About to embark on a 30-day trial of meat and water

[Jimmy Higgins]

Processed meats means bologna, hot dogs, water and chemical saturated ham and turkey, sausage, peperoni, salami. Sugars, bad fats, calories, and little nutritional value.

Whole beef has a high nutrient density. You only need a few supplemental foods to stay healthy. Some corn, potatoes, beans, and rice. You need fiber.

I need fiber? Why am I healthy and regular without eating any fiber for a year and a half?

Anecdotal much? Besides, who says you are "healthy"? People who got cancer felt healthy too.

And not eating any of those "supplemental foods" either?

Beans and vegetables aren't exactly supplemental foods. Humans evolved eating it as part of the omnivore diet. Grains are typically overconsumed these days.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Added fiber works for some people. If a person needs fiber it seems better to eat the foods that have fiber, and not use fiber supplements. But that's just me.

I guess, but my point is that needing fiber is tied to eating foods that spike blood sugar.

As a side note, you aren't remotely an authority on the subject, so you shouldn't be talking like one, especially on an anecdotal basis.

There isn't a natural human requirement for fiber anymore than there is one for insulin injections, which some people also need because of their diet and genetic factors.

Some people can't digest sugar properly... even from childhood (Type 1 Diabetes).

 

[PyramidHead]

Anecdotal much? Besides, who says you are "healthy"? People who got cancer felt healthy too.

And not eating any of those "supplemental foods" either?

Beans and vegetables aren't exactly supplemental foods. Humans evolved eating it as part of the omnivore diet. Grains are typically overconsumed these days.

Beans and vegetables are supplemental in that they are not essential for human health, as evidenced by the long periods of our history where they would have been virtually unobtainable (ice ages, droughts, and any period before the varieties we prefer were intentionally cross-bred into existence by farmers) and the existence of people who today do not consume any and seem fine. In terms of caloric intake and nutrient density, it would be very strange if there were critical components for human survival to be found in a food source that wasn't readily available all year round in all parts of the world that we evolved in, or somehow were only required by a random subset of the population that didn't die out as a result sometime in the past 100,000 years.

If you want to talk about anecdotes versus data, show me data that says humans need to eat plants to be healthy. Such a study would examine two sets of people, one that consumed fruits, vegetables, and grains and the other that did not. To my knowledge no such study exists, and since the appearance of large quantities of plant matter in human diets is relatively recent compared to how long our metabolism has functioned the way it does today, I think the burden should be to demonstrate that they are a requirement.

I guess if I were the only person to ever eat this way, it would be one thing. But if you look at the reports of people who have done this for years or decades, they are certainly healthier than the average American consuming the standard western diet. I'm not making the larger claim that this is the only way to get healthy, I'm just disputing the claim that says it should be impossible or even unlikely. I'm open to the possibility that my body is lying to me, and I'm actually headed for a major cardiac event or nutritional deficiency despite having none of the symptoms or outward signs of those things. I have to imagine that a serious medical problem brought on by chronic over-consumption of something bad or under-consumption of something necessary would have manifested itself in some tangible sense for me by now. It's hard to have an unhealthy diet and not notice anything different, don't you think?

Cancer can fly under the radar until it takes root somewhere important, but people who eat badly usually have obvious signs, either in the way they look or the way they feel. Pale skin, bad teeth, low energy, shortness of breath, hair falling out, pain after eating, trouble on the toilet, trouble in the bedroom, something's gotta give. Until bloodwork tells me otherwise, I'm taking the evidence of having detected zero of these problems as a sign that I'm not doing anything unsustainable. But everybody's different, and it's only been a year and a half.

 

[steve_bank]

Processed meats means bologna, hot dogs, water and chemical saturated ham and turkey, sausage, peperoni, salami. Sugars, bad fats, calories, and little nutritional value.

Whole beef has a high nutrient density. You only need a few supplemental foods to stay healthy. Some corn, potatoes, beans, and rice. You need fiber.

I need fiber? Why am I healthy and regular without eating any fiber for a year and a half? And not eating any of those "supplemental foods" either?

Statistically low fiber high meat diet correlates to colon cancer. Got that from a doctor during my colonoscopy last year. Our digestive system can process meat but it is not designed like true carnivores. Meat takes a long time to digest for us. Carnivores process it more quickly.

You can look up what fiver does.

 

[steve_bank]

Through trial and error over thousands of years people learned through trial and error what provided nutrition.

Potatoes as a staple. Brown rice, beans, and corn can provide close to a complete protein equivalent to meat. That is why when you look at traditional say Mexican or Asian diets it is vegetables, beans, and rice with a small amount of animal protein. Eggs. Tofu is sometimes called 'boneless meat'.

 

[PyramidHead]

Through trial and error over thousands of years people learned through trial and error what provided nutrition.

Potatoes as a staple. Brown rice, beans, and corn can provide close to a complete protein equivalent to meat. That is why when you look at traditional say Mexican or Asian diets it is vegetables, beans, and rice with a small amount of animal protein. Eggs. Tofu is sometimes called 'boneless meat'.

Traditional is not the same as natural or evolved, as traditional diets are usually much, much, much more recent developments than the physiology of our digestive tracts. Basically anything after the agricultural revolution is a departure from the way we sustained ourselves for the majority of our time as a species. Traditional diets were based around generating a surplus, not around what their bodies required, and before modern farming practices and global transportation systems it wasn't possible to eat meat all year round without hunting it and following the herds. Agriculture let people stay put, but to do that we had to give up a lot of the meat we used to eat almost exclusively. It was possible to do because our bodies are adaptable, but it didn't change our underlying metabolism.

The reason meat takes longer to digest is because every part of it is digested, which is because every part of it is healthy. Corn would take just as long to digest if we ate more than 10% of the plant.

 

[PyramidHead]

Processed meats means bologna, hot dogs, water and chemical saturated ham and turkey, sausage, peperoni, salami. Sugars, bad fats, calories, and little nutritional value.

Whole beef has a high nutrient density. You only need a few supplemental foods to stay healthy. Some corn, potatoes, beans, and rice. You need fiber.

I need fiber? Why am I healthy and regular without eating any fiber for a year and a half? And not eating any of those "supplemental foods" either?

Statistically low fiber high meat diet correlates to colon cancer. Got that from a doctor during my colonoscopy last year.

Did these statistics discriminate between the "low fiber high meat" diets of someone who eats a lot of carbohydrates in addition to the meat and someone who doesn't eat any carbohydrates at all?

 

[southernhybrid]

I really don't care what you eat PH, but let me correct a couple of things. The onset of Type I Diabetes has nothing to do with diet. It usually starts in child hood and likely has a genetic component. It's a disease of the pancreas. In Type I, the pancreas puts out no insulin at all, so injections or a pump are necessary for survival. Type II diabetes is often related to obesity, which of course is related to diet, or over eating, but there can be other factors. How we eat isn't the only reason why a pancreas sometimes doesn't produce enough insulin to survive. And, most people who have Type II Diabetes don't require insulin. They require mostly oral drugs that help the pancreas produce more insulin. Some can be maintained simply be limiting carbs, and calories, and losing weight.

As far as fiber goes, there have been many studies that support it's value. And, if you want to look at it from a historical perspective, hunter gatherers eat/ate a lot of high fiber foods from natural plant sources, and they probably ate the intestines and stomachs of the animals that they hunted. Those organs contain plant sources as well. So, I think that fiber has always been a part of a well balanced human diet. But, like roaches and rats, humans seem to be able to survive for a long time on a wide variety of diets. Roaches can get by on the glue that binds books, and Brooklyn rats can probably survive on pizza. Humans have survived with an enormous variation in diets from culture to culture. Most nutritionists seem to promote the Mediterranean diet. But, maybe there is no best diet for all of us.

It's good to hear that you are feeling well. Perhaps you are among a small percentage of individuals that can remain healthy on an all meat diet. It would never work for me. But, I'm not sure that doing well for one year means that in ten years, assuming you remain on this regimen that long, you will remain healthy. Regardless, I hope you will remain healthy if this is the way you prefer to eat.

 

[steve_bank]

Statistically low fiber high meat diet correlates to colon cancer. Got that from a doctor during my colonoscopy last year.

Did these statistics discriminate between the "low fiber high meat" diets of someone who eats a lot of carbohydrates in addition to the meat and someone who doesn't eat any carbohydrates at all?

I do not know. It would be difficult to precisely isolate variables.

Japan used to have a low cardio vascular disease rate, not anymore if that tells you anything.

It is not just bowel movements. Fiber is required for healthy gut bacteria, and fiber attaches or binds with harmful by products. Problems can take 10-30 years to manifest. Talk to a doctor or look up fiber, probably a wiki page.

I can tell you from people I have known recently colon cancer is brutal once it metastases. There are people who smoke and live tilltheir90s without cancer or lung disease, that is the exception.

The color and consistency of stool is a health indicator. You can look that up too.

I have vbeen through all this after I went through heart failure.

During my decline I had a steak dinner at my favorite restaurant several times a week. If I did that now I'd get sick. Nothing wrong with my gut but once I was off a lot of meat I felt better overall and too much ma eat put me into low gear for 24 hours. Meat is hard to digest and takes extra stomach acid. Your body adjusts over time. I eat meat and a burger once in a while, but I prefer fish and vegetables. Rice and beans.

I believe meat is the Atkins diet.

 

[steve_bank]

Through trial and error over thousands of years people learned through trial and error what provided nutrition.

Potatoes as a staple. Brown rice, beans, and corn can provide close to a complete protein equivalent to meat. That is why when you look at traditional say Mexican or Asian diets it is vegetables, beans, and rice with a small amount of animal protein. Eggs. Tofu is sometimes called 'boneless meat'.

Traditional is not the same as natural or evolved, as traditional diets are usually much, much, much more recent developments than the physiology of our digestive tracts. Basically anything after the agricultural revolution is a departure from the way we sustained ourselves for the majority of our time as a species. Traditional diets were based around generating a surplus, not around what their bodies required, and before modern farming practices and global transportation systems it wasn't possible to eat meat all year round without hunting it and following the herds. Agriculture let people stay put, but to do that we had to give up a lot of the meat we used to eat almost exclusively. It was possible to do because our bodies are adaptable, but it didn't change our underlying metabolism.

The reason meat takes longer to digest is because every part of it is digested, which is because every part of it is healthy. Corn would take just as long to digest if we ate more than 10% of the plant.

I disagree. Meat as a daily food for the masses began in the 19th century with large scale ranching and trains. I believe MacDonalds gets a lot of beef from Argentina. In the 50s-60s when I grew up a big meat meal was once a week. Fast food burgers were an occasional treat. We are omnivores not carnivores.

Natural selection over the last 1000-2000 years probably was at work. Those who lived better on domesticated plants survived better.


I am not debating your choice. It is up to you.
Today diet can be adjusted based on genetic testing. Different people actually process foods differently. Some may not process iron from leafy greens as well others depending on genes.

 

[steve_bank]

https://www.digestivecenterforwellness.com/
I listened to several prentations on PBS on nutrition. Ceredentialed doctors with practces using nutrition to treat medical conditions.

I folioed up with what is on the net. Nutrition is linked to chronic illness, but we sort of new that already.

Vitamin A, D, and C deficiencies and calcium deficiencies have well known effects. A and D have been added to milk for a long time.

In Asia Beriberi is treated with whole grain rice. White rice has little nutritional value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiamine_deficiency

Thiamine deficiency is rare in the United States.[8] It remains relatively common in sub-Saharan Africa.[2] Outbreaks have been seen in refugee camps.[4] Thiamine deficiency has been described for thousands of years in Asia and became more common in the late 1800s with the increased processing of rice

Nutrition can be linked to depression and anxiety, auto immune problems, and others. It can be linked to edema.

The health of gut flora can be reflected in general health.

The shows do not reject red meat, but recommend moderation. You do not need a lot. There is also the issue of antibiotics and growth hormones in meat.

I generally have a vegetable mix every day. Zucchini, squash, carrots, leafy greens, tomatoes, cucumber, celery, peppers and onions. I have an apple, oranges, or banana in the afternoon and at night.

Craving I had for junk food and food in general is gone. I can have a meal and it is done. I feel good through the morning or afternoon without any need for snacks other than a piece of fruit. I'll cut up an apple and eat it during the day.

Along with that eggs, canned salmon, pork, chicken, and red meat. In moderation. My preference is fish.

When I eat right I get a good feeling in the belly that seems to radiate through my body. When I get off track I don't feel as good. If I get too far off I feel like crap.

I went through the cycles a number of times. I tried lacto-ovo vegetarian but it did not work for me. I needed some meat to feel good.

Even with a multivitamins without fruit and vegetables I will not feel right.

If I am in the groove I get up around six and work out for an hour and stay active all day until I go to bed.

That's my story such as it is.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I guess if I were the only person to ever eat this way, it would be one thing. But if you look at the reports of people who have done this for years or decades, they are certainly healthier than the average American consuming the standard western diet.

The standard western diet is quite unhealthy, as any informed person understands. Is anyone here advocating for the standard western diet?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As a side note, you aren't remotely an authority on the subject, so you shouldn't be talking like one, especially on an anecdotal basis.

There isn't a natural human requirement for fiber anymore than there is one for insulin injections, which some people also need because of their diet and genetic factors.

Some people can't digest sugar properly... even from childhood (Type 1 Diabetes).

Nitpick--diabetics have no problem digesting sugar. They have a problem metabolizing it.

 

[PyramidHead]

I guess if I were the only person to ever eat this way, it would be one thing. But if you look at the reports of people who have done this for years or decades, they are certainly healthier than the average American consuming the standard western diet.

The standard western diet is quite unhealthy, as any informed person understands. Is anyone here advocating for the standard western diet?

No, but there are probably many people who would consider my diet less healthy than the standard one, for all the usual reasons (cholesterol, fiber, vitamins). We have a cultural fixation with the "mixed" because let's face it, variety is fun and there are lots of delicious things made out of stuff that grows from the dirt. Beyond that, however, I don't see any evidence that all diets should strive for variety; certainly some would benefit from it, of course.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I guess if I were the only person to ever eat this way, it would be one thing. But if you look at the reports of people who have done this for years or decades, they are certainly healthier than the average American consuming the standard western diet.

The standard western diet is quite unhealthy, as any informed person understands. Is anyone here advocating for the standard western diet?

No, but there are probably many people who would consider my diet less healthy than the standard one, for all the usual reasons (cholesterol, fiber, vitamins). We have a cultural fixation with the "mixed" because let's face it, variety is fun and there are lots of delicious things made out of stuff that grows from the dirt. Beyond that, however, I don't see any evidence that all diets should strive for variety; certainly some would benefit from it, of course.

I think whatever works for the individual is good. I also think people can have wonderful lives and pass on at 60, not 80, whether due to plant or animal subsistence. If either yields a healthy happy life, even if more brief, who's to argue really.

You mentioned that our ancestors survived ice ages and had to subsist on animals because plants were scarce. This is perhaps true in Europe but do you think it holds in warmer regions? Do you think people in the fertile crescent and more southerly environs were not eating plants? All our evolutionary near cousins subsist mainly on plants. Do you think they were once carnivorous primarily?

Also, consider the European event and ice ages. If our ancestors were living on animals the animals had to be eating plants at some basic level because that is the foundation of the food chain. So plants had to still be around to sustain those populations of animals. I don't think everyone became like eskimos or is that your contention? Does it not make sense to suppose that our ancestors migrated to where game and plants were more abundant, away from ice sheets? That would be my guess. And if they did they had plants to eat despite ice age conditions. Wherever there was game there had to be plants.

 

[PyramidHead]

No, but there are probably many people who would consider my diet less healthy than the standard one, for all the usual reasons (cholesterol, fiber, vitamins). We have a cultural fixation with the "mixed" because let's face it, variety is fun and there are lots of delicious things made out of stuff that grows from the dirt. Beyond that, however, I don't see any evidence that all diets should strive for variety; certainly some would benefit from it, of course.

I think whatever works for the individual is good. I also think people can have wonderful lives and pass on at 60, not 80, whether due to plant or animal subsistence. If either yields a healthy happy life, even if more brief, who's to argue really.

You mentioned that our ancestors survived ice ages and had to subsist on animals because plants were scarce. This is perhaps true in Europe but do you think it holds in warmer regions? Do you think people in the fertile crescent and more southerly environs were not eating plants? All our evolutionary near cousins subsist mainly on plants. Do you think they were once carnivorous primarily?

I think that if humans living in one part of the world can do it, all humans can do it, even if they chose not to. That's all I was trying to argue.

Also, consider the European event and ice ages. If our ancestors were living on animals the animals had to be eating plants at some basic level because that is the foundation of the food chain. So plants had to still be around to sustain those populations of animals. I don't think everyone became like eskimos or is that your contention? Does it not make sense to suppose that our ancestors migrated to where game and plants were more abundant, away from ice sheets? That would be my guess. And if they did they had plants to eat despite ice age conditions. Wherever there was game there had to be plants.

Of course the game had to eat plants. But that's the beauty of meat: it takes nutrients that are inaccessible to humans and transforms them into nutrients we can fully absorb. My point was that in regions (or during centuries!) of scarce plant content, the only species that could get any sustenance directly from the plants would have been herbivores, which were then eaten by humans who were themselves unable to get much benefit from the same plants. If that was unfeasible or led to a shorter life or chronic health complications, we wouldn't be here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I guess if I were the only person to ever eat this way, it would be one thing. But if you look at the reports of people who have done this for years or decades, they are certainly healthier than the average American consuming the standard western diet.

The standard western diet is quite unhealthy, as any informed person understands. Is anyone here advocating for the standard western diet?

No, but there are probably many people who would consider my diet less healthy than the standard one, for all the usual reasons (cholesterol, fiber, vitamins). We have a cultural fixation with the "mixed" because let's face it, variety is fun and there are lots of delicious things made out of stuff that grows from the dirt. Beyond that, however, I don't see any evidence that all diets should strive for variety; certainly some would benefit from it, of course.

Variety makes it a lot easier to ensure you're not missing something important in your diet.

 

[J842P]

Generally, my feeling is, if you are eating the whole animal (and not just steaks), you'll be perfectly fine eating a carnivorous diet.

That being said, research on so-called "Blue Zones", places where people regularly live passed 100 years old and have relatively low rates of chronic health conditions and cancer, tend to find that their diets are vegetarian or minimize animal products.

Again, all that being said, I suspect eating a fully carnivorous diet (including organ meats etc) then you'll likely much healthier than your average industrialized individual, even if it is perhaps not the global maximum in the diet-health landscape.

Note, two under-appreciated findings of these Blue Zones are that they all have very cohesive social structures (lack of friends and family is unhealthy) and their lives involve daily moderately strenuous activity (i.e. not running 10 miles every day, but your daily life includes exertion, e.g. daily chores, yardwork, etc).

And low alcohol/tobacco consumption.


I'm basically fucked, and I pretty much have to bank on regenerative medicine.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Generally, my feeling is, if you are eating the whole animal (and not just steaks), you'll be perfectly fine eating a carnivorous diet.

That being said, research on so-called "Blue Zones", places where people regularly live passed 100 years old and have relatively low rates of chronic health conditions and cancer, tend to find that their diets are vegetarian or minimize animal products.

Again, all that being said, I suspect eating a fully carnivorous diet (including organ meats etc) then you'll likely much healthier than your average industrialized individual, even if it is perhaps not the global maximum in the diet-health landscape.

Note, two under-appreciated findings of these Blue Zones are that they all have very cohesive social structures (lack of friends and family is unhealthy) and their lives involve daily moderately strenuous activity (i.e. not running 10 miles every day, but your daily life includes exertion, e.g. daily chores, yardwork, etc).

And low alcohol/tobacco consumption.


I'm basically fucked, and I pretty much have to bank on regenerative medicine.

Very likely exercise, including strenuous events that maintain both bone and muscle, along with proper diet have a synergistic health benefit. Neither alone is the best tonic. My sister has osteoporosis so the doc told her to get to the gym and do some strenuous exercise, lift some heavy things, exercises that will maintain the bone. Her diet is excellent but alone not enough to preserve her vitality.

 

[Treedbear]

Day 477.
...
So what do I eat, now that I've settled into a rhythm? Well, I tend towards beef that has been sustainably raised and preferably grass-fed, followed by eggs and sometimes cheese. I prefer the fatty cuts, and fry everything in high-quality ghee in a cast iron pan to get a nice sear; the inside is usually very rare, as it preserves the nutrients and tastes amazing. For ground beef, I use a sous vide immersion circulator to get burger patties to a temperature of 140F and kill any bacteria while still leaving it moist and flavorful, then quickly sear the top and bottom and eat with eggs and a slice of cheese. I can eat delicious burgers and eggs every single meal for weeks and live incredibly cheaply, but I haven't needed to cut back to that degree. It's just good to know that I can, in case I ever need to.
...

So the important question is from the point of view of a true carnivore what do you think of sous vide cooking? Does it take a long time to cook and does it noticeably enhance the flavor of meats? Do you use marinades? IMWTK