all meat diet

T

tekkenfan

Banned
Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2017
Messages
6,799
Reaction score
305


saw this doc on the rogan podcast what do you guys think about this
 
i think it's fine if your meat is top quality. humans can adapt to almost everything diet wise.

anyway, why exclude perfectly fine fruit, veggies and other stuff if you live in the first world? it's like saying i only do calisthenics because it's natural bla bla when you also got barbells and a c2 rower in your gym.

this guy made the inuit diet popular 100 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilhjalmur_Stefansson#Low-carbohydrate_diet_of_meat_and_fish

interesting read on cultural variety of diets around the world and the health degeneration through industrial food:

https://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Ph...8&qid=1512719564&sr=8-1&keywords=weston+price

and this is a pretty nerdy book about the evolution of modern strength sports / bodybuilding nutrition, including all meat diets:

https://www.amazon.com/1-Muscle-Smo...F8&qid=1512719655&sr=1-3&keywords=randy+roach
 
Last edited:
This guy is out of his mind; eating nothing but meat is like asking for heart disease, cancer and type II diabetes in the long run. It's also idiotic to ''romanticize'' tribes like the inuits and masai from which we don't have much reliable data and that have a shorter life expectancy. The ''eskimos don't have cvd'' is also an absolute myth that has long been showed to be just that, a myth:

http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(02)00364-7/pdf

http://www.onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(14)00237-2/abstract
 
he claims that veggies an carbs are linked to cancers and we arnt suppose to digest them
 
Excluding key nutrients and fiber seems like a sub optimal way to live.
 
KILL KILL said:
Excluding key nutrients and fiber seems like a sub optimal way to live.
Click to expand...

The rationale sounds convincing, but not sufficient to me. The view is that vitamin C, for example. More C is needed the more glucose a person intakes. So eliminate the need for C by reducing glucose intake.

We've been omnivores since we've been a species, though, so I would take the omnivorous approach.
 
So its basically a keto diet?
 
Yeah, i listened to him and jesus christ, i think rogan knew he was a bullshitter. He kinda kicked him off, abruptly.

When joe asked legitimate questions, i didnt hear any plausible answers. For instance, eating meat means your body absorbs what it needs, leaving you without shitting bricks, literally. That, i was most curious about. He even spoke that when you do eat fibrous veggies and such, you shit it out. That's true. But damn joe, talk about brock and his diverticulitis!

When the podcast moved onto his legality issues, the dr. didnt sound too bright. Now hes living off of savings because he didnt have enough smarts in him to get a lawyer before he wrote a pressured apology.

I would be VERY surprised hes back on.. Mark Sisson was better to listen to.
 
Just imagine the bowel movements of someone who only eats meat.
 
PubliusVentidius said:
eating nothing but meat is like asking for heart disease, cancer and type II diabetes in the long run.
Click to expand...

why do you think that? serious question.

with meat i mean fresh, natural, clean meat from healthy animals and not the industrial garbage.
industrial meat with all it's ingredients from hormones, drugs and preservatives should give you more cancer, i can believe that.

say you are a hunter in alaska or some other remote area and you consume game meat or fish.
what heart disease, why cancer and why type II diabetes?
 
corpse said:
why do you think that? serious question.
Click to expand...

There is no small amount of epidemiological data that supports that idea, with a mechanism that iron intake is at least one contributing parameter.


corpse said:
why do you think that? serious question.

with meat i mean fresh, natural, clean meat from healthy animals and not the industrial garbage.
industrial meat with all it's ingredients from hormones, drugs and preservatives should give you more cancer, i can believe that.
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity are you on the TRT train?
 
therealdope said:
There is no small amount of epidemiological data that supports that idea, with a mechanism that iron intake is at least one contributing parameter.





Just out of curiosity are you on the TRT train?
Click to expand...


not at all. i am from germany and TRT is no topic here.
i eat pretty average. i am not paleo, low carber or vegan or whatever.
i eat meat maybe 4 times a week and just try to avoid processed garbage.

and this epidemiological data you talking about is the thing i think needs more analysis.
after the last red meat alert i tried to research the real numbers of said data and all i could find was some risk misinformation from the WHO and fearmongers of big newspapers who jump on every alert they can find.

i think the last big news came from a british study and a british doctor who actually can read studies and the relevant conclusions brought up that the numbers were not dangerous at all, just slightly increased due to an also occuring decline with health conditions triggered by adipositas and less exercise in populations with lower education.

i actually studied sociology and i took part in creating studies and analyzing their results so i know how tweaked and colored and simply unplausible the conclusions can be if the wrong people just want a shocking and new and good selling "fact" which in reality is just a mild variance from the average. somebody needs to pay for studies and most of the time the people who pay have a result they like to see.

a lot of people just act like meat is per se carcinogenic, heart wrecking and diabetes making evil stuff. and i think this is not true. a lot of these studies never mention the constraints of the life styles of people who develop colon cancer or the different qualitiy of your meat sources, for example. at the end you have a news reporter who needs drama.

people act like eating meat is like smoking cigarettes.

sorry for my grammar. i am not that fluent in writing english.
i hope you got my point.

p.s i don't want to start a big discussion here. i just don't hink meat is a more dangerous part of our nutrition than the normal other stuff we consume in industrial countries on a daily basis. i don't think an all meat diet is an optimal way of nutrition. but i think meat doesn't produce more cancer than mass produced eggs or milk, candy or even veggies.
 
Last edited:
corpse said:
why do you think that? serious question.

with meat i mean fresh, natural, clean meat from healthy animals and not the industrial garbage.
industrial meat with all it's ingredients from hormones, drugs and preservatives should give you more cancer, i can believe that.

say you are a hunter in alaska or some other remote area and you consume game meat or fish.
what heart disease, why cancer and why type II diabetes?
Click to expand...

Cancer = The carcinogens present in meat are there regardless if it's industry farmed or free range, some are the byproducts of cooking the meat (heterocyclic amines, which may increase the risk of breast, colon, lung, pancreatic and prostate cancer). Also, heme iron is linked to colorectal cancer:

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet#q3

http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/2/177

Red meat is classified as a Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans), while Processed Meat is classified as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans) by the IARC.

Heart disease = High intake of saturated fats and high cholesterol = atherosclerosis and cvd. Do not listen to the paleo broscience tards trying to tell you otherwise. The relationship is accepted as causal by all the major health organizations around the world.
 
PubliusVentidius said:
Red meat is classified as a Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans), while Processed Meat is classified as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans) by the IARC.

Heart disease = High intake of saturated fats and high cholesterol = atherosclerosis and cvd. Do not listen to the paleo broscience tards trying to tell you otherwise. The relationship is accepted as causal by all the major health organizations around the world.
Click to expand...

Fuck this. I listened to a couple of Joe Rogan's guests and they say this is all bullshit.

And BTW salt is good for you.
 
Last edited:
A lot of those guests are actual scientists though. Rhonda Patrick for example.

therealdope said:
Fuck this. I listened to a couple of Joe Rogan's guests and they say this is all bullshit.

And BTW salt is good for you.
Click to expand...
 
WandySaku2 said:
A lot of those guests are actual scientists though. Rhonda Patrick for example.
Click to expand...
*ahem* Dr Ronda Patrick. She didn’t spend four years in huckster medical school to be called Ms Patrick.
 
PubliusVentidius said:
Cancer = The carcinogens present in meat are there regardless if it's industry farmed or free range, some are the byproducts of cooking the meat (heterocyclic amines, which may increase the risk of breast, colon, lung, pancreatic and prostate cancer). Also, heme iron is linked to colorectal cancer:

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/cooked-meats-fact-sheet#q3

http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/2/177

Red meat is classified as a Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans), while Processed Meat is classified as Group 1 (carcinogenic to humans) by the IARC.

Heart disease = High intake of saturated fats and high cholesterol = atherosclerosis and cvd. Do not listen to the paleo broscience tards trying to tell you otherwise. The relationship is accepted as causal by all the major health organizations around the world.
Click to expand...

i see your point. just out of interest what other food products (processed) are classified group 1 by the iarc?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,928
Messages
55,455,498
Members
174,786
Latest member
Gladiator47

Share this page

Back
Top