknik/nyt_fra_det_tekniske_fakultet/tomater-fra-varme-lande-bedre-for-klimaet https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/fakulteterne/teknik/nyt_fra_det... At least for us in Northern Europe, all tomatoes are grown in green houses.
  - mahogany 4y ago
    > Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab... Doesn't this link confirm that meat is indeed bad with respect to emissions? With respect, focusing on tomatoes is a bit odd. I don't think anyone is eating tomatoes for their protein source, as it would take a lot of tomatoes to get to 100g of protein (and yes, that would create a lot of emissions). If we're talking about non-meat protein, it's best to focus on vegetarian protein-dense sources like legumes, grains such as oats or quinoa, nuts, etc. All of these are much lower than the meat examples here, sometimes by a factor of 10 or more. Poultry and fish are the closest, with poultry being 2x "grains" (a broad category), and almost 3x tofu.
  - fn-mote 4y ago
    I don't understand this list at all. Who is eating dark chocolate, coffee, and tomatoes as a source of protein?? On the other hand, you don't mention it, but greenhouse emissions for 100g of beef protein are 25x the emissions for 100g of oatmeal protein. That's astounding if you care about CO2 from your food production. To address the tomatoes way more than they deserve, tomatoes have 4 protein per pound, and locally here cost perhaps USD$2 (maybe half that in season on sale). So 100g tomato protein is $50 and requires you to consume 25 lb (!!!) tomatoes. [Edit: sister comment posted while writing.]

by mtsr 4y ago

Varqu 4y ago

Any health-related downsides?

genghizkhan 4y ago
Not enough fibre.
- baisq 4y ago
  If you do keto, you are allowed to eat many vegetables that are rich in fibre. But if you follow a meat-only diet will make it really difficult to poop. I wonder how carnivorous animals do it. Are they constipated all the time?
  - ddorian43 4y ago
    > But if you follow a meat-only diet will make it really difficult to poop. I wonder how carnivorous animals do it. Are they constipated all the time? Easiest poop was when I was carnivore(you poop very little amount). Being constipated means you didn't get enough fat. Having diarrhea means you got too much fat that your body couldn't absorb fast enough. At start of carnivore you'll probably have diarrhea since your body/colon isn't yet used to so much fat/meat. But then you get get used to it (1-4 week).
  - vrc 4y ago
    I believe their stomach acids are far stronger, their bowels are a faster path to exit, and they often eat adjuncts which I assume help move things along. Here’s a brief explanation from a member of Cornell faculty: http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-10/1096814276.Zo.r.html http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2004-10/1096814276.Zo.r...
- thelittleone 4y ago
  That's true. When I've had a lot of meat, I take a tablespoon of psyllium husk in a cup of water.
doikor 4y ago
Red meat consumption has been linked to colon cancers in some studies. I guess you could always limit yourself to chicken etc.
tpush 4y ago
If the diet is high in (processed) red meat: higher cancer risk. If the diet is (too) high in saturated fat, increased cardio vascular risk.
- bpizzi 4y ago
  > If the diet is (too) high in saturated fat, increased cardio vascular risk. You may want to take a look at this meta-study [0]. > “A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.” [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20071648/
  - tpush 4y ago
    The authors of that meta-analysis adjusted for serum cholesterol, which defeats the entire point. Saturated fat intake above a certain threshold is associated with CVD because it causes an uptake in serum cholesterol, eventually leading to atherosclerosis. Saying saturated fat intake doesn't correlate with CVD when ignoring serum cholesterol is entirely uninteresting, and not what anyone's claiming. See also this[0] comment on that flawed meta-analysis. [0] https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/2/458/4597393
    - bpizzi 4y ago
      Meta-analyses are not a panacea, that's clear. As I suspect you know well, two further meta-analysis came to the same conclusion: Chowdhury 2014 [0], De Souza 2015 [1]. More recently, Kang in 2018 [2] and Zhu in 2019 are also stating that they fail to find evidence of a clear association between SFA consumption and risk of CVD. Obviously, as science is what it is (and that's a good thing), those study are debatable and do have weak spots. [0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723079/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24723079/ [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268692/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26268692/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791641/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31791641/ [3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30954077/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30954077/
rawgabbit 4y ago
It may result in Gout. https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/4755-gout https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/4755-gout
- nradov 4y ago
  Gout mainly becomes an issue when high consumption of animal products is combined with high consumption of sugar (especially fructose). https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/ https://peterattiamd.com/rickjohnson/

tomp 4y ago

"meet" isn't environmentally unfriendly some methods of meat production are but you can focus on environmentally friendly methods instead don't hate the product, hate the process

kennethh 4y ago
Totally agree, this is a misconception. If you look at the numbers you get different results based on how you calculate it. Meat also comes out a lot better if you compare protein instead of calories. Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab=table https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab... Dark Chocolate 93.30 kg Beef (beef herd) 49.89 kg Coffee 35.66 kg Lamb & Mutton 19.85 kg Tomatoes 19.00 kg Oatmeal 1.91 kg When the tomato is grown in an open field, the production emits an average of 80 kg CO2 per ton. If the tomatoes are grown in a greenhouse, they emit up to 700 kg CO2 per ton. In tomatoes there is 1.31% protein https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/fakulteterne/teknik/nyt_fra_det_tekniske_fakultet/tomater-fra-varme-lande-bedre-for-klimaet https://www.sdu.dk/en/om_sdu/fakulteterne/teknik/nyt_fra_det... At least for us in Northern Europe, all tomatoes are grown in green houses.
- mahogany 4y ago
  > Greenhouse gas emissions per 100g protein https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore?tab... Doesn't this link confirm that meat is indeed bad with respect to emissions? With respect, focusing on tomatoes is a bit odd. I don't think anyone is eating tomatoes for their protein source, as it would take a lot of tomatoes to get to 100g of protein (and yes, that would create a lot of emissions). If we're talking about non-meat protein, it's best to focus on vegetarian protein-dense sources like legumes, grains such as oats or quinoa, nuts, etc. All of these are much lower than the meat examples here, sometimes by a factor of 10 or more. Poultry and fish are the closest, with poultry being 2x "grains" (a broad category), and almost 3x tofu.
- fn-mote 4y ago
  I don't understand this list at all. Who is eating dark chocolate, coffee, and tomatoes as a source of protein?? On the other hand, you don't mention it, but greenhouse emissions for 100g of beef protein are 25x the emissions for 100g of oatmeal protein. That's astounding if you care about CO2 from your food production. To address the tomatoes way more than they deserve, tomatoes have 4 protein per pound, and locally here cost perhaps USD$2 (maybe half that in season on sale). So 100g tomato protein is $50 and requires you to consume 25 lb (!!!) tomatoes. [Edit: sister comment posted while writing.]