[supperburg]

These are extremely valid points. Even Shawn baker doesn’t like the fact that Paul directly profits from promoting carnivore.

It’s funny you say there’s a lot of evidence showing LDL is bad etc, ok then show me the randomized interventional study regarding animal fat. Regarding carnivore. You can’t and so whenever you say “there’s lots of evidence” you also have to say “but it’s still unproven.” And yes, there is a difference between me and people who deny gravity or global warming because in my case, the study is absolutely trivial to perform! But it never happens because the academic community refuses to put people in (hypothetical!) danger by feeding them animal fat. It would be immoral and most importantly very unfashionable to perform a study like that.

Here’s the rub: nobody I know or have seen has experienced a decline in their health from carnivore. There’s no hard evidence that it’s bad for you. That guy from the grateful dead did it for 40 years and never had a heart problem. I want a randomized controlled and interventional study that simply shows us what difference it makes to be carnivore rather than something else. I will happily shut up forever if we did that and I was wrong.

[PragmaticPulp]

> Here’s the rub: nobody I know or have seen has experienced a decline in their health from carnivore. There’s no hard evidence that it’s bad for you.

Carnivore Diet wasn't really a thing until about 2018, aside from scattered anecdotes ( https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=c... )

Heart disease develops over decades.

It's very disingenuous to declare that "there's no hard evidence that it's bad for you" when the vast majority of experimenters have barely been doing this for about 3-4% of their expected lifespan.

[supperburg]

How dare you call me disingenuous?

And I disagree anyway. Heart disease might take a long time but your CAC score wouldn’t stay 0 for a long time. Two years in two cases and CAC of zero. That’s not anecdotal, that’s two clearly measured examples of something that shouldn’t exist under the current model. And you continue to keep your head in the sand. All you have to do is openly support some kind of real interventional study. Not agree with me, but just acknowledge that fact that it isn’t settled and that something so fundamental should be settled. The study will cost a pittance. So are you in favor of that or not?

[nradov]

The carnivore diet was a thing for the Comanche people for centuries until they were massacred and confined to reservations. We obviously don't have data on their rates of heart disease but overall they were healthier than others living at the same time.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/05/010529071125.h...

(I'm not recommending that anyone eat a carnivore diet, just pointing out that it's hardly novel.)