this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

82 readers
1 users here now

Carnivore

The ultimate, zero carb, elimination diet

Meat Heals.

We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.

Keep being AWESOME

We welcome engaged, polite, and logical debates and questions of any type


Purpose

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Stay on topic
  3. Don't farm rage
  4. Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
  5. No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you
  6. No LLM generated posts . Don't represent machine output as your own, and don't use machines to burn human response time.

Other terms: LCHF Carnivore, Keto Carnivore, Ketogenic Carnivore, Low Carb Carnivore, Zero Carb Carnivore, Animal Based Diet, Animal Sourced Foods


Meta

Carnivore Resource List

If you need to block this community and the UI won't let you, go to settings -> blocks you can add it.

[Meta] Moderation Policy for Niche Communities

founded 4 months ago
MODERATORS
 

So the official place to get it requires a login: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(25)01201-2

But the full report can be found on : https://www.donorplatform.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/PIIS0140673625012012.pdf

I'll summarize:

60% Carbs, 20% protein, 20% fat

Highly processed seed oils and highly processed grains are the major source of energy on this diet.

Obviously this is counter to the health goals of keto/carnivore, but it's remarkable here as this will be used to drive lots of anti-meat efforts globally, so its good to become familiar with it.

top 2 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

The gall of these people, calling this a Planetary Health Diet and presuming to speak for everyone on the planet.

In the section labelled Panel 3, "The planetary health diet and health—evidence for causality"

Ideally, evidence for the effects of specific foods, nutrients, and overall diets on major health outcomes would be based on large, randomised trials with disease and functional endpoints in representative populations across the world. However, this type of evidence is scarce because such trials require many thousands of participants, many years—or even decades—of follow-up, and sustained high adherence to assigned diets. These requirements are neither feasible nor ethical, and randomised trials not meeting these criteria can easily yield misleading, null, or negative results. Therefore, for studies of diet and other behavioural and environmental exposures, frameworks to assess causality, such as the Bradford Hill criteria,66 have been developed.

"We can't do science to prove what we're saying, so we've made something up instead."

For dietary factors, these frameworks typically include reproducible evidence from prospective epidemiological studies (eg, following a cohort over time) in combination with randomised trials that include intermediate risk factors as outcomes.67 Rigorous control of confounding factors by study design and statistical methods is essential.

If only epidemiological studies were done, then what "rigorous" control could there have been?

The far higher ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids in these plant foods compared with red meat and dairy products predicts lower LDL cholesterol; this prediction was confirmed in a meta-analysis of randomised trials of red meat intake.

And what good does lower LDL do?

As described in the main text, in multiple large cohort studies with careful adjustment for smoking and other potentially confounding variables, participants with diets most consistent with the PHD have had reduced risks of many major health outcomes, including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and total mortality.

"Adjustment" says it all.

This is so insidious.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

"We can't do science to prove what we're saying, so we've made something up instead."

Epidemiology in a nutshell.

If only epidemiological studies were done, then what "rigorous" control could there have been?

Fancier mathematical models where they assume independence for things that are not independent

The far higher ratio of polyunsaturated fatty acids to saturated fatty acids in these plant foods compared with red meat and dairy products predicts lower LDL cholesterol; this prediction was confirmed in a meta-analysis of randomised trials of red meat intake.

And what good does lower LDL do?

Funnily here they are correct, it's just lower LDL has worse health outcomes, especially in insulin sensitive populations

"Adjustment" says it all.

If you don't have a prior bias you are trying to match you don't need to do careful adjustment.

This is so insidious.

Just..like..root..beer