this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2026
12 points (83.3% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

103 readers
5 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Zoë has a PhD in public health nutrition. She struggles to find anything that is being taught in 'conventional' nutritional worlds that is true or evidence based. Hence why she spent 2008-10 writing The Obesity Epidemic - 135,000 words blowing apart: the misapplication of thermodynamics to dieting; the notion that 1lb = 3,500 calories, let alone that a deficit of 3,500 calories will lead to a weight loss of 1lb; the Seven Countries Study and the subsequent change in our diet advice, which has caused the obesity epidemic; the role of exercise in obesity and much more.

generated summary

Definitions and question

  • Veganism excludes meat, fish, eggs, and dairy, leaving grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, and plant oils.[1]
  • Plant-based language is softer than vegan language, while some research definitions include people who occasionally eat meat or fish within vegetarian categories.[2][3][4]
  • About 20 years as a vegetarian, including a vegan period, ended with rejection of the nutritional, animal, and planetary cases for veganism.

Nutrition and evidence

  • Randomized trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses are at the top of the evidence hierarchy.[5][6]
  • A PubMed search for vegan-diet meta-analyses produced 28 results, with three remaining after removal of mismatched designs, diets, and surrogate-marker analyses.[7]
  • The mental-health meta-analysis linked vegetarian or vegan diets with higher depression risk and lower anxiety scores, which is not an endorsement of the diets.[8]
  • The bone meta-analysis found lower femoral-neck and lumbar-spine bone mineral density in vegetarians and vegans, with higher fracture rates in vegans.[9]
  • The type 2 diabetes meta-analysis found better glycemic control with low-carbohydrate, low-glycemic-index, Mediterranean, and high-protein diets, not vegetarian, vegan, or high-fiber diets.[10]
  • The Ornish trial combined a low-fat vegetarian diet with smoking cessation, stress management, aerobic exercise, and psychosocial support, so its coronary improvement cannot be assigned to the diet.[11]
  • The Game Changers erection experiment used three men over two nights, comparing a meat burrito with a plant burrito.[12]
  • The Daily Dozen calculation supplied about 1,364 calories, nearly 70% carbohydrate, 16% fat, and 17% protein, with multiple vitamins, minerals, and animal-form nutrients absent or below the selected targets.[14]
  • A healthy diet supplies essential nutrients without supplementation; a vegan diet requires supplementation and is therefore not healthy.[13][14]

Animals and food production

  • Cattle, pigs, sheep, hens, and domestic cats would not exist in a vegan food system because livestock and carnivorous pets depend on animal agriculture.
  • The Vegetarian Myth links crop production to unavoidable animal deaths: even protecting a lettuce requires excluding or killing slugs.[15]
  • One cow was calculated to provide more than 600,000 calories and feed one person for a year, while the same calories would require about 228 chickens.[16][17][18]
  • Fischer and Lamey's field-death paper is used with an estimate of seven billion animal deaths annually on harvested U.S. cropland, alongside about 40 million cattle and nine billion chickens killed for food.[19]
  • Confining chickens and cattle in sheds or concrete systems is wrong, and removing grazing ruminants is also wrong because they belong on grassland.

Soil and climate

  • Grazing ruminants host microflora, return material to the land, and rejuvenate topsoil; soil-free greenhouse production removes that relationship and requires added carbon dioxide.[20]
  • Rotational systems such as Polyface Farm alternate animals, crops, and rest, while plant-only cultivation continually takes from soil without returning animal fertility.
  • Local food comes from the surrounding land and water: cattle, sheep, dairy, fish, eggs, and seasonal vegetables, not distant imported produce.
  • Humans also generate methane, including methane measured in flatus, so methane production is not unique to cattle.[21]
  • Atmospheric methane is about 1.8 parts per million; the calculations reduce agriculture's share to about 0.44 and enteric fermentation to about 0.3 parts per million.[22][23][24]

Institutions and conclusion

  • The EAT-Lancet diet permits zero animal food while allocating roughly 110 to 120 calories to table sugar.[25]
  • FReSH includes agribusiness, chemical, technology, consultancy, processed-food, retail, pharmaceutical, insect-production, and other large corporate interests.[26]
  • Veganism is rejected because removing livestock threatens topsoil and local food production, then transfers control of food to corporations whose incentive is commercial, not health.

References

  1. [01:24] Food Groups — https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/05/food-groups/
  2. [02:49] Plant based diet propaganda — https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/08/plant-based-diet-propaganda/
  3. [02:49] Plant based diet propaganda – Part 2 — https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/09/plant-based-diet-propaganda-part-2/
  4. [03:20] Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases? — https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.26736K
  5. [05:50] The Levels of Evidence and Their Role in Evidence-Based Medicine — https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e318219c171
  6. [06:09] Primary, Secondary, and Meta-Analysis of Research — https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
  7. [06:53] PubMed search: vegan diet, meta-analysis filter — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=vegan+diet&filter=pubt.meta-analysis&size=50
  8. [07:31] Vegetarianism and veganism compared with mental health and cognitive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis — https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuaa030
  9. [07:58] Veganism, vegetarianism, bone mineral density, and fracture risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis — https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuy045
  10. [08:33] Systematic review and meta-analysis of different dietary approaches to the management of type 2 diabetes — https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.042457
  11. [09:45] Intensive Lifestyle Changes for Reversal of Coronary Heart Disease — https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.23.2001
  12. [10:53] The Game Changers — https://www.netflix.com/title/81157840
  13. [11:59] National Food Strategy – call for evidence — https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2019/10/national-food-strategy-call-for-evidence/
  14. [13:17] Food to help you live longer — https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2018/01/food-to-help-you-live-longer/
  15. [17:29] The Vegetarian Myth – Lierre Keith — https://www.zoeharcombe.com/2011/08/the-vegetarian-myth-lierre-keith/
  16. [19:12] How Many Pounds of Meat Can We Expect From a Beef Animal? — https://beef.unl.edu/beefwatch/2020/how-many-pounds-meat-can-we-expect-beef-animal
  17. [19:18] Beef nutrition data used for the calorie calculation — https://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/beef-products/3669/2
  18. [19:42] Raw Whole Chicken nutrition data — https://www.nutritionix.com/food/raw-whole-chicken
  19. [20:05] Field Deaths in Plant Agriculture — https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-018-9733-8
  20. [22:49] Thanet Earth — https://www.thanetearth.com/
  21. [25:34] Investigation of normal flatus production in healthy volunteers — https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.32.6.665
  22. [26:50] Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases — https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases
  23. [26:55] Methane Tracker 2020 — https://www.iea.org/reports/methane-tracker-2020
  24. [27:03] FAOSTAT Emissions Totals — https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/GT/visualize
  25. [28:42] Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT-Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems — https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31788-4
  26. [29:01] Food Reform for Sustainability and Health — https://eatforum.org/initiatives/fresh/

GPT-5.6 Thinking - high - 2026-07-12 - 2026-07-12

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

What was the argument?

It's in the video! your earlier comment feels like a fast-llm generated what-about-ism, which isn't great for a actual discussion, also just dropping 3 "link" at the bottom doesn't really inform well. Next time ask your LLM to format using lemmy markdown and footnote syntax.

The green house gas argument makes assumptions about inputs into cattle, doesn't account for soil sequestration and ruminants in their natural environment being part of a net neutral biocycle.

Humans will have an impact regardless, but we can do a lot to substantially reduce that impact from where it is currently.

YES! We need to make people healthy, sick people ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. Metabolic heath should be the number one goal, even before 'optimizing' renewable agriculture. There are nearly a billion type 2 diabetes globally.... we have lots of work to do.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works -4 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Saying something is from an LLM isn't an argument of the statements. Maybe good for a new fallacy, the llm fallacy. Just because something is or seems to be llm generated does not itself mean the statement is false or true. You're free to link to something that refutes the environmental impact of meat production. The statements above are pulling from those studies and factual sources. I guess we can go through and start questioning the methodology they used if you want to actually have a discussion.

[–] xep@discuss.online 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

We won't cite studies if you're can't be bothered to write a post, read the studies you'd like to cite for the points you've written yourself, or watch the video in the post that we're supposed to be discussing. There is no useful discussion generated in this way.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Saying something is from an LLM isn’t an argument of the statements.

Look at what you wrote, tell me truly you wrote that from the top of your head in a few minutes? Your statements were already answered in the lecture posted, so you didn't engage with the post or content.

just because something is or seems to be llm generated does not itself mean the statement is false or true.

The point is if your not even involved enough to form your own arguments and read the sources, why should I as a human spend my time looking at your generated output? Anything I say in response you wont read either, just like you didn't give the lecture your time. It's not reasonable to burn human time on machine generated content.

You’re free to link to something that refutes the environmental impact of meat production.

I did, its the lecture this post is about. your welcome.

I guess we can go through and start questioning the methodology they used if you want to actually have a discussion.

With a human, yes, I'd love a discussion with someone who engages in good faith.

[–] Zephyr@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I researched, checked the links to confirm the statements, and edited it myself. If it's not to your preferred diction I can change it for you. I think we can have a discussion about those statements and what you believe in your post refutes them all.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think we can have a discussion about those statements and what you believe in your post refutes them all.

Great, Zoe's lecture addresses it better then I can.