That puts us at 0.006% of the global population. How did I arrive at 500k? I kinda made it up based on carnivore study populations, but its super duper tiny. I looked everywhere, I can't really find a solid estimate. But we are totally in the dozens of us category.
I NEVER meet another zero carb carnivore anywhere organically. Plus there is huge stigma for being a carnivore. EVERYONE thinks I'm crazy.
- Omnivore - 73% - 6,000M
- Flexitarian - 14% - 1,100M
- Vegetarian - 5% - 400M
- Pescatarian - 3% - 250M
- Vegan - 3% - 250M
- Zero Carb Carnivore - 0.006% - 0.5M
Using ipsos (broad strokes good enough) for the other eating pattern data
It's fine to be a minority group. Live and let live.
There are some people who simply cannot suffer us in our little corner of the internet at all. My poor little community script runs every day and bans many accounts for just downvoting all the posts in the community. https://discuss.online/modlog/696952
I've dug into the many of the non-obvious-sockpuppet accounts, and it seems most of the hate directed at us comes from our nearest neighbor at 3% total population. A group 500x more popular.
I really wish we could just be friends, let's agree that whole foods, totally unprocessed is good, and leave each other alone as allies in improving everyone's health. I'd like that. This childish animosity doesn't help anyone.
Perhaps this is just the cost of being a small fringe eating pattern, easy target for other less small groups to hate.
Eyeballing daily active users on the fediverse it looks like we have about 7,000 unique users every day. There are about 3 carnivores - which puts us at 0.04% of the lemmy population.
I appreciate this post by the way, as before this I also saw this sub as a bunch of nuts who want to eat twice as much meat to offset vegetarians.
I would describe myself as ecotarian, trying to minimize my ecological footprint within the bounds of a healthy (and let's be honest, lazy) diet. In practice I'm mostly vegetarian with a little fish occasionally (is that pescetarian? Or does that imply daily fish? Either way, you get my point).
If you mostly have medical reasons, by all means continue, you're not affecting the big picture, but I would like for the average person to at least reduce their meat consumption if not outright drop it.
That is probably true regardless, it is kinda crazy.
Funny thing, it doesn't matter what your diet is, your protein requirements are the same.... so compared to the standard american diet... zero carb carnivore is eating the same meat levels but adding a bunch more fat. (hence the low carb high fat mantra in keto)
Preach! That is the dream.
Occasional fish is still pescatarian I think.
Why though? One of the really curious things about the emerging ketogenic, metabolic, low carb, and indeed zero-carb literature is that many people are living with long term metabolic issues and silently suffering just thinking whatever they have is normal. The metabolic mental health connection is very compelling. There are many anecdotes (https://whycarnivore.com/) of people resolving mysterious latent issue just by trying zero carb - skin conditions are the most common "I didn't even realize it was abnormal" self-reported resolution. My key thesis here is most people (93%) don't have optimal metabolic health, carnivore/keto/low-carb will help most people resolve issues from minor things like snoring to major things like fatty liver.
Let's assume your with me so far: so the pivot is why carnivore over plant based keto? carnivore more bioavailable, less weight of food eaten per day (350g vs 3,000g). Total absorption of food in the stomach, barely anything makes it into the gut, very easy on the intestines. Plant based keto will interfere with cholesterol (plant sterols getting substituted but not signaling properly) which will lower ldl. Also lectins/oxalates and other plant compounds that appear to be highly associated with inflammation and autoimmune issues.
So the schism I think we are left with is how do we reconcile - minimize my ecological footprint within the bounds of a healthy diet
Regenerative farming - buy a cow every year (or two) from a regenerative farm, pasture raised on land that can't be used for crops, using the cows natural diet. ruminants are part of the natural biocycle, the cows emissions will fertilize the field, the hooves will aerate and churn the soil, their munching will encourage the grass to have stronger roots - over time that field will become more fertile and it could eventually become cropland. Heck even the three field rotation system still requires ruminants to do this on fallow fields. There is a necessary place in sustainable ecology for ruminants. I'd argue this is the lowest ecological footprint you could actually have. Find a local farm and you can even save on the planet with less energy spent on shipping things around and logistics.
Now... I've said lots of things, that are kinda outside the normal talking points (I admit I'm kinda crazy), but I think the extra cost of real regenerative cattle is worth it for the best ecological footprint and health imaginable...
And lets talk about lazy... this isn't a joke or exaggeration - I cook one steak every day, no prep, just heat and sear in a few minutes.. and i eat it, that's it. no prep, one meal.. and honestly I skip days sometimes if i'm busy. Life not dominated by hunger is amazing and super lazy! And as a super lazy bonus - no pooping, I barely spend any time in the bathroom... its not constipation if I'm empty, all the food fat and protein is dissolved in the stomach.
So the entire crazy pill - Carnivore gets people back to ancestral eating patterns which we are well adapted to, it gets our food back into biocycle rhythm which the nature is well adapted to, and it gets our health back toward optimal which means we spend less time being sick.
I'm not saying everyone should go carnivore, but I want people to know its a highly effective tool available to them, and I'd like them to be able to make informed decisions regarding their health without stigma.
However, I'm actually happy for you to be successful on any lifestyle you choose. If your getting the outcomes you want, more power to you. Just check your last lipid panel if your TG/HDL ratio is > 2, you have room for metabolic improvement, but if your under 2, and especially under 1, then your doing great.
This is the main thing that doesn't add up for me, this almost 10fold less food usage doesn't weigh up against the 50fold (very back of the envelope averages of things you can't average, but rough numbers) decrease of land usage of lamb/beef vs eggs/grains/fish/nuts/peas.
Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/land-use-protein-poore
Afaik reducing meat consumption is the single biggest (positive) impact one can have on their ecological footprint.
I wonder how correct that is, because I also know that we're one of the rare few organisms with broken genes for vitamin c, because our ancestors sat in trees munching fruits rich in vitamin c and it didn't put evolutionary pressure on the ones missing that gene.
Both can be true of course, in different distances of ancestry, but it would surprise me, given the length of our intestines compared to true carnivores, that our ideal ancestral eating pattern is pure meat. (On a side note, ancestral anything is not a strong argument imo, as neither the meat nor the fruit/veg/... we eat today resembles much of what our ancestors ate, nor does our daily pattern)
That said, I believe most of the other facts you stated, like bioavailability (which goes both ways though, prions and other diseases are way easier to catch from meat) etc, so I definitely can believe the diet works, I just don't think it should be advertised as a one size fits all, nor as a first step (not that I think you're doing that). I'll definitely accept it as a step after you've tried reducing meat and processed foods etc etc.
Same here though, I wish you and anyone else here all the best, and thanks for so honestly and openly having this discussion!
poor-nemecek 2018 improperly combined LCA data from disparately methodized studies. it is not a very good source to support the claims made in this write-up