Carnivorous Diet(Only Meat)

signal terror

So I've been eating only meat on and off for a while now.I've started again after gaining weight over the last couple of months and I plan to stick to it indefinitely.I eat once or twice a day,only when hungry with about 80% calories coming from fat.So far I've dropped 8kg in the last 7 days,mainly body fat with some water weight but no muscle(I'm actually stronger).

From countless hours of research on the topic I've come to the conclusion that a diet of only meat is the best possible for humans and can prevent many of the ailments currently affecting people(diabetics,cancer,baldness,heart disease,tooth decay,nutritional deficiency etc).

So I've talked to friends about the subject several times and all are convinced its very unhealthy and i will have a heart attack before I'm 20(I'm 17 atm).
They've come out with the usual cholestrol will kill you,saturated fat leads to heart disease,fat is bad for you and all the other supposed "facts" that have no medical nor scientific basis and are in fact lies.

So I'm wondering does anybody have any thoughts on this particular diet or any genuine arguments against it?

Aard

I would think that eating only meat would lead to major constipation.


Eating only one or two meals a day is likely to "shock" your body - make it think it's starving, and thus actually hold onto the fat, causing you to gain weight in the longterm.

mrsdewinter

I've cut down on meat in the past few months and lurk quite a bit on Vegetarian Boards, so I have a certain take on this issue.

I certainly feel better eating less meat, lighter. My waist and hip measurements have started coming down, and I sleep better - but those facts took me by surprise.

What tipped me towards reducing my meat intake were concerns over the sustainability of the western meat-dominant diet - and this article.

Would you have ethical concerns about continuing your diet? And on a practical level, do you not get tired of eating just meat?

corkcomp

My only comment is that there is no way you would lose over a stone of fat in one week. Even if you worked your butt off and ate nothing it just won't happen , and chances are you will destroy your metabolism eating only once a day

signal terror wrote: »

So I've been eating only meat on and off for a while now.I've started again after gaining weight over the last couple of months and I plan to stick to it indefinitely.I eat once or twice a day,only when hungry with about 80% calories coming from fat.So far I've dropped 8kg in the last 7 days,mainly body fat with some water weight but no muscle(I'm actually stronger).

From countless hours of research on the topic I've come to the conclusion that a diet of only meat is the
best possible for humans and can prevent many of the ailments currently affecting people(diabetics,cancer,baldness,heart disease,tooth decay,nutritional deficiency etc).

So I've talked to friends about the subject several times and all are convinced its very unhealthy and i will have a heart attack before I'm 20(I'm 17 atm).
They've come out with the usual cholestrol will kill you,saturated fat leads to heart disease,fat is bad for you and all the other supposed "facts" that have no medical nor scientific basis and are in fact lies.

So I'm wondering does anybody have any thoughts on this particular diet or any genuine arguments against it?

i-digress

Ok, I'm a vegetarian, trying to turn vegan, so again I have a certain take on the issue.

Leaving the ethics aside, that diet is dangerous. If you are trying to do a low carb diet, you need to eat some salad, cheese, nuts, olives, things like that. Have a look online, there are plenty of sites that can help with this.

Even the atkins diet promotes only a certain amount of meat in your diet.

Before I turned vegetarian, I tried this diet and it does work. But all meat? We were never supposed to eat just meat.

Saruman

You would have to take vitamin supplements because without fresh fruit or veg you will not get the nutrients you need from just meat adn you will become a "scurvy dog" Yaaarrr..

i-digress

i-digress wrote: »

Ok, I'm a vegetarian, trying to turn vegan, so again I have a certain take on the issue.

Leaving the ethics aside, that diet is dangerous. If you are trying to do a low carb diet, you need to eat some salad, cheese, nuts, olives, things like that. Have a look online, there are plenty of sites that can help with this.

Even the atkins diet promotes only a certain amount of meat in your diet.

Before I turned vegetarian, I tried this diet and it does work. But all meat? We were never supposed to eat just meat.

I wouldn't be recommending the atkins diet to anyone. High Fat diets are a receipe for a heart attack.

Serafijn

Out of interest, what is your reasoning for cutting out veg as well? The ailments you listed above wouldn't be caused or worsened by adding fresh, non-starchy vegetables to your diet, or am I missing something?

i-digress

rarnes1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be recommending the atkins diet to anyone. High Fat diets are a receipe for a heart attack.

I'm not recommending it. I said it worked for weight loss. But your fat intake IS limited on atkins, and at the very least it is a healthier diet than the one he is following now.

I eat a purely plant based diet, and feel fantastic on it. But people don't like vegetarians/vegans who start trying to convert people. I didn't recommend the atkins diet, I was pointing out that it includes other elements in case the OP was trying to follow that diet, because if he is he is doing it in a very dangerous way.

signal terror

@Aard

Why?If you're talking about a lack of fiber,then you should no fiber does not really have any benefits and is in fact quite bad for your intestines.It is just a way of the cereal companies to make money from the non-edible part of the grain.

And I don't see anything wrong with eating once or twice a day.We arn't designed to eat at set intervals throughout the day.I eat when i'm hungry,i don't when I'm not.

@mrsdewinter

Tbh I do think that article has some good points,however I believe it is due to overpopulation of humans that livestock are taking such a toll and the fact that they are being fed the grains also used for human consumption driving up food prices.So although I see your point, I don't believe I,personally will make much of a difference in the long run however my health will be adversely affected so I'm going to stick where im at.

As for it getting boring..seriously?
Beef,lamb,pork,duck,chicken,turkey,fish,bison and all different combination's..I don't think i could ever get tired of those.

@corkcomp

Yeah i didn't say a stone of fat,I said mostly fat,which i did and it is quite well documented other people doing the same.

And as stated above,I eat when hungry,its my body's way of telling me to eat and i trust it over whatever traditions are society may have adopted(breakfast,lunch,dinner).How often do you think our ancestors ate of even hunter-gatherer tribes still in existence(which are some of the healthiest specimens on the planet).

@i-digress

you need to eat some salad, cheese, nuts, olives, things like that

No,I don't believe they are needed what so ever.For one cheese is dairy,so only acessable since the agricultural revolution,we were not designed with that in mind.Have you ever eaten raw lettuce,you'll be asleep in minutes.See plants don't want to be eaten,they cant run away or fight like animals can so they have their own defenses(poison).Only through breeding out these poisons by humans have m,any plants become safe to eat(Although they still contain many).So once again,we were not designed with these in mind.Have you noticed a lot of children don't like eating vegetables?Why do you think that is?It';s because we are evolutionary not designed to eat them.Only through years of being told its good for you do people accept them(I know many people who still do not eat them willingly).

@Saruman
I don't believe there's any need for supplements.Unless the animal im eating died of malnutrition,then its got everything i need.And on the topic of scurvy,the supposed levels of vitamin C needed are only valid ifcombined with glucose in the diet.As they use the same uptake mechanism and glucose regularly triumphs over the vitamin,much higher does need to be taken.

@rarnes1

There is no solid evidence liking heart disease of blocked areries with high levels of natural fat intake.Saturated fat has been proven to be good for your heart.

@Serafijn

Well as stated above i don't believe they have a place in the human diet except possibly on the brink of starvation.As for fruit,well thats not available all year around naturally,only in autumn.So it is possible we ate some fruit in build up to winter to put on fat for the winter months.(I have a house and clothes + steady supply of food so i think i'll be alright).


Thanks for your comments guys,If anyone else has any more points to raise please go ahead.I'm looking for holes in this constantly but so far no argument that has been raised manages to deter me.

Shelga

OP,

You seem to have your mind made up already, so why ask for opinions? If a meat-only diet is such a great one, why doesn't everyone do it?

I agree with the other posters, you need a healthy BALANCED diet, ie not just one category of food and nothing else. What about the vitamins, minerals, calcium etc that you need from vegetables and possibly dairy? How do you intend to satisfy your calcium needs? As a 17 year old this is something you should think about.

To dismiss a need for fibre completely as a media campaign thought up by cereal companies is just daft. Expect to feel constipated very soon.

Out of the 10 or so posters who has replied so far, not one of them has agreed with you (and they would have more know-how about nutrition than the average joe). Yet you still think your plan is without flaws. Does this strike you as a little stubborn/illogical?

El_Dangeroso

Hi Signal Terror,

I follow a paleo-style diet but I have done meat fasts before.

I have to admit I felt amazing on meat only but I really missed my veggies and the variety of recipes, so I can only attest to the short-term.

Meat only diets are definitely possible, some primitive tribes do survive on it, but humans survive on a lot of different diets. I'm personally interested in the 'optimal' rather than the possible.

There is some evidence that long term carnivorous diets can lead to issues with thyroid, it's very preliminary but it's enough to concern me. I prefer to give my body the 40g or so of carbs a day that it needs from my diet rather than stress my liver out with gluconeogenesis all the time.

But hey, whatever works for you, one thing that you need to be eating a LOT of is offal, at least 30% of your diet should contain kidneys, liver and brain if you can get a good source. Even de-facto carnivores like lions get very ill if fed only muscle protein.

Also, you do need to supplement with omega 3, the meat your eating is more than likely higher in omega 6 unless you ruthlessly ensure it is grass fed, which is very hard to do.

Also a good vitamin D supplement is essential unless you eat a LOT of herring or seal meat.

corkcomp

thinking that you can lose anywhere near a stone in a week is crazy, and anybody who thinks otherwise is not clued into the way the human body operates ..

if you really did lose that much weight then a lot may be water loss, a lot may be fat loss but you will probably have lost muscle also ..

also, if you lost that much weight (irrespective of the composition of the loss) then you have dropped calories too low IMO

Saruman

signal terror wrote: »

@Saruman
I don't believe there's any need for supplements.Unless the animal im eating died of malnutrition,then its got everything i need.And on the topic of scurvy,the supposed levels of vitamin C needed are only valid ifcombined with glucose in the diet.As they use the same uptake mechanism and glucose regularly triumphs over the vitamin,much higher does need to be taken.

Plan on eating your meat raw then? Cooking destroys vitamins and minerals even in vegetables so if you are relying on getting yours from whatever the meat you are eating absorbed while it ate grass then you will be wanting to eat your meat before it has even hit the ground at the slaughter house.

Meat you buy in the supermarket has been dead for quite a while and frozen which means it has to be fully cooked, unless its a steak in which case if you have it rare you will still get some minerals from it but you would have to live off rare steak. Chicken and other poultry would do you very little good as it has to be thoroughly cooked which eliminates most of not all of the vitamins and leaves you with protein.

Now I could be wrong as I am just a layman and could not give any of the scientific info you need but that is how it seems to me.

I am just saying, a meat only diet is not good for you. You can have a meat dominated diet sure, just make sure it is healthy meat and have a little fresh fruit and veg with it. I am fairly certain our bodies can not process all that protein correctly either. We simply do not have Carnivore characteristics, we are omnivores and more herbivore than carnivore in our genetic makeup. Consider our closest relatives, the Apes. There are no carnivorous apes. They live on fruits and vegetables with the odd bit of meat thrown in (some of them anyway).

The human body has never existed solely on a diet of meat. Even back in the Ice Age we still supplemented meat with fruit and veg.

corkcomp

"See plants don't want to be eaten,they cant run away or fight like animals can so they have their own defenses(poison).Only through breeding out these poisons by humans have m,any plants become safe to eat(Although they still contain many).So once again,we were not designed with these in mind.Have you noticed a lot of children don't like eating vegetables?Why do you think that is?It';s because we are evolutionary not designed to eat them.Only through years of being told its good for you do people accept them(I know many people who still do not eat them willingly)".

sorry but that is one of the worst posts I have ever read on here, plants dont WANT to be eaten? ive never heard such a ridiculous reason for avoiding vegetables lol !

the reason a lot of kids dont like veg is that they are filled with sweets, coca pops and other crap and vegetables just dont do the same for their taste buds!

Flamed Diving

signal terror wrote: »

So I've been eating only meat on and off for a while now.I've started again after gaining weight over the last couple of months and I plan to stick to it indefinitely.I eat once or twice a day,only when hungry with about 80% calories coming from fat.So far I've dropped 8kg in the last 7 days,mainly body fat with some water weight but no muscle(I'm actually stronger).

From countless hours of research on the topic I've come to the conclusion that a diet of only meat is the best possible for humans and can prevent many of the ailments currently affecting people(diabetics,cancer,baldness,heart disease,tooth decay,nutritional deficiency etc).

So I've talked to friends about the subject several times and all are convinced its very unhealthy and i will have a heart attack before I'm 20(I'm 17 atm).
They've come out with the usual cholestrol will kill you,saturated fat leads to heart disease,fat is bad for you and all the other supposed "facts" that have no medical nor scientific basis and are in fact lies.

So I'm wondering does anybody have any thoughts on this particular diet or any genuine arguments against it?

Reading webpages & watching video =/= research.

In fact, what you say is an insult to those who research as a profession (i.e. spent at least seven years (not hours) studying just to get to that position)

Pembily

OP my mum did this and ended up having to have her gale bladder removed due to severe and serious gale stones.... I used to do that diet (meat, fish, cheese and eggs only) and could only last for 5 days, in the long run it is dangerous and my mum is proof of this!!!

She has to be careful of eating too much fats now due to not having a gale bladder!!!!

What I learned (LOTS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE) is if you are on a diet you are set up to fail, change your habits and eat less and eat healthier!!!! You are 17 not 47!!!!! If you move more, and eat less you will loose the weight... Fad diets are called fads for a reason!!!!

corkcomp

Pembily wrote: »

OP my mum did this and ended up having to have her gale bladder removed due to severe and serious gale stones.... I used to do that diet (meat, fish, cheese and eggs only) and could only last for 5 days, in the long run it is dangerous and my mum is proof of this!!!

She has to be careful of eating too much fats now due to not having a gale bladder!!!!

What I learned (LOTS OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE) is if you are on a diet you are set up to fail, change your habits and eat less and eat healthier!!!! You are 17 not 47!!!!! If you move more, and eat less you will loose the weight... Fad diets are called fads for a reason!!!!

spot on .. forget diets, think lifestyle choices .. rule no food out completely, but limit processed foods and have the odd treat but keep it clean most of the time ... vegetables are so low in calories that they wont cause anybody to gain weight IMO ..

Flamed Diving

Everything in moderation. Simple as.

Aard

signal terror wrote: »

@Aard

Why?If you're talking about a lack of fiber,then you should no fiber does not really have any benefits and is in fact quite bad for your intestines.It is just a way of the cereal companies to make money from the non-edible part of the grain.

Lol. No, it's not just a ploy from the cereal companies. I'd even advise against buying highly-commercialised cereals. Buy Flahavans porridge. Or eat some fibrous vegetables. I'm not saying to start eating Weetabix with "wholegrain". It has been proven time and time again that fibre is actually very good for your intestines. Surely in your research you'd have found that out.

signal terror wrote: »

And I don't see anything wrong with eating once or twice a day.We arn't designed to eat at set intervals throughout the day.I eat when i'm hungry,i don't when I'm not.

I don't think there's anything normal about only being hungry once or twice a day.

El_Dangeroso

I'm not a fan of pure carnivory, it's obvious that we're omnivores, but the counterpoints of 'You're going to diiiiiiieee!!' are just stupid and without justification.

Prehistoric man had no little to no access to fruit and veg in winter and food preservation is a very recent invention, it's quite likely that man spent some of the winter with only meat to eat.

Apes are an entirely different species with a different digestive system.

Check out this diagram:

Where are chimps (Pan troglodytes) on this chart? They aren't on it, for two related reasons: they aren't in the genus Homo, and they diverged from us about 5 million years ago. Homo erectus diverged from our lineage about 1.5 million years ago. I don't know if you've ever seen a Homo erectus skull, but 1.5 million years is clearly enough time to do some evolving. Homo erectus hunted and ate animals as a significant portion of its diet.

Our closest recent relative was Homo neanderthalensis, the neanderthal. They died out around 30,000 years ago. There have been several good studies on the isotope ratios of neanderthal bones, all indicating that neanderthals were basically carnivores. They relied both on land and marine animals, depending on what was available. Needless to say, neanderthals are much more closely related to humans than chimpanzees, having diverged from us less than 500,000 years ago. That's less than one-tenth the time between humans and chimpanzees.

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I'm not a fan of pure carnivory, it's obvious that we're omnivores, but the counterpoints of 'You're going to diiiiiiieee!!' are just stupid and without justification.

Prehistoric man had no little to no access to fruit and veg in winter and food preservation is a very recent invention, it's quite likely that man spent some of the winter with only meat to eat.

Apes are an entirely different species with a different digestive system.

Check out this diagram:

the fact that the OP is 17 counts for a lot here IMO

I just dont think somebody that age (or any age really, but maybe when older somebody would be better placed to make a more informed decision) should be eating only meat.. the body simply doesnt need that much protein and if its all being eaten in one meal per day the body wont absorb a lot of it anyway

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

the fact that the OP is 17 counts for a lot here IMO

I just dont think somebody that age (or any age really, but maybe when older somebody would be better placed to make a more informed decision) should be eating only meat.. the body simply doesnt need that much protein and if its all being eaten in one meal per day the body wont absorb a lot of it anyway

I get what your saying and I agree to an extent, long term it's not the way to go. But arguing the point with fallacies is not going to convince the OP otherwise.

I think you overestimate how much protein you can actually eat when 80% of calories come from fat. I ate in the range of about 60-80g a day when I did the meat fast which isn't excessive.

I don't think the OP will sustain this to be honest (it's very anti-social for one) and in the short term, there's really nothing to worry about health wise.

Flamed Diving

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I'm not a fan of pure carnivory, it's obvious that we're omnivores, but the counterpoints of 'You're going to diiiiiiieee!!' are just stupid and without justification.

Prehistoric man had no little to no access to fruit and veg in winter and food preservation is a very recent invention, it's quite likely that man spent some of the winter with only meat to eat.

Apes are an entirely different species with a different digestive system.

Check out this diagram:

What peer-reviewed, scientific journal did you source this from?

El_Dangeroso

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What peer-reviewed, scientific journal did you source this from?

Lol, this is the consensus of all current anthropology! It's not controversial at all.

But if you want to read an excellent paper on how eating a meat-heavy diet made us human read the 'Expensive Tissue Hypothesis':

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20045146/The-Expensive-Tissue-Hypothesis

The only way our brain could grow to it's current size is for our gut to shorten, and for this to happen the diet had first to shift to eating much more animal protein and fat.

corkcomp

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

I get what your saying and I agree to an extent, long term it's not the way to go. But arguing the point with fallacies is not going to convince the OP otherwise.

I think you overestimate how much protein you can actually eat when 80% of calories come from fat. I ate in the range of about 60-80g a day when I did the meat fast which isn't excessive.

I don't think the OP will sustain this to be honest (it's very anti-social for one) and in the short term, there's really nothing to worry about health wise.

in fairness, i dont think anything is going to convince the op otherwise, except when the weight creeps back after finally caving in!

to survive on a diet of meat alone and get 80% of cals from fat is very difficult unless you are consuming very poor cuts of meat .. at worst i would say 50 / 50 protein / fat would be the more likely ratio..

I am deliberately steering this post away from any low carb vs non low carb theories as we dont want to end up on a different tangent, but I honestly dont think a diet of meat alone and NOTHING else has any place, and definately not for a teenager (and im not trying to be patronising here)

I am expressing an opinion rather than arguing a point and I dont see any falacies in my post (let he / she who has the perfect post throw stones n all that:D) and TBH i dont really care if the OP continues on the 100% meat diet!

El_Dangeroso

corkcomp wrote: »

in fairness, i dont think anything is going to convince the op otherwise, except when the weight creeps back after finally caving in!

to survive on a diet of meat alone and get 80% of cals from fat is very difficult unless you are consuming very poor cuts of meat .. at worst i would say 50 / 50 protein / fat would be the more likely ratio..

I am deliberately steering this post away from any low carb vs non low carb theories as we dont want to end up on a different tangent, but I honestly dont think a diet of meat alone and NOTHING else has any place, and definately not for a teenager (and im not trying to be patronising here)

I am expressing an opinion rather than arguing a point and I dont see any falacies in my post (let he / she who has the perfect post throw stones n all that:D) and TBH i dont really care if the OP continues on the 100% meat diet!

Even 93% lean mince will have a fat/protein ratio of 46/54% so it's actually really easy to get to 80/20 without too much effort.

This is most definitely not a low-carb discussion, I don't eat remotely like the OP and most low carbers will have their fruit and veggies pried from their cold, dead hands, myself included.

You did not state anything false, it was other posts that I was referring to, sorry if it may have seemed I was implying otherwise.:)

The point that I do disagree with is that we can't change the OP's mind, if they're into researching (grant you maybe from websites, but everyone starts somewhere), then I think they can be convinced with a cool rational appeal to reason. I have no doubt that the OP has read these counter-arguments before and trust me, if you look for online, it's very easy to find peer-reviewed research to refute it.

But yeah, back to the OP, if you are not eating a significant amount of offal(30% of diet in grams), then you will be actively damaging your health. Also, if you went straight from eating crap to this diet, then try adding in root and leafy vegetables or some berries, nuts or seeds with , you might find you feel even better and it will be more sustainable in the long run.

metamorphosis

It's very clear there is a screwed vision of nutrition here - very obvious from the fact of the statement that fiber is bad.

Without going into the science and specifics - fiber is essential for most of the population.

At the end of the day, long story short - imho before anyone goes and tries any sort of diet out, be it low carb, meat only, vegan etc etc - the person should read up on nutrition on ALL areas. Learn about the body and how it responds to all the components of food. Sports nutrition books, nutririon bibles etc.

Do not rely on teh internet either for yuor info. Go out, buy books and read. Notice i said books and not book. How can you make a fully informed, educated decision when you already do not know some nutririon basics?

My post is not related to any particular poster but in general to the many people who embark on eating habits when they have little existing overall nutrirional understanding. If you want to embark on an eating style - read up on that style AND opposing styles. Education.education.education.

Seonad

signal terror wrote: »

See plants don't want to be eaten,they cant run away or fight like animals can so they have their own defenses(poison).Only through breeding out these poisons by humans have m,any plants become safe to eat(Although they still contain many).So once again,we were not designed with these in mind.Have you noticed a lot of children don't like eating vegetables?Why do you think that is?It';s because we are evolutionary not designed to eat them.Only through years of being told its good for you do people accept them(I know many people who still do not eat them willingly).

Actually this isn't quite true. Eating the fruit of a plant helps with seed dispersal. Foraging animals move from plant to plant and in doing so, introduce diversity and removes competition from the plant's own offspring. The seeds cannot be broken down by the animals' bodies and are excreted.

Fruit and veg. are nature's way of encouraging this. Bright colours and sweet smells are designed to attract. It's a symbiotic relationship

El_Dangeroso

Seonad wrote: »

Actually this isn't quite true. Eating the fruit of a plant helps with seed dispersal. Foraging animals move from plant to plant and in doing so, introduce diversity and removes competition from the plant's own offspring. The seeds cannot be broken down by the animals' bodies and are excreted.

Fruit and veg. are nature's way of encouraging this. Bright colours and sweet smells are designed to attract. It's a symbiotic relationship

Yep, completely true. Yes there are toxins in plants, but there's also the millions of years of human evolution to cope with these toxins (from some plants, some we haven't been eating long enough to completely avoid the effects of the toxins) to factor into the equation.

The Paleo Diet by Lorein Cordain is an excellent book that goes into a lot more detail on this.

jam_mac_jam

If you are doing this for any length of time make sure that you are eating liver as you are at risk from scurvy, I am sure you are risk of other strange effects but as stated earlier make sure you are eating offal. Whatever you have read on the internet that makes you think meat only is the most healthy, you need to be eating vegetables, in my opinion. You will not be worrying about tooth decay when you have no teeth. so eat your liver.

El_Dangeroso

Small point but you only get scurvy if you eat a lot of carbohydrate with no vitamin C, but yeah, I'm just being pedantic.:D

Bottle_of_Smoke

rarnes1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be recommending the atkins diet to anyone. High Fat diets are a receipe for a heart attack.

And obesity isn't?. Atkins is the most unfairly criticised diet I've ever come across. And its only really all that high fat in the first two weeks.

corkcomp

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

And obesity isn't?. Atkins is the most unfairly criticised diet I've ever come across. And its only really all that high fat in the first two weeks.

there are plenty ways or correcting obesity without following an atkins approach (and no i dont mean surgery!)

Bottle_of_Smoke

corkcomp wrote: »

there are plenty ways or correcting obesity without following an atkins approach (and no i dont mean surgery!)

I can see a lot of benefits to it. Its fast and you don't lose lean muscle.

Flamed Diving

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I can see a lot of benefits to it. Its fast and you don't lose lean muscle.

It's fast in the opposite direction too.

El_Dangeroso

rarnes1 wrote: »

I wouldn't be recommending the atkins diet to anyone. High Fat diets are a receipe for a heart attack.

How did I miss this one!:D

That's complete tosh, Atkins diet has the ability to actually REVERSE heart plaque along with careful supplementation. They have proven this again and again. I can PM you many many links to well designed studies proving this.

I think Dean Ornish with his Ultra-low fat approach (<10%) managed to cause a small amount of regression but he could never replicate the results in further experiments.

Atkins done properly:

- Reduces Triglycerides
- Increases HDL
- Decreases small and oxidised LDL
- Reduces inflammation
- Increases adiponectin (very good thing)

And it's changes all of the above more than any other diet out there.

There is definitely more than one way to skin a cat, but this happens to be the fastest, most effective cat-skinning method out there.

metamorphosis

While i don't low carb i agree with this alright from what i have read.

jam_mac_jam

Temple_Grandin wrote: »

Small point but you only get scurvy if you eat a lot of carbohydrate with no vitamin C, but yeah, I'm just being pedantic.:D

Really? I never knew that. I thought it was just from lack of vitamen C. Interesting

Bottle_of_Smoke

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's fast in the opposite direction too.

How do you mean?

If you mean in the yo-yo dieting pattern of people putting weight back on its not as bad.

With the likes of weight watchers you lose fat and lean tissue. Atkins you only lose fat. Lean tissue burns more calories so you wont put the weight back on as fast. I'd recommend atkins over weightwatchers to anyone.

Getwellsoon

This is a very dangerous diet. As a vegan, I know that you have to be super aware of what you DO decide to eat when you cut out various food groups from your diet. You can't survive healthily on meat alone, that's just ridiculous. You need vitamins and minerals from vegetables and fruit. We were NOT made to ONLY eat meat - if this was the case ALL our teeth would be sharp, like cats', dogs' and dinosaurs' teeth!! :rolleyes: We have canines and flat teeth for a reason - humans are OMNIVORES. We have teeth like this for a reason, because we SHOULD be eating a variety of foods. However, it's all down to personal choice. I've made bad choices in the past and have learned from them. You, in time, will also learn from this mistake.

Bottle_of_Smoke

signal_terror wrote:

I don't believe there's any need for supplements.Unless the animal im eating died of malnutrition,then its got everything i need.And on the topic of scurvy,the supposed levels of vitamin C needed are only valid ifcombined with glucose in the diet.As they use the same uptake mechanism and glucose regularly triumphs over the vitamin,much higher does need to be taken

Eating meat will only have the fat soluble vitamins, not the water-soluble ones.

More importantly I take it you're not going out hunting game for all your food? Think about it, the meat you eat is fed to get big, not healthy. It isn't as lean as the meat our ancestors would have eaten.

brianthebard

Saruman wrote: »

Plan on eating your meat raw then? Cooking destroys vitamins and minerals even in vegetables so if you are relying on getting yours from whatever the meat you are eating absorbed while it ate grass then you will be wanting to eat your meat before it has even hit the ground at the slaughter house.

Meat you buy in the supermarket has been dead for quite a while and frozen which means it has to be fully cooked, unless its a steak in which case if you have it rare you will still get some minerals from it but you would have to live off rare steak. Chicken and other poultry would do you very little good as it has to be thoroughly cooked which eliminates most of not all of the vitamins and leaves you with protein.

I'm sorry but you seem to be suggesting that cooking kills the majority or all of a foods nutritional value, this is not the case at all, minerals and vitamins will still be present unless charred to dust. (in fact I'm pretty sure that is how they test food for their nutritional content, so even then...)
Tbh while people might not like what the OP is saying, apart from their comment on vegetables he's got a point, and I'm going to excuse him that one cause he's 17.
I would love for instance to see anyone who says fibre is essential to provide a source explicitly proving this beyond doubt, as they have suggested is the case.
Bottle of smoke, modern animals have been specially bred to be as lean as possible in most cases, your post doesn't hold water.

I shouldn't have to make this clear, but just in case; I don't follow a diet like the op's, nor do I want to. But it is working for them and will almost certainly continue to work long term.

El_Dangeroso

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Eating meat will only have the fat soluble vitamins, not the water-soluble ones.

More importantly I take it you're not going out hunting game for all your food? Think about it, the meat you eat is fed to get big, not healthy. It isn't as lean as the meat our ancestors would have eaten.

Meat is full of B vitamins which are water-soluble, with the exception of B3, which is in liver. In fact you can ONLY get B12 from animal sources, and most vegans are in danger of deficiency unless they supplement or eat veg which still have some soil and therefore bacteria on them (is bacteria vegan? )

While your correct in saying a lot of game today is on the leaner side, paleolithic man was really fond of very fatty woolly mammoth and other large game which is why humans hunted all of them into extinction.

But I get what people are saying, you have to be precise with your diet in order to eat this way and I don't recommend it. But the fact remains that it is possible to get every single vitamin and mineral required from meat and fish alone, it's a LOT of hard work though.

My objection would be founded on the possible stress on the liver from prolonged neoglucogenesis and possible long-term effect on thyroid function.

The OP isn't going to die if he continues this in the short-term, and anyway he's gonna get bored and fall off the wagon.

Sapsorrow

signal terror wrote: »

@Aard

Why?If you're talking about a lack of fiber,then you should no fiber does not really have any benefits and is in fact quite bad for your intestines.It is just a way of the cereal companies to make money from the non-edible part of the grain.

And I don't see anything wrong with eating once or twice a day.We arn't designed to eat at set intervals throughout the day.I eat when i'm hungry,i don't when I'm not.

@mrsdewinter

Tbh I do think that article has some good points,however I believe it is due to overpopulation of humans that livestock are taking such a toll and the fact that they are being fed the grains also used for human consumption driving up food prices.So although I see your point, I don't believe I,personally will make much of a difference in the long run however my health will be adversely affected so I'm going to stick where im at.

As for it getting boring..seriously?
Beef,lamb,pork,duck,chicken,turkey,fish,bison and all different combination's..I don't think i could ever get tired of those.

@corkcomp

Yeah i didn't say a stone of fat,I said mostly fat,which i did and it is quite well documented other people doing the same.

And as stated above,I eat when hungry,its my body's way of telling me to eat and i trust it over whatever traditions are society may have adopted(breakfast,lunch,dinner).How often do you think our ancestors ate of even hunter-gatherer tribes still in existence(which are some of the healthiest specimens on the planet).

@i-digress



No,I don't believe they are needed what so ever.For one cheese is dairy,so only acessable since the agricultural revolution,we were not designed with that in mind.Have you ever eaten raw lettuce,you'll be asleep in minutes.See plants don't want to be eaten,they cant run away or fight like animals can so they have their own defenses(poison).Only through breeding out these poisons by humans have m,any plants become safe to eat(Although they still contain many).So once again,we were not designed with these in mind.Have you noticed a lot of children don't like eating vegetables?Why do you think that is?It';s because we are evolutionary not designed to eat them.Only through years of being told its good for you do people accept them(I know many people who still do not eat them willingly).

@Saruman
I don't believe there's any need for supplements.Unless the animal im eating died of malnutrition,then its got everything i need.And on the topic of scurvy,the supposed levels of vitamin C needed are only valid ifcombined with glucose in the diet.As they use the same uptake mechanism and glucose regularly triumphs over the vitamin,much higher does need to be taken.

@rarnes1

There is no solid evidence liking heart disease of blocked areries with high levels of natural fat intake.Saturated fat has been proven to be good for your heart.

@Serafijn

Well as stated above i don't believe they have a place in the human diet except possibly on the brink of starvation.As for fruit,well thats not available all year around naturally,only in autumn.So it is possible we ate some fruit in build up to winter to put on fat for the winter months.(I have a house and clothes + steady supply of food so i think i'll be alright).


Thanks for your comments guys,If anyone else has any more points to raise please go ahead.I'm looking for holes in this constantly but so far no argument that has been raised manages to deter me.

Dude no offense but pretty much everything you said there is COMPLETELY insane. I'm in my fourth year of a nutrtional science degree in UCC and I have absolutely no idea where you are mangaing to find your research papers. You need to be really carefull becuase not everything published has a good scientific method or is from a credible author or journal. Seriusly though the huge bulk of the most up to date research from epidemiological studies down to in vitro studies says the complete opposite to most of the points you made. You need to be careful or you will make yourself very unwell (and it may take a while so don't think that if it's not good for you you'll notice signs immediately either), also you're only 18 man are you really sure you're in a position to judge the validity of the research you're coming across? I didn't have a f*ck'n clue until I got well into my degree and I had thought I knew loads about nutrition from being interested in it fo years. I'm not having a go I just hate to think of the danger you're putting yourself in if you keep this up.

Sapsorrow

brianthebard wrote: »

I would love for instance to see anyone who says fibre is essential to provide a source explicitly proving this beyond doubt, as they have suggested is the case.
quote]

In nutritional science no-one can ever say they've proven any thing without a doubt it's not the way it works we have to weigh up the most well conducted and up to date research and draw our conclusions from there. Nothing is black and white unfortunately.
Another point is that you could come up with any crazy theory you can think of and some one out there has conducted a study in such a way that validates your idea no matter how crazy it is. There's a bit issue with figuring out which research is credibly conducted with no vested interests. It's pretty damn hard for even people who specialise in nutritional science to plough through the piles of shoddy work and decipher which is actuallly worth paying any attention to.

El_Dangeroso

khrystyna100 wrote: »

Dude no offense but pretty much everything you said there is COMPLETELY insane. I'm in my fourth year of a nutrtional science degree in UCC and I have absolutely no idea where you are mangaing to find your research papers. You need to be really carefull becuase not everything published has a good scientific method or is from a credible author or journal. Seriusly though the huge bulk of the most up to date research from epidemiological studies down to in vitro studies says the complete opposite to most of the points you made. You need to be careful or you will make yourself very unwell (and it may take a while so don't think that if it's not good for you you'll notice signs immediately either), also you're only 18 man are you really sure you're in a position to judge the validity of the research you're coming across? I didn't have a f*ck'n clue until I got well into my degree and I had thought I knew loads about nutrition from being interested in it fo years. I'm not having a go I just hate to think of the danger you're putting yourself in if you keep this up.

Do you really think that this diet will kill the OP? If so, of what? How long will it take? What diseases can he expect? I really really hate playing devil's advocate here, I've had MANY an argument with carnivores on other forums. Remember that a lot of 'accepted' wisdom in nutrition is based on very shaky, oft contradicted theory. Nutrition science is very very new and still not much is known, hence the (over)reliance on observational epidemiology which can't really prove anything per se.

El_Dangeroso

khrystyna100 wrote: »

In nutritional science no-one can ever say they've proven any thing without a doubt it's not the way it works we have to weigh up the most well conducted and up to date research and draw our conclusions from there. Nothing is black and white unfortunately.
Another point is that you could come up with any crazy theory you can think of and some one out there has conducted a study in such a way that validates your idea no matter how crazy it is. There's a bit issue with figuring out which research is credibly conducted with no vested interests. It's pretty damn hard for even people who specialise in nutritional science to plough through the piles of shoddy work and decipher which is actuallly worth paying any attention to.

Oh, crossed posts! I completely agree on the crap you have to wade though to get a decent study, and even then you can only judge it on what they decide to tell you, then there's the stats to figure out.. argh.

Getwellsoon

So we're in the wrong for eating plants that have been bred and modified by the human race for centuries to get rid of their natural defences, but you're NOT in the wrong for eating animals that have ALSO been inbred and ALSO modified by the human race for centuries who don't even HAVE any defences because they're kept in a cooped up environment from day one? COP ON!!! What an absolutely ridiculous argument.

There are plenty of fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and plants that can be eaten naturally without having to breed the poison out of them.

I know kids who won't eat meat. Yes it's rarer than kids who won't eat veg, but I've seen kids turn their noses up at meat until they are used to it. And you know WHY most kids won't eat their veg? It's because they are fussy and awkward and would actually prefer that smiley face potato waffle covered in ketchup or those deep fried chips (which are veggi anyway!), or the burger laced with artificial chemicals to make it taste good. Kids I know LOVE fruit, and LOVE chomping down on raw veggie sticks, just as much as they love meat. Kids also love sweets, crisps, chocolate and ketchup on bloomin everything - these aren't meat products and they love them... truth is, kids love stuff that adults in the food industry create that tastes bad for them and they see advertised on TV. So just because some kids hate vegetables you can't say the human race wasn't meant to eat veg!!! You really make me laugh. Kids are as happy with food like mash'n'beans or boiled egg and toast as they are with hot dogs or burgers!

So anyway, I think if you're so concerned with what our ancestors were doing, I think you should be catching or breeding your own meat. Or it should be roadkill. That way, you can eat meat the way it was "intended" to be eaten.

corkcomp

TBH i am amazed that this thread has not been locked by now. What we are taking about here is a 17y/o (not even legally an adult) consuming only one meal a day and eating meat, and NOTHING else? come on people, if that isnt a fad / dangerous diet, I dont know what is ...

Getwellsoon

corkcomp wrote: »

TBH i am amazed that this thread has not been locked by now. What we are taking about here is a 17y/o (not even legally an adult) consuming only one meal a day and eating meat, and NOTHING else? come on people, if that isnt a fad / dangerous diet, I dont know what is ...

True, I forgot he was 17. He hasn't got a clue!