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

[rousseau]

I've researched diet pretty extensively, and have a degree in the medical sciences, and from all that I'd point out a few things:

1) The body isn't optimized for longevity, it's optimized to ensure we have kids
2) Leading causes of death are heart disease and cancer, and so to optimize for longevity we need to improve cardiovascular health and minimize the carcinogens we're exposed to

The first point is important to keep in mind because it is true that the body usually functions it's best when meat is included in our diet. Of course, veganism can be done, but for most people going that far is either unrealistic or undesirable. So in practice we have people using meat as a tool to help them live their lives more effectively, and as long as they get to the point where they produce kids, success has been achieved as far as evolution is concerned.

If your goal is longevity however, it's important to keep in mind that our major, early failure points are the cardiovascular system, and mutations in our DNA. This is where both loading up on foods that aren't energy dense (read: plants), and relatively free of carcinogens (read: plants), is beneficial.

This also applies to simple carbohydrates which can lead to the build up of fat and arterial plaque. I really don't understand the hatred toward complex carbohydrates demonstrated in this thread, and am yet to see any evidence that including them in your diet will cause any problems.

Obviously another huge part of cardiovascular health is keeping the body strong via regular cardio/muscular training.

And that is my two cents. I'm not holding myself to my own standard because the above understanding comes from months and months of research on Google Scholar, and I don't possibly have the time (nor do I care) to track down articles to prove my point. But Pyramidhead if you're going to reply and claim that I'm wrong, please provide sources or I likely won't reply.

 

[J842P]

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

Sous vide is a great marketing term, it sounds much better than "boiled in a plastic bag".

 

[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

Sous vide is a great marketing term, it sounds much better than "boiled in a plastic bag".

I've heard that if you like medium rare you get 100% medium rare rather just in the center with it kind of gray around the outside. Actually it is a misnomer since it's not done in a vacuum anymore. These days it's done sans vide.

 

[rousseau]

Sous vide is a great marketing term, it sounds much better than "boiled in a plastic bag".

I've heard that if you like medium rare you get 100% medium rare rather just in the center with it kind of gray around the outside. Actually it is a misnomer since it's not done in a vacuum anymore. These days it's done sans vide.

Sous vide is a way to cook meat with precision, so yea it provides good results.

 

[PyramidHead]

If your goal is longevity however, it's important to keep in mind that our major, early failure points are the cardiovascular system, and mutations in our DNA. This is where both loading up on foods that aren't energy dense (read: plants), and relatively free of carcinogens (read: plants), is beneficial.

This doesn't seem to contradict the stance I'm taking, unless there is the added statement that meat is high in carcinogens. There are some ways of preparing meat that increase its carcinogenic content, but I'm not aware of any evidence of there being anything in the meat itself that causes cancer. Do you know of any?

As for the energy density, I must admit I'm not grasping whatever point is being made. Is there a connection between energy-dense foods and cardiovascular failure early in life?

 

[PyramidHead]

Sous vide is a great marketing term, it sounds much better than "boiled in a plastic bag".

I've heard that if you like medium rare you get 100% medium rare rather just in the center with it kind of gray around the outside. Actually it is a misnomer since it's not done in a vacuum anymore. These days it's done sans vide.

Sous vide is a way to cook meat with precision, so yea it provides good results.

For steaks, I still prefer them seared on the outside and basically raw (or however cooked they get from the brief searing) inside. This also preserves the majority of the nutrients. Honestly, I like the taste of really rare burgers better than sous vide as well, but it's not always safe to eat. With sous vide burgers, you can get rid of any microbes without charring the whole thing, at least. The end product kind of has an internal texture like a soft meatloaf, which is nice against a crispy outer crust from the grill or a pan.

I do have a vacuum sealer, so part of the sous vide process at least involves a vacuum. It tends to squash burgers flat, though, so I usually just use a Ziploc bag for ground beef and save the sealer for steaks and fish.

 

[bilby]

If your goal is longevity however, it's important to keep in mind that our major, early failure points are the cardiovascular system, and mutations in our DNA. This is where both loading up on foods that aren't energy dense (read: plants), and relatively free of carcinogens (read: plants), is beneficial.

This doesn't seem to contradict the stance I'm taking, unless there is the added statement that meat is high in carcinogens. There are some ways of preparing meat that increase its carcinogenic content, but I'm not aware of any evidence of there being anything in the meat itself that causes cancer. Do you know of any?

As for the energy density, I must admit I'm not grasping whatever point is being made. Is there a connection between energy-dense foods and cardiovascular failure early in life?

The astonishingly broad claim 'plants are relatively free of carcinogens' strikes me as nonsense. It's not made significantly less absurd if you add the qualifier 'edible' - 'edible plants relatively free of carcinogens' isn't generally true either.

Quite a lot of edible plants are significantly more radioactive than other plants, or than animals (bananas spring to mind); And the range of carcinogenic chemicals in edible plants is huge and variable. For pretty much any foodstuff, you can find both studies showing increased cancer, and those showing decreased cancer. No common foods are sufficiently carcinogenic to be worried about.



Does eating beef increase cancer risk? According to the above, it would be brave to go further than 'probably'.

Does eating beef present a greater cancer risk than eating corn? From the above, I would say 'probably not' - The problem is that neither of these foods shows a reliable link to increased cancer that lifts them above the other sources of variability in cancer rates across the human population.

And if you focus on a single type of cancer, the problem of teasing out any signal from the noise gets even worse - because most cancers are rare, so you need a huge test population before you get enough people with cancer in that population to make significant claims.

There are a handful of things we are exposed to that are sufficiently carcinogenic to be unequivocally dangerous. Tobacco; alcohol; large acute doses of ionising radiation; direct sunlight; methylating agents. Anything else? It's probably carcinogenic, but you probably needn't worry about it - it's a waste of life to spend 95 years avoiding beef, just so you can die of liver cancer at 96 instead of colon cancer at 95.

 

[rousseau]

If your goal is longevity however, it's important to keep in mind that our major, early failure points are the cardiovascular system, and mutations in our DNA. This is where both loading up on foods that aren't energy dense (read: plants), and relatively free of carcinogens (read: plants), is beneficial.

This doesn't seem to contradict the stance I'm taking, unless there is the added statement that meat is high in carcinogens. There are some ways of preparing meat that increase its carcinogenic content, but I'm not aware of any evidence of there being anything in the meat itself that causes cancer. Do you know of any?

As for the energy density, I must admit I'm not grasping whatever point is being made. Is there a connection between energy-dense foods and cardiovascular failure early in life?

Cardiovascular disease is a function of obesity, and obesity is a function of consuming too many calories. Energy dense foods aren't bad in of themselves, but it's a lot easier to maintain a healthy weight when 80% of your diet is plants, and even easier when it's 100%. Which is why I suspect you see produce rich diets resulting in longer lives.

In theory a healthy weight can be achieved via lean-meats, as seems to be the case for you, although a diet high in produce seems a bit more practical to me.

The link with carcinogens I'm less clear about, but I suspect it's mostly processed and red meat that should be minimized.

 

[rousseau]

There are a handful of things we are exposed to that are sufficiently carcinogenic to be unequivocally dangerous. Tobacco; alcohol; large acute doses of ionising radiation; direct sunlight; methylating agents. Anything else? It's probably carcinogenic, but you probably needn't worry about it - it's a waste of life to spend 95 years avoiding beef, just so you can die of liver cancer at 96 instead of colon cancer at 95.

I don't disagree. Meat as a carcinogen probably isn't something to be overly worried about, although my wife and I do try to limit red and processed meat where we can.

Moreover, a healthy diet should be one that's balanced and sane. Eating red meat isn't a big deal, but eating it 12 times a week might cause some minor risks. In the same way that having a can of Coke isn't a big deal, but having three of them a day might not be wise.

 

[J842P]

If your goal is longevity however, it's important to keep in mind that our major, early failure points are the cardiovascular system, and mutations in our DNA. This is where both loading up on foods that aren't energy dense (read: plants), and relatively free of carcinogens (read: plants), is beneficial.

This doesn't seem to contradict the stance I'm taking, unless there is the added statement that meat is high in carcinogens. There are some ways of preparing meat that increase its carcinogenic content, but I'm not aware of any evidence of there being anything in the meat itself that causes cancer. Do you know of any?

As for the energy density, I must admit I'm not grasping whatever point is being made. Is there a connection between energy-dense foods and cardiovascular failure early in life?

Cardiovascular disease is a function of obesity, and obesity is a function of consuming too many calories. Energy dense foods aren't bad in of themselves, but it's a lot easier to maintain a healthy weight when 80% of your diet is plants, and even easier when it's 100%. Which is why I suspect you see produce rich diets resulting in longer lives.

In theory a healthy weight can be achieved via lean-meats, as seems to be the case for you, although a diet high in produce seems a bit more practical to me.

The link with carcinogens I'm less clear about, but I suspect it's mostly processed and red meat that should be minimized.

Why lean meats? Most people that I've seen go full carnivore lose weight with alacrity and will end up eating a lot of fats. Like a lot. Like, your poop will start floating a lot. And in general, high fat and high protein diets produce weight loss.

So does a diet high in high-fiber, plant-based foods. But I would say that this is a practically more difficult diet to obtain.

 

[rousseau]

Cardiovascular disease is a function of obesity, and obesity is a function of consuming too many calories. Energy dense foods aren't bad in of themselves, but it's a lot easier to maintain a healthy weight when 80% of your diet is plants, and even easier when it's 100%. Which is why I suspect you see produce rich diets resulting in longer lives.

In theory a healthy weight can be achieved via lean-meats, as seems to be the case for you, although a diet high in produce seems a bit more practical to me.

The link with carcinogens I'm less clear about, but I suspect it's mostly processed and red meat that should be minimized.

Why lean meats? Most people that I've seen go full carnivore lose weight with alacrity and will end up eating a lot of fats. Like a lot. Like, your poop will start floating a lot. And in general, high fat and high protein diets produce weight loss.

So does a diet high in high-fiber, plant-based foods. But I would say that this is a practically more difficult diet to obtain.

Truth be told I don't really know the logistics of a high-meat diet, so you're probably right.

In terms of practicality I'd assume that a diet high in plant-based food is cheaper than one which has high or is exclusively meat products. Of course if we're talking full on veganism that's a different story and there are other limiting factors besides cost. But a diet that's only high in plant-based content is just a normal, balanced diet and what most food guides would recommend.

If we're talking life outcomes I think cost of food has to be a serious consideration where practicality is concerned, because as I mentioned earlier the real 'goal' of nutrition is to live life well and reproduce, not live for a long time. And so there's a trade-off between the quality of our food and it's cost. Even if in theory a meat-based diet was what we were looking for the cost might end up being prohibitive for most people. This is very likely why we see people eating a lot of grains: they're plentiful, cheap, and keep us alive into our 50s.

 

[PyramidHead]

If your goal is longevity however, it's important to keep in mind that our major, early failure points are the cardiovascular system, and mutations in our DNA. This is where both loading up on foods that aren't energy dense (read: plants), and relatively free of carcinogens (read: plants), is beneficial.

This doesn't seem to contradict the stance I'm taking, unless there is the added statement that meat is high in carcinogens. There are some ways of preparing meat that increase its carcinogenic content, but I'm not aware of any evidence of there being anything in the meat itself that causes cancer. Do you know of any?

As for the energy density, I must admit I'm not grasping whatever point is being made. Is there a connection between energy-dense foods and cardiovascular failure early in life?

Cardiovascular disease is a function of obesity, and obesity is a function of consuming too many calories. Energy dense foods aren't bad in of themselves, but it's a lot easier to maintain a healthy weight when 80% of your diet is plants, and even easier when it's 100%. Which is why I suspect you see produce rich diets resulting in longer lives.

Ah. So, that doesn't actually apply to people like me, because it is nearly physically impossible to be obese when consuming 100% meat.

In theory a healthy weight can be achieved via lean-meats, as seems to be the case for you, although a diet high in produce seems a bit more practical to me.

Eating fat does not make you fat. And for someone eating carnivore, lean meats are to be avoided; where would I get my energy, if not from fat? Obesity is not a function of just calories, but also insulin spikes and the metabolic processes that accompany it. Diets low in carbohydrates should be high in fats.

The link with carcinogens I'm less clear about, but I suspect it's mostly processed and red meat that should be minimized.

I recommend this link for a breakdown of the WHO's document linking red meat to cancer.

The WHO looked at more than 800 “epidemiological” (more about that word in a moment) human studies of red/processed meat and cancers of all kinds. Of the 16 types of cancer explored, the WHO chose to base its doomsday decree on studies of colorectal cancer only (presumably because the evidence related to other kinds of cancer was lacking).

The Epidemiology of Red Meat and Cancer
Of those 800+ epidemiological studies, a mere 29 were put forth by the WHO as “informative” about the connection between unprocessed red meat and colorectal cancer.

Of those 29 studies, 14 suggested that red meat was associated with a higher risk for colorectal cancer in humans; 15 of them did not.

The Epidemiology of Processed Meat and Cancer
As for processed meat, the WHO chose 27 of the 800+ studies to make its case for the cancer connection.

Of those 27 studies, 18 suggested that processed meat was associated with a higher risk for colorectal cancer in humans; 9 did not.

[...]

A grand total of SIX experimental studies were cited in the WHO report (references 13-15, and 18-20) as evidence that meat causes cancer, four of which were conducted by a single research group (Pierre FH and/or Santarelli RL). Three are rat studies, two are human studies, and one is a rat/human study [a study of rats and humans, not of hybrid rat-human creatures].

[...]

In my opinion, only the final two studies cited are worth considering, because a) they are human studies and b) they use unprocessed red meat. They both propose that heme, which is what makes red meat red, can increase mutations in colon cells.

Unfortunately, these two studies were not designed in a way that could prove that it was red meat that caused mutation rates to increase, but let’s just say for the sake of argument that red meat increases mutations. There still may not be any cause for alarm, because:

-Mutations occur constantly as a normal part of everyday life.
-Mutations are caused by a wide variety of natural stimuli– from within our bodies, from the foods we eat, and from the environment.
-Our bodies have evolved numerous, sophisticated mechanisms to neutralize mutations.
-Mutation rates may have nothing to do with cancer risk.

However, just because these two studies were poorly designed doesn’t mean we should discard the theory that heme might pose health risks to humans. Could heme be the cancer-causing culprit lurking within red meat?

Not according to this 2015 statement written by David Klurfeld, PhD, the USDA’s National Program Leader for Human Nutrition:

“While heme iron can increase cell proliferation in the colonic mucosa of mice and catalyze the formation of N-nitroso compounds in rats, there is no data that normal levels of heme in human intestine contributes to any harm.”

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If I'm a hunter and I kill a deer and eat that deer, it's not the same meat as if I went to the grocery store. That would be my biggest concern about an all meat diet today, that I'm not eating the same food that my ancestors consumed. And honestly the same thing can be said about plants if I shop for my produce at the typical grocery store.

So an informed, healthwise consumer is faced with a dilemma. I don't know if it's less expensive either way, plant or meat, and we're all stuck with the food supply we have.

Some of us have a very good perspective on that issue because we like to grow the food we eat and have been doing it for most of our lives. We don't want to put poisonous chemicals on our produce anymore than we would add it to our coffee, but we have to find a middle ground. We'd rather eat a chicken that's been grubbing for insects and plants all its life than one kept in a box and fed a lifetime of chemical-laden corn. It's the classic cost/benefit decision-making process for each of us where we attempt to minimize risk and maximize gain.

 

[PyramidHead]

If I'm a hunter and I kill a deer and eat that deer, it's not the same meat as if I went to the grocery store. That would be my biggest concern about an all meat diet today, that I'm not eating the same food that my ancestors consumed. And honestly the same thing can be said about plants if I shop for my produce at the typical grocery store.

So an informed, healthwise consumer is faced with a dilemma. I don't know if it's less expensive either way, plant or meat, and we're all stuck with the food supply we have.

Some of us have a very good perspective on that issue because we like to grow the food we eat and have been doing it for most of our lives. We don't want to put poisonous chemicals on our produce anymore than we would add it to our coffee, but we have to find a middle ground. We'd rather eat a chicken that's been grubbing for insects and plants all its life than one kept in a box and fed a lifetime of chemical-laden corn. It's the classic cost/benefit decision-making process for each of us.

True, you have to look at your sources, which I do. I like Walden Farms, which sends me pasture-raised cuts of beef every month.

But in terms of the difference between the meat we can purchase and what our ancestors ate, it's surely easier to obtain something more representative of ancient diets in the animal kingdom than the plant kingdom. It's not just the chemicals in your store-bought produce that differs from their "natural" variants. Quite simply, there are almost no modern fruits or vegetables that are anything like what our ancestors would have eaten from the plant kingdom. Even if you grow your own tomatoes, peas, carrots, and kale, the varieties that we have today are the outcome of selective breeding that makes them utterly different from whatever they were originally based upon. I would wager that the flesh, muscles, and organs of a sustainably raised cow is far closer to the ancestral diet of early humans than a salad made from six different cross-bred offshoots of mustard greens.

 

[steve_bank]

There have been several dioers cklaiming what isn natural for humans.

If you eat a lot of meat to the exclusion of other foods then you will loose weight. It is a low carb diet. Diets with low meat and a lot of vegetables and fruit also provide weight loss.

Today it is chemistry. What does the body need. Meat has a high nutrient density no question. However latge scale beef is hard on the environment.

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

The Paleolithic diet, Paleo diet, caveman diet, or stone-age diet[1] is a modern fad diet[2] requiring the sole or predominant eating of foods presumed to have been available to humans during the Paleolithic era.[3]

The digestive abilities of anatomically modern humans, however, are different from those of Paleolithic humans, which undermines the diet's core premise.[4] During the 2.6 million year-long Paleolithic era, the highly variable climate and worldwide spread of human populations meant that humans were, by necessity, nutritionally adaptable. Supporters of the diet mistakenly presuppose that human digestion has remained essentially unchanged over time.[4][5]

While there is wide variability in the way the paleo diet is interpreted,[6] the diet typically includes vegetables, fruits, nuts, roots, and meat and typically excludes foods such as dairy products, grains, sugar, legumes, processed oils, salt, alcohol, or coffee.[1][additional citation(s) needed] The diet is based on avoiding not just processed foods, but rather the foods that humans began eating after the Neolithic Revolution when humans transitioned from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to settled agriculture.[3] The ideas behind the diet can be traced to Walter L. Voegtlin[7] during the 1970s. In the 21st century, the paleo diet was popularized in the best-selling books of Loren Cordain.[8]

The paleo diet is promoted as a way of improving health.[2] There is some evidence that following this diet may lead to improvements in terms of body composition and metabolic effects compared with the typical Western diet[6] or compared with diets recommended by national nutritional guidelines.[9] There is no good evidence that the diet helps with weight loss, other than through the normal mechanisms of calorie restriction.[10] Following the paleo diet can lead to nutritional deficiencies such as an inadequate calcium intake, and side effects can include weakness, diarrhea, and headaches


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

The Atkins diet is a low-carbohydrate fad diet devised by Robert Atkins.[1] The diet is marketed with questionable claims that carbohydrate restriction is critical to weight loss.[2] There is no good evidence of the diet's effectiveness in achieving durable weight loss[3] and it may increase the risk of heart disease.[4]

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This doesn't seem to contradict the stance I'm taking, unless there is the added statement that meat is high in carcinogens. There are some ways of preparing meat that increase its carcinogenic content, but I'm not aware of any evidence of there being anything in the meat itself that causes cancer. Do you know of any?

As for the energy density, I must admit I'm not grasping whatever point is being made. Is there a connection between energy-dense foods and cardiovascular failure early in life?

An awful lot of plants create nasty chemicals as a defense against being eaten. The portions we eat generally are low in the nasty stuff, or else we prepare them in ways to neutralize the chemicals. That doesn't mean they are free of the nasty stuff, though.

 

[Treedbear]

...
An awful lot of plants create nasty chemicals as a defense against being eaten. The portions we eat generally are low in the nasty stuff, or else we prepare them in ways to neutralize the chemicals. That doesn't mean they are free of the nasty stuff, though.

It seems that by and large plants go to a lot of trouble in order to get eaten by things big enough to spread their seeds around.

 

[PyramidHead]

This doesn't seem to contradict the stance I'm taking, unless there is the added statement that meat is high in carcinogens. There are some ways of preparing meat that increase its carcinogenic content, but I'm not aware of any evidence of there being anything in the meat itself that causes cancer. Do you know of any?

As for the energy density, I must admit I'm not grasping whatever point is being made. Is there a connection between energy-dense foods and cardiovascular failure early in life?

An awful lot of plants create nasty chemicals as a defense against being eaten. The portions we eat generally are low in the nasty stuff, or else we prepare them in ways to neutralize the chemicals. That doesn't mean they are free of the nasty stuff, though.

It seems that by and large plants go to a lot of trouble in order to get eaten by things big enough to spread their seeds around.

Fruits do, veggies can manage just fine on their own. The vast majority of plants, including edible ones, do not depend on animals to propagate their genes.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

...
An awful lot of plants create nasty chemicals as a defense against being eaten. The portions we eat generally are low in the nasty stuff, or else we prepare them in ways to neutralize the chemicals. That doesn't mean they are free of the nasty stuff, though.

It seems that by and large plants go to a lot of trouble in order to get eaten by things big enough to spread their seeds around.

Plants want their fruits eaten, not the whole plant.

 

[rousseau]

Cardiovascular disease is a function of obesity, and obesity is a function of consuming too many calories. Energy dense foods aren't bad in of themselves, but it's a lot easier to maintain a healthy weight when 80% of your diet is plants, and even easier when it's 100%. Which is why I suspect you see produce rich diets resulting in longer lives.

Ah. So, that doesn't actually apply to people like me, because it is nearly physically impossible to be obese when consuming 100% meat.

Truthfully I'm not really responding to the thread, just talking nutrition. I can't really say I know the ins and outs of an all meat diet, I'm just yet to run into anything that speaks highly of animal-based foods relative to plant-based ones, when we're talking longevity. Maybe I haven't seen solid evidence, I don't know, but I'm definitely comfortable with the idea that a diet that's solidly grounded in plant-based foods is good for you, which is why I do it.

For reference, check out the Canada food guide which was just updated in the past year:

Minimizing animal-based products and maximizing produce was pretty much central to the change. Surely there was some science behind it?

I don't want to kick you for choosing a diet. Honestly, to each their own, if it's working for you great. For me, plants AND small amounts of meat is working beautifully on pretty much every front.