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

[Loren Pechtel]

It is by definition anecdotal, but it remains a datum that almost none of the people who have been interviewed or shared their stories about a zero-carb all-meat diet have noted any type of vitamin deficiency, C or otherwise. Obviously selection bias could be happening, but I find it hard to believe that the selection bias wouldn't go the other way (people are more inclined to report problems than the lack of problems, all else being equal). But I would not consider these anecdotes strong evidence one way or another, you're correct.

The body has a substantial reserve, you don't get problems until that runs out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your second link seems to be consistent what I was saying:

I started low-carb Paleo dieting in late 2005. I ate a lot of vegetables but no starches and hardly any fruit. In retrospect, I would call it a near zero-carb diet.

In other words, no meat at all. I would be very surprised if anyone could survive for very long with no meat without filling in the gaps with the entirety of the plant kingdom, including fruits.

No, low-carb Paleo is lots of meat. He mentions the vegetables and fruit specifically to support that it was a 'near zero-carb diet'.

Hey, I'm not telling you to do it or not to do it. For only 30 days you'll almost certainly be fine regardless of what you eat. I'm just saying you need to be aware that it isn't all rainbows and unicorns and if you don't carefully monitor vitamin intake you might be the lucky winner of a vitamin deficiency.

Calling a diet with fruits and vegetables zero-carb is nonsense. Carbohydrates come from more than just grain!

 

[ZiprHead]

I think it'd be interesting to have your blood lipid levels taken before and after your experiment.

 

[Shake]

Also, I just want to point out that I have no intention of being religious about this, it's just a 30 day thing followed by an evaluation of where I want to go from there. I have nothing against supplements and nothing against changing my diet if things start to go south in any way. The point is that none of the really bad long-term problems are likely to happen in the first month, but the benefits can be appreciated and weighed against the risks in a way that is clearer than gradually easing into it.

Glad to hear this.

Yer be headin' fee scurrrrrrrvy, landlubber!

Second this.

Nobody should embark on any extreme diet without carefully checking all nutritional aspects of what they are eating.

Thirded.

No, low-carb Paleo is lots of meat. He mentions the vegetables and fruit specifically to support that it was a 'near zero-carb diet'.

Hey, I'm not telling you to do it or not to do it. For only 30 days you'll almost certainly be fine regardless of what you eat. I'm just saying you need to be aware that it isn't all rainbows and unicorns and if you don't carefully monitor vitamin intake you might be the lucky winner of a vitamin deficiency.

Ah, I see, I had missed that. Well, luckily for me I like my meat rare and I enjoy liver occasionally, so we'll see what happens.

Let us know how it goes!

Yes, I'll be interested to hear how this goes for you. My main thoughts on this are two-fold:
1) sometimes a drastic change can be good for jump-starting weight loss (if that's a goal of yours)

2) as with any other diet, I am always skeptical of the ones which say no of something, or all of some other thing. We're omnivores and get our essential nutrients from a variety of sources. At this point in my life, I think the best thing is just to try to keep a well-balanced diet, taking everything in moderation. I know I need more fruits and veggies and to stay away from the highly-processed, high-sugar foods. It's just a matter of doing it. For some, taking temporary (as you are) extreme measures is a good way for them to cut back on certain things, or increase others. IOW they kind of reset themselves. Maybe they realize afterwards that they can survive and enjoy life while having less of the bad things they used to enjoy.

Anyway, good luck to you!

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think it'd be interesting to have your blood lipid levels taken before and after your experiment.

I'll second this.

Also, keep good notes on what exactly you eat and when. Meats are like plants, not all the same, particularly with modern processing methods.

 

[PyramidHead]

Day 2.

First thing to report is that I feel awesome. The slow-burning quality of this energy is way more manageable than the zaps of refined sugar and caffeine. Also, this is probably the first time in some years that I've gone more than 48 hours without having any alcohol, and that alone is a revelation. Going to sleep sober wakes me up rested.

But onto the meat. I've had pork shoulder, plenty of bacon, a ribeye steak, some burger patties, an egg, a strip steak, and some sirloin tips. My system is chugging along nicely, but after the ribeye I had some intestinal distress. My bet is that I should just back off a little on the juices and stick to the fat content of the meat itself.

Otherwise, my adjustment hasn't been as bad as I imagined. The interesting thing to watch has been the cravings. On this diet, I eat until I'm full whenever I get hungry, full stop. So, when I'm done eating, I know that I'm not hungry anymore. Yet, without fail, five minutes later, I feel my stomach asking me for a cookie or a piece of candy. It's not asking me for more of what I just ate; it wants refined carbs. For the first time, I can now recognize this as something other than hunger, actually much closer to an addiction response. I work with some people who cannot finish their day unless they have a cigarette after lunch, and I see no reason to think of this feeling as any different, unless it's just a difference of degree.

I miss beer. But my overall comfort level doesn't. I have kind of a reputation at home of being a walking bag of gas after I drink a few beers, which as I indicated has been a daily occurrence for the past few years, and now I just... don't fart at all. Heartburn is gone too (I didn't realize I had it so bad until I experienced not having it). This could be from avoiding veggies in general, but the carbonation in beer was probably a big factor.

The social aspect has been a little challenging. Who wants to go out with a guy who only eats meat and drinks water? Where would we go? More to the point, why would I want to meet everybody at the falafel place, or a bar, and just stand around doing nothing with my glass of water? This diet is revealing to me how much of my food and drink consumption was purely driven by wanting to munch or sip on something with a group of people. That's a real thing, and it's a very old human instinct, so feeling left out is natural (as is the awkwardness of my wife eating her bowl of pasta while I stare into space). After the month is up, I'm going to allow myself to enjoy some liquor so I don't stick out so much in these situations, and maybe expand my palette to include more spices and sauces that are commonly added to meat served in restaurants. For now, I have to get used to eating at home most of the time.

Finally, I can see this diet giving me more free time. There aren't really meals anymore, just times that I am hungry, at which point I eat until satiated. They don't fall into a neat schedule, and since the energy lasts so long I can just eat a big helping in the middle of the morning and be fine until that night (or the next day). I don't sit around drinking beer when I get home, but I still find myself sitting around. What do I do now that I'm home from work, I'm not hungry, and I can't zone out with a box of Cheez-its and a pale ale? Maybe I could do something productive, maybe I could actually have a second half of my day instead of the lethargic slide into unconsciousness I'm used to.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Day 2.

First thing to report is that I feel awesome. The slow-burning quality of this energy is way more manageable than the zaps of refined sugar and caffeine. Also, this is probably the first time in some years that I've gone more than 48 hours without having any alcohol, and that alone is a revelation. Going to sleep sober wakes me up rested.

But onto the meat. I've had pork shoulder, plenty of bacon, a ribeye steak, some burger patties, an egg, a strip steak, and some sirloin tips. My system is chugging along nicely, but after the ribeye I had some intestinal distress. My bet is that I should just back off a little on the juices and stick to the fat content of the meat itself.

Otherwise, my adjustment hasn't been as bad as I imagined. The interesting thing to watch has been the cravings. On this diet, I eat until I'm full whenever I get hungry, full stop. So, when I'm done eating, I know that I'm not hungry anymore. Yet, without fail, five minutes later, I feel my stomach asking me for a cookie or a piece of candy. It's not asking me for more of what I just ate; it wants refined carbs. For the first time, I can now recognize this as something other than hunger, actually much closer to an addiction response. I work with some people who cannot finish their day unless they have a cigarette after lunch, and I see no reason to think of this feeling as any different, unless it's just a difference of degree.

I miss beer. But my overall comfort level doesn't. I have kind of a reputation at home of being a walking bag of gas after I drink a few beers, which as I indicated has been a daily occurrence for the past few years, and now I just... don't fart at all. Heartburn is gone too (I didn't realize I had it so bad until I experienced not having it). This could be from avoiding veggies in general, but the carbonation in beer was probably a big factor.

The social aspect has been a little challenging. Who wants to go out with a guy who only eats meat and drinks water? Where would we go? More to the point, why would I want to meet everybody at the falafel place, or a bar, and just stand around doing nothing with my glass of water? This diet is revealing to me how much of my food and drink consumption was purely driven by wanting to munch or sip on something with a group of people. That's a real thing, and it's a very old human instinct, so feeling left out is natural (as is the awkwardness of my wife eating her bowl of pasta while I stare into space). After the month is up, I'm going to allow myself to enjoy some liquor so I don't stick out so much in these situations, and maybe expand my palette to include more spices and sauces that are commonly added to meat served in restaurants. For now, I have to get used to eating at home most of the time.

Finally, I can see this diet giving me more free time. There aren't really meals anymore, just times that I am hungry, at which point I eat until satiated. They don't fall into a neat schedule, and since the energy lasts so long I can just eat a big helping in the middle of the morning and be fine until that night (or the next day). I don't sit around drinking beer when I get home, but I still find myself sitting around. What do I do now that I'm home from work, I'm not hungry, and I can't zone out with a box of Cheez-its and a pale ale? Maybe I could do something productive, maybe I could actually have a second half of my day instead of the lethargic slide into unconsciousness I'm used to.

My heartburn went away when I quit dairy. Arthritis in my hands by and large went away too. This is why I never went back to dairy after five plus years. Oh, and the cholesterol pills went away also.
Veggies and farting? Those have been two constants in my life.

 

[southernhybrid]

Are you constipated yet? Meat has no fiber in it, and fiber is usually needed to have normal bowel movements.

 

[PyramidHead]

Are you constipated yet? Meat has no fiber in it, and fiber is usually needed to have normal bowel movements.

Fiber is not required on a diet that does not include carbohydrates. It's a lot more common to have diarrhea in the first week or so as the body adapts to the increased fat intake, without any plant matter to slow things down in the intestine. After adapting, bowel movements will just be less frequent because more of what is eaten is fully digested, but that's not constipation.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you constipated yet? Meat has no fiber in it, and fiber is usually needed to have normal bowel movements.

Note that infrequent bowel movements does not equate to constipation.

When my food sensitivities are acting up I can end up with a basically zero-fiber diet. It can be a week between bowel movements--but it comes out like it should.

 

[ZiprHead]

Are you constipated yet? Meat has no fiber in it, and fiber is usually needed to have normal bowel movements.

Note that infrequent bowel movements does not equate to constipation.

When my food sensitivities are acting up I can end up with a basically zero-fiber diet. It can be a week between bowel movements--but it comes out like it should.

We all knew it, Loren. You're full of shit.



JK

 

[southernhybrid]

I doubt that eating only meat for a month is dangerous, but are you aware of all the scientific studies that show a close correlation between meat eating, especially red or processed meats, and cancer, especially colon or rectal cancer?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/"]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/[/URL]

As a conclusion, accumulated evidence of prospective epidemiological studies and their meta-analyses shows that red meat and processed meat convincingly increases CRC risk by 20-30%. Regarding specific red meat subtypes, the association with increased risk was found for beef consumption in two trials (one of them is weakly associated), for pork consumption in three trials and for lamb intake in one trial. An interesting observation is the existence of this risk only for pork intake and rectum cancer and lamb intake and colon cancer, respectively in one trial. Beef and pork consumption was found also to be associated with colon cancer only in women, in one trial. Whether CRC is one disease or the existence of 2 categories of CRC (colon and rectum or proximal and distal or right and left colon) and the link between etiologic factors and molecular subtypes are another hot topics of discussion, which need further investigations.59,60

This is one of the more conservative findings. I could give you some other studies and medical opinions that associate a high rate of meat intake with prostate cancer as well. A diet with a heavy amount of plant based foods is considered the healthiest by most medical professionals, which has been fairly well supported by most scientific research, unless of course you evolved from folks in the Arctic.

So, have fun with your thirty day experiment but don't ignore all of the research that correlates a high intake of animal products with risk for cancer.

But, as one who doesn't care that much for meat but loves vegetables, fruits and nuts, I can't help but ask. Are you enjoying eating this way? Inquiring minds want to know?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I doubt that eating only meat for a month is dangerous, but are you aware of all the scientific studies that show a close correlation between meat eating, especially red or processed meats, and cancer, especially colon or rectal cancer?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/"]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/[/URL]

As a conclusion, accumulated evidence of prospective epidemiological studies and their meta-analyses shows that red meat and processed meat convincingly increases CRC risk by 20-30%. Regarding specific red meat subtypes, the association with increased risk was found for beef consumption in two trials (one of them is weakly associated), for pork consumption in three trials and for lamb intake in one trial. An interesting observation is the existence of this risk only for pork intake and rectum cancer and lamb intake and colon cancer, respectively in one trial. Beef and pork consumption was found also to be associated with colon cancer only in women, in one trial. Whether CRC is one disease or the existence of 2 categories of CRC (colon and rectum or proximal and distal or right and left colon) and the link between etiologic factors and molecular subtypes are another hot topics of discussion, which need further investigations.59,60

This is one of the more conservative findings. I could give you some other studies and medical opinions that associate a high rate of meat intake with prostate cancer as well. A diet with a heavy amount of plant based foods is considered the healthiest by most medical professionals, which has been fairly well supported by most scientific research, unless of course you evolved from folks in the Arctic.

So, have fun with your thirty day experiment but don't ignore all of the research that correlates a high intake of animal products with risk for cancer.

But, as one who doesn't care that much for meat but loves vegetables, fruits and nuts, I can't help but ask. Are you enjoying eating this way? Inquiring minds want to know?

Yes, the correlation is there. Take people who's population experiences very low cancer incidence, feed them a typical crap western diet and their incidence of cancer rises accordingly. It' no mystery. There are other things in that western diet that are no doubt influencing the rise in cancer same as meat.

Removing 99% of the meat, refined carbs and alcohol from my diet gave me the same experience as Pyramidhead, and it's easy to keep the weight off.

I'd like to see blood numbers. I suspect a rise will occur in triglycerides and cholesterol unless offset by physical exertion. Those populations subsisting on mainly meat didn't sit around much on their keesters.

 

[PyramidHead]

unless of course you evolved from folks in the Arctic.

Are you suggesting that people who lived in the Artic, or for that matter the entire planet during multiple decades-long periods of glaciation where virtually no vegetation would have been available, are from a different evolutionary lineage than you and me?

Take people who's population experiences very low cancer incidence, feed them a typical crap western diet and their incidence of cancer rises accordingly. It' no mystery. There are other things in that western diet that are no doubt influencing the rise in cancer same as meat.

Exactly. No study has ever been done that examines the effects of a diet consisting of only meat compared to a diet consisting of meat plus carbohydrates. People who are likely to eat less meat are also less likely to do a lot of things, like smoke, drink a lot of alcohol, and eat a lot of cheap processed food. Any epidemiological study is bound to confound these variables with the one they are purporting to study.

I'd like to see blood numbers. I suspect a rise will occur in triglycerides and cholesterol unless offset by physical exertion. Those populations subsisting on mainly meat didn't sit around much on their keesters.

Cholesterol is a funny thing. As it turns out, the vast majority of the cholesterol in your body is made by your body from non-cholesterol components. People have this idea that the cholesterol contained in food just goes from your esophagus directly to your bloodstream. In fact, your body can make cholesterol from almost anything, and recycles much of what it makes--which is not surprising considering that it's a critical component of our bodies that is essential to life. In short, your body will not make more cholesterol unless you NEED more, and even then only a tiny fraction of it will come from the cholesterol content in your food.

Cholesterol synthesis hinges on the activity of an enzyme, HMG-CoA, that is responsible for initiating a cascade of reactions that lead to cholesterol formation in the cell. Two things control the activity of this enzyme: (1) cholesterol levels in the cellular environment and (2) insulin levels in the cellular environment. If your body has enough cholesterol already, it won't make more unless insulin levels spike. This is probably because insulin is a growth hormone, and under normal circumstances tells our system that more cells (and thus more cholesterol) will soon be needed. However, a diet high in carbohydrates will have the same effect, causing a runaway production of cholesterol that the body doesn't actually need. Again, no part of this has any relationship whatsoever to the cholesterol content in food. It's all about blood sugar.

 

[PyramidHead]

Day 7.

My energy levels have evened out after a couple of days of up and down fluctuation. My body is still adapting, but the symptoms of this adaptation are lessening in frequency and severity. What I interpret from the process is my digestive tract getting more comfortable with digesting fat. At times, I felt as though my intestines (and probably the microbes that inhabit it) were entering panic mode: "What's all this stuff? Eggs? Steaks? Where's the bread? What happened to the leaves and stems we used to dine on like kings?" The result of this desperation would be that I absorbed only some of the fat I was ingesting, while the rest was discarded along with a number of dead carb-dependent bacteria. This has calmed down over the past couple of days, so I not only make fewer trips to the bathroom but I also feel like I'm on a fairly steady energy supply.

I wake up in the morning now without any of the fogginess, gut pain, and disorientation I accepted as just the normal thing people experience when they wake up. I've lost a significant amount of excess fat around my face, neck, and midsection (probably just from letting go of the water my cells were carrying around), and my teeth are thanking me every day. I'm no longer trafficking guns and ammunition to the tiny terrorists living along my gumline, and little by little they are packing up and leaving.

But, as one who doesn't care that much for meat but loves vegetables, fruits and nuts, I can't help but ask. Are you enjoying eating this way? Inquiring minds want to know?

The more I do it, the more I enjoy it. But there are a few dimensions to that, so let me explain.

First and foremost, I love meat and I never get tired of the taste of it when it's prepared to my liking. I can't cook a damn thing, but now I'm learning how to pan-sear a steak to perfection and making my way around a pressure cooker. That of course is just a personal anecdote, but I suspect everyone has a natural taste for meat that they can reactivate without much trouble. Children will eat meat without hesitation, but vegetables have to be dressed up in all sorts of ways. I think there's probably a biological and historical reason for this. Much of the vegetables we eat are not naturally occurring in the wild, so we wouldn't have developed a palate for them.

On top of that, the only way that plants are able to defend themselves from being eaten (rather than just their seeds) is to manufacture toxins and antinutrients that must be cooked out of them before consumption, or tolerated as "fiber" that your body doesn't get anything out of. You get these bitter flavors and burning sensations that can be harnessed with a little ingenuity to make other foods taste better, but are really your body's way of telling you that you shouldn't be eating this. But that's a side point that doesn't really address your question.

The second thing that I've come to terms with is that I don't look to food for enjoyment so much anymore. We have this idea that our meals should be entertaining, when really it doesn't have to be anything other than fuel; and if it's the kind of fuel our bodies are optimally geared to run on, chances are it will taste just fine. So, the concept of eating out of boredom or chasing variety for its own sake is starting to seem like a waste of time to me. I know that the taste of a rare ribeye steak with a nicely charred exterior will, always and forever, be something I immensely enjoy. If I had the budget for it, I'd eat it every day for every meal (as the Andersen family has for decades without any health problems). But burger patties are tasty too, as is bacon, chuck roast, salmon, and did I mention bacon?

Finally, I just love how simple everything surrounding eating has become. There's no more looking for recipes that torture a cauliflower into tasting vaguely like a potato, or looking for low-carb cheesecake recipes that leave me unsatisfied and wanting the real thing. Over time, not eating anything sweet makes me want it less and less, and I expect to eventually have no interest in sugar at all. Grocery shopping is fun. I think of all the money I'm saving from cereals, vegetables, and sweets (not to mention craft beer!) and channel that into the week's selection of meats. I do miss the occasional drink, but I intend to find a way to enjoy a non-fermented liquor once in a while after the month is up.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Cholesterol synthesis hinges on the activity of an enzyme, HMG-CoA, that is responsible for initiating a cascade of reactions that lead to cholesterol formation in the cell. Two things control the activity of this enzyme: (1) cholesterol levels in the cellular environment and (2) insulin levels in the cellular environment. If your body has enough cholesterol already, it won't make more unless insulin levels spike. This is probably because insulin is a growth hormone, and under normal circumstances tells our system that more cells (and thus more cholesterol) will soon be needed. However, a diet high in carbohydrates will have the same effect, causing a runaway production of cholesterol that the body doesn't actually need. Again, no part of this has any relationship whatsoever to the cholesterol content in food. It's all about blood sugar.

I pay a lot of attention to Nutritionfacts.org, Dr Gregor's site. I do recall their explaining how insulin resistance works, which is a recent discovery owing to new technology. Insulin resistance is caused by the breakdown of fats in tissue that in turn block insulin receptors, preventing sugar from being absorbed out of the bloodstream.

But what I never thought about is that these observations have been carried out on folks on a typical crap diet, the point being that if there isn't a continual oversupply of glucose there won't be a problem ever with insulin resistance or obesity or fatty liver, high cholesterol, etc. So that makes sense.

I enjoy bacon too but have cut back drastically on the amount I consume, to the point that I just sprinkle a bit here and there. Bacon would be one of the meats I'd avoid because it is so overprocessed. Or is there bacon out there that is not so overprocessed?

I think you are good to remove the alcohol. Enjoying you updates.

 

[PyramidHead]

Bacon is okay so long as it isn't cured, or so I have heard (something to do with nitrates). Not positive on that.

 

[southernhybrid]

Are you suggesting that people who lived in the Artic, or for that matter the entire planet during multiple decades-long periods of glaciation where virtually no vegetation would have been available, are from a different evolutionary lineage than you and me?

Yes. I posted an article from a study done by National Geographic in a different thread, that made this claim. It appears as if people in different parts of the world evolved with somewhat different diets. I personally don't think a meat only diet is healthy for people outside of the coldest places where plant based foods are rarely eaten.

I just finished reading a piece about the importance of fiber in the diet, which is partly why I mentioned fiber earlier. I'm not trying to tell you what to eat, but it does concern me when someone claims that a meat only diet might be the healthiest one. There is a lot of confusing information out there, but as someone who recently retired from a career in nursing and someone who has always been extremely interested in nutrition, I've come to the conclusion that a diet that is high if fiber and plant based foods, with lots of complex carbs is most likely the healthiest one for most of us. There is some new research being done on the possibility that fiber protects us from a lot of serious diseases, but more research must be done before we know for certain. Two obvious things about foods high in fiber. We only absorb about 80% of the calories from fiber and fiber lowers the risk of colon cancer. Most of the people I've known who avoid foods high in fiber, end up with hemorrhoids and chronic constipation. Perhaps some of us don't need the fiber like others do.

I would agree that sugar isn't a healthy product although I do include sweets in my diet because I really like them, I'm not overweight and I do vigorous exercise three times a week for 45 minutes. I'm also 68 and have no heart disease, diabetes or inflammatory types of arthritis like RA or Lupus. Of course, genetics probably has as much if not more to do with our health, when compared to anything else. My theory on why we love sweets is because breast milk is super sweet. That's where I think, the love of sweet things starts. That's just my opinion. I have no idea if I'm correct. Did you know that many if not most of the very oldest adults tend to lose their taste for everything but sweets? I've seen this among my patients when I was still working. Some nursing homes add honey to the food just to get the residents to get an adequate number of calories. But I digress.

Well, I'm glad that you are enjoying your new diet. Maybe that supports the idea that we are all a bit different when it comes to what we eat. I really don't like meat, very much except for fish, and if it weren't for the fact that my husband is a great cook and he serves me meat based meals several times a week, I'd consider becoming something close to a vegan. I love fruits, vegetables and legumes more than meat. I don't even need to dress up my veggies. I just either make a salad or heat them and eat them plain. I do however know a lot of people that hate vegetables so I know you're not alone if you dislike of them. I can't eat meat unless it's dressed up a lot. I simply don't like the taste.

Now after all this speculation, I could probably find you hundreds of nutritional articles that contradict each other. Again, maybe that means that there isn't any perfect diet that works for everyone. I will try and follow your thread and see what you decide at the end of the month. Even when I disagree with the opinions of others, I always find talking about nutrition to be interesting.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

@southernhybrid

You must have been a great caregiver because you know your stuff and have a great bedside manner. It shows.

As you say, there are hundreds of conflicting articles on what is the right diet. And absolutely, we're not all the same when it comes to what foods we can tolerate. It might take arriving into your 60's to discover that not all food is created equal.

Clearly, removing the overprocessed, highly refined junk from one's diet and returning to whole food has got to be a positive. It's funny, maybe because I'm just a bit of a fitness nut, must come with the vanity, but I had a conversation with a gentleman at work who insists he is "healthy." He's on several maintenance meds and in his early 50s, is at least 50lbs too heavy and eats a crap diet. But he insists he is healthy. Perhaps he means he is not lying on his back in a hospital.

We all get to define what healthy is I suppose. If Pyramidhead has good blood profiles, his weight is good, and doesn't develop cancers or metabolic syndrome I'd say he is healthy, despite the fact that he eats mainly meat.

Someone recently said to me their idea of retirement is Happy and Healthy, then Dead. That's what I'm shooting for.

 

[PyramidHead]

Are you suggesting that people who lived in the Artic, or for that matter the entire planet during multiple decades-long periods of glaciation where virtually no vegetation would have been available, are from a different evolutionary lineage than you and me?

Yes. I posted an article from a study done by National Geographic in a different thread, that made this claim. It appears as if people in different parts of the world evolved with somewhat different diets. I personally don't think a meat only diet is healthy for people outside of the coldest places where plant based foods are rarely eaten.

But humans have endured several ice ages, during which entire continents were 'the coldest places', lasting for centuries or more. This was true until just a few hundred thousand years ago, which I don't imagine was enough to time for natural selection to generate a phenotype of digestion and energy extraction that conferred a survival advantage to a population that didn't interbreed with those lacking such a phenotype. In any case, fossilized fecal matter from pre-agricultural human remains seem to indicate that meat was most of the average person's diet, followed by occasional tubers, berries, and fungus. I say occasionally because pre-agriculture, plants were just not very nutrient-dense. You would have to eat a lot of them to equal the energy content of meat, and unless controlled fire was in your mental arsenal much of them were toxic. We'll never really know for sure, but I think it's rational to assume that our ancestors (and not just the ones in places that are now cold) would have favored energy-dense foods that were available all year round and didn't need much preparation.

I'm not convinced that fiber is necessary for human health at all, or that it cures any problems humans have. In a standard American diet, it can slow the uptake of carbohydrates and improve cholesterol slightly, but simply removing the carbohydrates is a much better way to do both. I agree that avoiding fiber while continuing to eat sizable quantities of carbohydrates is a bad idea, but that's because of the carbs, not the fiber inherently being healthy.

As for cancer, I'd like your input on this review of 35 years of research into fiber, which is now 10 years old but may not be superseded entirely by new findings. The authors conclude:

A strong case cannot be made for a protective effect of dietary fiber against colorectal polyp or cancer. Neither has fiber been found to be useful in chronic constipation and irritable bowel syndrome. It is also not useful in the treatment of perianal conditions. The fiber deficit-diverticulosis theory should also be challenged…we often choose to believe a lie, as a lie repeated often enough by enough people becomes accepted as the truth. We urge clinicians to keep an open mind. Myths about fiber must be debunked and truth installed.