this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
1 points (57.1% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

74 readers
3 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 3 months ago
MODERATORS
pulsejet@discuss.online
jet@hackertalks.com
psud@aussie.zone
xep@fedia.io
remote_debugging@programming.dev
xep@discuss.online
xep@piefed.social
1
The Carnivore Paradox (hackertalks.com)
submitted 1 week ago by jet@hackertalks.com to c/carnivore@discuss.online
17 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It's demonstrated over and over again, that people following a strictly ketogenic lifestyle, especially carnivore, reverse a lot of their metabolic problems, enjoy great health, feel amazing, are at lower risks for cancer....

But..Most conscientious people when discussing carnivore, always add.. "we don't know the long term effects of this diet"

That statement is absolutely true, but it also applies to every other diet as well, we know of deficiencies of certain restrictive diets, but we don't know the long-term benefits of any specific diet. Clean populations who follow only one diet are very rare now.

It's not quite a paradox, but it feels like a paradox, the people promoting carnivore are very detail-oriented and conscientious so they list the restrictions of our knowledge, but everybody else competing for People's health interests don't list the restrictions of knowledge of their diet of choice.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

that animal is only getting about 10% efficiency out of its food.

What came to mind when I read this is a question: how are we getting more efficiency out of eating plants than ruminants are, when they are animals that have expressly developed over eons to do so?

wildly ignorant of the scale of the problem

You shouldn't belittle people on the internet, especially since you don't know me very well at all. But we are civil here, so I'm going to let that pass :)

It’s not possible.

I understand that you think it's not possible.

meat production is 30x more damaging than even the most damaging monoculture plant farms

Even considering usage of pesticides, chemicals, and the loss of topsoil and biodiversity? It is estimated that we only have 90 harvests or so remaining. What happens then?

[–] Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What came to mind when I read this is a question: how are we getting more efficiency out of eating plants than ruminants are, when they are animals that have expressly developed over eons to do so?

We aren't, that's just a general trend in biology. On average, consumers only receive about 10% of the energy that goes into growing the organism they eat. To be clear, I'm not saying the consumer is getting on 10% of the nutrition they eat, but that the amount of energy in the food when it's eaten is only about 10% of the total energy that organism needed to grow.

You shouldn't belittle people on the internet, especially since you don't know me very well at all. But we are civil here, so I'm going to let that pass :)

That's a fair call-out, I'll do better.

Even considering usage of pesticides, chemicals, and the loss of topsoil and biodiversity? It is estimated that we only have 90 harvests or so remaining. What happens then?

All of these things are worse with farming animals. 60% of the cropland in the US goes to feeding cattle. Those cattle proved a tenth of the nutrition that that cropland could produce otherwise. Eliminating cattle farming would double our available cropland and make regenerative farming practices actually possible.

To be clear, I certainly don't think cattle farming needs to be eliminated, it's just not feasible to be such a massive part of our diet.

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

All of these things are worse with farming animals. 60% of the cropland in the US goes to feeding cattle. Those cattle proved a tenth of the nutrition that that cropland could produce otherwise. Eliminating cattle farming would double our available cropland and make regenerative farming practices actually possible.

In the US. Assuming you're from there, and I believe perhaps partially because there are a lot of other things on your mind right now that its common in discussions that Americans assume that what is true in the US is also true in the rest of the world. Perhaps it's a good gentle reminder that it is not always the case.

To be clear, I certainly don’t think cattle farming needs to be eliminated, it’s just not feasible to be such a massive part of our diet.

Yes, eliminating animal husbandry would be a very shortsighted move, indeed. Again, we really should be looking at nutrient density and essential amino acid yields and factoring that into environmental impact.