this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2026
6 points (100.0% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

100 readers
40 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 10 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
6
The Problem with Epidemiological Studies - Dr Ede [Article] (www.diagnosisdiet.com)
submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) by jet@hackertalks.com to c/carnivore@discuss.online
1 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Why does nutrition advice seem so confusing, complicated, and controversial? Why are the headlines constantly changing—one day eggs are bad for you, the next day they’re perfectly fine? We are supposed to be the most intelligent creatures on the face of the Earth, and yet we are the only species that can’t seem to figure out what we’re supposed to eat.

The problem is that the lion share of mainstream nutrition advice comes to us not from biochemistry, physiology, or other scientific fields, but rather from the field of nutrition epidemiology, which is not scientific at all. In fact, of all the methods researchers can use to study human nutrition, epidemiology is arguably the least reliable.

top 1 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Calculating risk by applying fancy math to junk data gives the illusion of precision.

Science requires intellectual curiosity, humility, open-mindedness, a willingness to learn from others, the ability to wrestle with facts that don’t fit your beliefs, and the courage to acknowledge the limitations of your hypotheses and your methodologies when they no longer serve your goal. Shouldn’t the goal be the pursuit of knowledge in the service of public health rather than the pursuit of rationalizations in the service of nutrition ideology?