4 ms·
I don't get why you cite this study, or maybe you read it totally differently than me. As I understand it it only confirms my view: "The carnivore diet met sev
by ofrzeta 2y ago
I don't get why you cite this study, or maybe you read it totally differently than me. As I understand it it only confirms my view:
"The carnivore diet met several NRV thresholds for nutrients such as riboflavin, niacin, phosphorus, zinc, Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, selenium, and Vitamin A, and exceeded the sodium threshold. However, it fell short in thiamin, magnesium, calcium, and Vitamin C, and in iron, folate, iodine and potassium in some cases. Fibre intake was significantly below recommended levels."
- srid 2y ago> you read it totally differently than me Yes, I read it beyond the abstract. And if you did too, you'd know about the theory that "the requirement for thiamin is reduced due to a reduction in thiamin-requiring glycolytic metabolism" or that "the large quantities of carnitine available in an animal-based diet may provide Vitamin C sparing effect". > As I understand it it only confirms my view As even the abstract, that you limited yourself to read, goes on to confirm that these nutrient requirements are reduced in a carnivore diet -- cf. "facilitates a lower requirement of certain nutrients" -- then your understanding is a doozie, let alone it support your unsubstantiated view that "meat is indeed not "nutritionally" complete".
- ofrzeta 2y agoActually I read the abstract and the conclusion. However I think the abstract is there for a certain reason and my quote from the abstract absolutely confirms my point that a meat-based diet is insufficient. Anyway, I hope it's good for you, also in the long run (you mentioned something about cholesterol in another comment).