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

[PyramidHead]

The other salient piece of information we have about human dietary needs is that agriculture had to be invented.

In other words, there was not enough energy-rich vegetation and sweet fruit in the natural environment of humans to satisfy their desire for it. This same environment was what would have exerted selection pressures on our ancestors, so it seems unlikely that plant matter would have been absolutely crucial to human life before we had the means to reliably grow it. I keep returning to this point, but the planet has changed a lot more than humans have in the past few hundred thousand years. Dependence on a food source that varied seasonally, was unavailable during ice ages, and was low in energy content would have put early humans at a severe disadvantage compared to those who could subsist on just meat--available anywhere animals live, in any climate, and full of energy. Thus, if we had some kind of nutritional requirement for something that could only come from plants, I don't see how that requirement would have survived natural selection before the invention of agriculture.

Therefore herbivores don't exist.

Or wasn't that the conclusion you were working towards there?

What did herbivores do during ice ages?

Their teeth changed shape, their blood evolved to retain more hemoglobin, they evolved long, thick coats, they learned how to hibernate, or they grew wings and flew someplace more temperate. Human remains from those periods are basically identical in all such ways to modern humans, suggesting that they, like the carnivores who survived alongside them relatively unchanged, simply stuck it out and lived on animal flesh. What else could they have done? Or did a new genetic lineage of plant-dependent humans evolve for each ice age and then die out without leaving any traces?

 

[bilby]

The other salient piece of information we have about human dietary needs is that agriculture had to be invented.

In other words, there was not enough energy-rich vegetation and sweet fruit in the natural environment of humans to satisfy their desire for it. This same environment was what would have exerted selection pressures on our ancestors, so it seems unlikely that plant matter would have been absolutely crucial to human life before we had the means to reliably grow it. I keep returning to this point, but the planet has changed a lot more than humans have in the past few hundred thousand years. Dependence on a food source that varied seasonally, was unavailable during ice ages, and was low in energy content would have put early humans at a severe disadvantage compared to those who could subsist on just meat--available anywhere animals live, in any climate, and full of energy. Thus, if we had some kind of nutritional requirement for something that could only come from plants, I don't see how that requirement would have survived natural selection before the invention of agriculture.

Therefore herbivores don't exist.

Or wasn't that the conclusion you were working towards there?

What did herbivores do during ice ages?

Typically, lots of them died.

Their teeth changed shape, their blood evolved to retain more hemoglobin, they evolved long, thick coats, they learned how to hibernate, or they grew wings and flew someplace more temperate. Human remains from those periods are basically identical in all such ways to modern humans, suggesting that they, like the carnivores who survived alongside them relatively unchanged, simply stuck it out and lived on animal flesh. What else could they have done?

What most of them probably did do - they could have died.

Or did a new genetic lineage of plant-dependent humans evolve for each ice age and then die out without leaving any traces?

I don't think you are exploring all of the possibilities here. You are presenting a false dichotomy.

IF "Dependence on a food source that varied seasonally, was unavailable during ice ages, and was low in energy content would have put early humans at a severe disadvantage", then it would have put early non-humans at the exact same disadvantage - so if your conclusion that plants were completely unavailable as a food source were correct, any animal (including, but certainly not limited to, humans) that depended on plants would have become extinct.

And yet we still have herbivores. So your hypothesis doesn't stand up.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think we all know folks who supplement their diets with fiber. I've always thought that odd and kind of trendy. What is the point of eating a crap diet with refined and processed foods and then consuming fiber on the side? Am I the only one who finds that irrational?

The fiber is already in the food. Eat the food and you'll get the fiber. If you're eating twinkies and then grabbing for the metamucil I think that borders on insanity.

Again, there is no such thing as "crap" food. Food serves a purpose - to fuel the body. Some foods have different ingredients, but no food is 'crap' or 'bad' anymore than any food is 'good'.

Oh there is definitely crap food. But I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[bilby]

What is the point of eating a crap diet with refined and processed foods and then consuming fiber on the side?

What constitutes refined and processed foods? What is the exact definition of 'refined' and of 'processed' in this context? Is a diet crap BECAUSE it contains 'refined and processed' food? If so, it is vital that we have a precise definition of these terms, so please provide one. If not, why mention 'refined and processed'?

 

[rousseau]

The other salient piece of information we have about human dietary needs is that agriculture had to be invented.

In other words, there was not enough energy-rich vegetation and sweet fruit in the natural environment of humans to satisfy their desire for it. This same environment was what would have exerted selection pressures on our ancestors, so it seems unlikely that plant matter would have been absolutely crucial to human life before we had the means to reliably grow it. I keep returning to this point, but the planet has changed a lot more than humans have in the past few hundred thousand years. Dependence on a food source that varied seasonally, was unavailable during ice ages, and was low in energy content would have put early humans at a severe disadvantage compared to those who could subsist on just meat--available anywhere animals live, in any climate, and full of energy. Thus, if we had some kind of nutritional requirement for something that could only come from plants, I don't see how that requirement would have survived natural selection before the invention of agriculture.

This presumption is incorrect. Agriculture wasn't a random invention, it came to be in places of the world where hunting and gathering could no longer sustain population pressures. In other words it just meant people needed more produce and agriculture was the result of that pressure.

I don't think anybody would argue that the human diet isn't flexible, but throughout history when people were in a constant fight against starvation they tended to eat things that were edible. If it provided nourishment, people would eat it. The take home there, I think, isn't that our diet is inflexible, but rather if we can digest something that nourishes us, why not include any and all foodstuffs that are healthy for us?

I got a comment in private feedback that 'agriculture provided a steady source of food, so people stayed in place'.

This is true but in my reading of Maps of Time by David Christian the reason for agriculture coming to be in the first place was because it became necessary in certain areas of the world. Where population densities increased and more food was required, people began experimenting with and developing new ways of producing food over long spans of time. This would have had a feedback effect on population growth which would have firmed up agricultural techniques and eventually caused sedentary lifestyles.

In other words, the need for more food was the spur that caused agriculture.

It's also interesting to note that agricultural techniques evolved independently in different parts of the world in roughly the same period after the last ice age. This is presumably because communities were starting to prosper in more moderate temperatures and populations were increasing. If it was just a random and arbitrary process agriculture could theoretically have happened anywhere, at any time, but during pre-history there was just either no real need for it because the natural environment provided abundant food, or agricultural techniques couldn't work where the community was living.

And so going back to the original point, agriculture coming to be in certain areas is not likely a sign that produce was insignificant before-hand, it just means that naturally occurring produce and animals were enough for a long period of time. If anything, agriculture likely points to the importance of plant life before hand, because communities eventually wanted more of it. But again, this doesn't mean that meat wasn't more important, but if you're a native tribe camped next to a bush full of edible berries, why would you not eat them?

At least that's my understanding of the process based on my reading... I'm open to new arguments and sources.

 

[southernhybrid]

I could find quite a few articles that said the same thing, but I will link to a short one that agrees with the other things I've read

http://news.softpedia.com/news/What-Did-The-Early-Humans-Eat-39828.shtml

A new method of analyzing fossil teeth allowed scientists to see that early humans had 1.8 million years ago a more varied diet than previously thought.

"The new study shows that Paranthropus robustus,(image) (who lived side by side with Homo species, direct ancestors of modern humans) once thought to be a "chewing machine" specializing in tough, low-quality vegetation, instead had a diverse diet ranging from fruits and nuts to sedges, grasses, seeds and perhaps even animals", said CU-Boulder anthropology Assistant Professor Matt Sponheimer.

I'm just surprised that anyone believes that early man ate only meat when the evidence says otherwise. In the past I've read quite a few books about our human development and everyone I read suggested that meat eating came later and was not the primary source of food of early man. Since early man evolved out of Africa, it makes sense to me that vegetation was certainly always a part of the human diet.

I don't want to keep arguing the point when I think the evidence is overwhelming that early humans ate a lot of vegetation, but I do hope that if PH continues making meat his primary food, he will at least add some sources of Vit. C and fiber. I'd suggest oranges, and maybe an oat cereal for starters. There is a reason that early humans were called hunter/gatherers. Their diet consisted of more than just meat. We aren't carnivores. I think there's ample scientific evidence to support that.

 

[PyramidHead]

What is the point of eating a crap diet with refined and processed foods and then consuming fiber on the side?

What constitutes refined and processed foods? What is the exact definition of 'refined' and of 'processed' in this context? Is a diet crap BECAUSE it contains 'refined and processed' food? If so, it is vital that we have a precise definition of these terms, so please provide one. If not, why mention 'refined and processed'?

Refined carbohydrates are worse for the body than natural ones because they are so much easier to absorb due to being comprised of very small, uniform particles. Thus, they tend to spike the glycemic roller coaster in a more dramatic way. But non-refined carbohydrates aren't therefore good. Fruit is just candy that grows on trees.

 

[PyramidHead]

I could find quite a few articles that said the same thing, but I will link to a short one that agrees with the other things I've read

http://news.softpedia.com/news/What-Did-The-Early-Humans-Eat-39828.shtml

A new method of analyzing fossil teeth allowed scientists to see that early humans had 1.8 million years ago a more varied diet than previously thought.

"The new study shows that Paranthropus robustus,(image) (who lived side by side with Homo species, direct ancestors of modern humans) once thought to be a "chewing machine" specializing in tough, low-quality vegetation, instead had a diverse diet ranging from fruits and nuts to sedges, grasses, seeds and perhaps even animals", said CU-Boulder anthropology Assistant Professor Matt Sponheimer.

I'm just surprised that anyone believes that early man ate only meat when the evidence says otherwise. In the past I've read quite a few books about our human development and everyone I read suggested that meat eating came later and was not the primary source of food of early man. Since early man evolved out of Africa, it makes sense to me that vegetation was certainly always a part of the human diet.

I don't want to keep arguing the point when I think the evidence is overwhelming that early humans ate a lot of vegetation, but I do hope that if PH continues making meat his primary food, he will at least add some sources of Vit. C and fiber. I'd suggest oranges, and maybe an oat cereal for starters. There is a reason that early humans were called hunter/gatherers. Their diet consisted of more than just meat. We aren't carnivores. I think there's ample scientific evidence to support that.

I appreciate your concern.

 

[bilby]

What is the point of eating a crap diet with refined and processed foods and then consuming fiber on the side?

What constitutes refined and processed foods? What is the exact definition of 'refined' and of 'processed' in this context? Is a diet crap BECAUSE it contains 'refined and processed' food? If so, it is vital that we have a precise definition of these terms, so please provide one. If not, why mention 'refined and processed'?

Refined carbohydrates are worse for the body than natural ones because they are so much easier to absorb due to being comprised of very small, uniform particles. Thus, they tend to spike the glycemic roller coaster in a more dramatic way. But non-refined carbohydrates aren't therefore good. Fruit is just candy that grows on trees.

So you are defining 'refined' to mean 'pulverised'?

What does 'processed' mean?

 

[PyramidHead]

Refined carbohydrates are worse for the body than natural ones because they are so much easier to absorb due to being comprised of very small, uniform particles. Thus, they tend to spike the glycemic roller coaster in a more dramatic way. But non-refined carbohydrates aren't therefore good. Fruit is just candy that grows on trees.

So you are defining 'refined' to mean 'pulverised'?

What does 'processed' mean?

More or less the same, I don't really make a distinction. The "processing" and "refining" just removes a lot of the natural coating from the grain, making the carbohydrate content (as well as the gluten in some cases) of the kernel more available for digestion.

 

[bilby]

Refined carbohydrates are worse for the body than natural ones because they are so much easier to absorb due to being comprised of very small, uniform particles. Thus, they tend to spike the glycemic roller coaster in a more dramatic way. But non-refined carbohydrates aren't therefore good. Fruit is just candy that grows on trees.

So you are defining 'refined' to mean 'pulverised'?

What does 'processed' mean?

More or less the same, I don't really make a distinction. The "processing" and "refining" just removes a lot of the natural coating from the grain, making the carbohydrate content (as well as the gluten in some cases) of the kernel more available for digestion.

OK, so 'processed' and 'refined' only apply to foods made from grain. That's not in keeping with many of the ways I see others use those words. But it's good to know that Spam is not processed or refined, and is therefore more virtuous than wheat flour.

 

[PyramidHead]

More or less the same, I don't really make a distinction. The "processing" and "refining" just removes a lot of the natural coating from the grain, making the carbohydrate content (as well as the gluten in some cases) of the kernel more available for digestion.

OK, so 'processed' and 'refined' only apply to foods made from grain. That's not in keeping with many of the ways I see others use those words. But it's good to know that Spam is not processed or refined, and is therefore more virtuous than wheat flour.

It most definitely is!

 

[humbleman]

Following some discussion in the plant-based foods thread, and some research of my own, I'm going to try eating a purely carnivorous diet for a month. The idea behind it is to simply eat only meat and drink only water. "Meat" just means animal-sourced food and can contain:

Beef
Steaks such as ribeye, sirloin, strip, and chuck eye
Short ribs
Roasts such as prime rib, chuck, brisket
Ground beef or strips of beef for stir-fries
Organs such as liver and heart
Marrow bones
Lamb
Ribs
Chops
Shank

Pork
Shoulder or butt roasts
Baby back ribs, spare ribs
Shoulder chops
Pork belly
Poultry
Wings
Thighs and drumsticks
Breast is typically too lean, except for goose and duck.

Fish and shellfish
Salmon
Trout
Mackerel
Sardines
Oysters
Mussels
Crab
Lobster
Shrimp
Scallops

Eggs
Chicken
Duck
Roe

All of which can be eaten with or without salt, butter, or tallow. Bone broth can also be consumed.

This is, for me, a huge shift. I eat lots and lots of sugar and starch every day, and drink plenty of beer. But I love meat, and I'm looking forward to using the money I'll save from snacks and alcohol to enjoy some nice cuts on a daily basis. According to the testimonials and some scattered (but not conclusive) research, this diet is healthy and nutritionally complete. My plan is to get a sense of what's easy to prepare, tasty, keeps well, and is relatively inexpensive, and then stock up on it the next time I go grocery shopping.

If nothing else, this will be kind of a reset for my system, to purge all the junk I've been eating and drinking. After the 30 days, I can decide whether I want to continue eating this way indefinitely (as many do) or tweak it a little for convenience and comfort. I'll update this thread with any interesting observations, and with general progress throughout the duration of the diet.

This is from true experience.

A new guy who came from Texas, used to have meat for breakfast, lunch and dinner everyday.

So, BBQs were his most famous invitations, and yes, no vegetables in his house, but lots of burgers, hot dogs and meats of all kind, like Sirloin, New York Steaks, Rib Eye, and more.

As we were invited very often, we see no much problems, but people from our same floor and from other floors of the building were making complaints.

One day, the janitor, who was a 50 years old short woman, came straight to him, and looking at him as a rare species, she asked him with a kind of disbelief: "what is wrong with you?"

The problem with his diet was the strong smell after he used the bathroom. It was acidic shit smell which lasted 10 or more minutes around. We didn't know it was also affecting other floors, probably some problem with the exhaust system.

So, plenty of meat is great, no doubt about that.

However, you might experience some uncomfortable consequences delivering out the residuals of the consumed meat.

 

[PyramidHead]

Day 11.

I may have discovered something very beneficial for my adaptation process. Until now, I had been only absorbing a portion of the fat that I ate, with the remainder trickling through my system and out the other end within about an hour of eating. Not a particularly pleasant feeling, especially losing the electrolytes contained in those water molecules each time. It's a symptom of not being fully adjusted to the different energy source, as has been attested to by almost everyone on this diet. However, an odd suggestion from one such person seems to make a big difference. If I don't drink any water an hour before or after eating, the fat is digested much more completely, without any appreciable liquid loss. I guess the water was adding an agitating factor to the already sensitive environment in my stomach, and triggering a drainage reaction due to the total liquid volume and the absence of anything to 'soak it up' like starches and fiber. Letting my stomach do its thing without any extra water not only circumvents the trip to the bathroom, but it puts all of the energy I was losing back into my grasp. At least until my GI tract is fully adapted (which anecdotal evidence suggests should be within a few more weeks), this could be a useful strategy for me.

A weird psychological phenomenon has started to occur. I notice myself thinking less and less about sweets, beer, or carby snacks during the day. Yet, at night, I've been having some interesting dream episodes. They aren't fantasy scenarios of devouring red velvet cakes in a pool of cookie dough, but rather stress scenarios where I suddenly find myself halfway through a bag of chips without remembering how I got there. I get very anxious and feel that I've failed myself, that I should just give up (give in) and abandon the whole project. The implication is that I'm unconsciously worried that I'll slip up and 'accidentally' eat a plate of french fries. There's no real relevance to it, beyond the observation that my mental state is also undergoing a process of acclimation.

I've been through a rotating selection of meat products in the past week and a half, and a few are starting to emerge as favorites. One is the bone-in beef shank, the so-called 'ox tail' cut. It's ridiculously cheap, ridiculously flavorful with plenty of fat, and the bone marrow is delicious and good for me. It's one of the only cuts of beef that I can happily throw in the pressure cooker and enjoy the next day just falling off the bone. A lot of chuck roast and leaner cuts can be kind of dry and stringy no matter how much they stew in their own juices. Another winner has been simple pan-seared ribeye steaks. Once the cut reaches room temp and the pan is nice and hot, it only takes five minutes to make and tastes perfect every time. The great thing about these is how rare I can leave the inside while still having a nice charred outer crust. Rare meat is one of the only ways I can get vitamin C, and the other nutrients in meat tend to decrease with cooking as well.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Day 11.

I may have discovered something very beneficial for my adaptation process. Until now, I had been only absorbing a portion of the fat that I ate, with the remainder trickling through my system and out the other end within about an hour of eating. Not a particularly pleasant feeling, especially losing the electrolytes contained in those water molecules each time. It's a symptom of not being fully adjusted to the different energy source, as has been attested to by almost everyone on this diet. However, an odd suggestion from one such person seems to make a big difference. If I don't drink any water an hour before or after eating, the fat is digested much more completely, without any appreciable liquid loss. I guess the water was adding an agitating factor to the already sensitive environment in my stomach, and triggering a drainage reaction due to the total liquid volume and the absence of anything to 'soak it up' like starches and fiber. Letting my stomach do its thing without any extra water not only circumvents the trip to the bathroom, but it puts all of the energy I was losing back into my grasp. At least until my GI tract is fully adapted (which anecdotal evidence suggests should be within a few more weeks), this could be a useful strategy for me.

A weird psychological phenomenon has started to occur. I notice myself thinking less and less about sweets, beer, or carby snacks during the day. Yet, at night, I've been having some interesting dream episodes. They aren't fantasy scenarios of devouring red velvet cakes in a pool of cookie dough, but rather stress scenarios where I suddenly find myself halfway through a bag of chips without remembering how I got there. I get very anxious and feel that I've failed myself, that I should just give up (give in) and abandon the whole project. The implication is that I'm unconsciously worried that I'll slip up and 'accidentally' eat a plate of french fries. There's no real relevance to it, beyond the observation that my mental state is also undergoing a process of acclimation.

I've been through a rotating selection of meat products in the past week and a half, and a few are starting to emerge as favorites. One is the bone-in beef shank, the so-called 'ox tail' cut. It's ridiculously cheap, ridiculously flavorful with plenty of fat, and the bone marrow is delicious and good for me. It's one of the only cuts of beef that I can happily throw in the pressure cooker and enjoy the next day just falling off the bone. A lot of chuck roast and leaner cuts can be kind of dry and stringy no matter how much they stew in their own juices. Another winner has been simple pan-seared ribeye steaks. Once the cut reaches room temp and the pan is nice and hot, it only takes five minutes to make and tastes perfect every time. The great thing about these is how rare I can leave the inside while still having a nice charred outer crust. Rare meat is one of the only ways I can get vitamin C, and the other nutrients in meat tend to decrease with cooking as well.

I was hoping for an update. Thanks. Glad it's going well.

BTW I do the same thing with the water, always an hour before or after, never during, except maybe sips if I really need the liquid. That's pretty good advice regardless the selection of food.

I don't think your food is transiting that quickly. Eating is supposed to trigger the dump response.

 

[PyramidHead]

I was hoping for an update. Thanks. Glad it's going well.

BTW I do the same thing with the water, always an hour before or after, never during, except maybe sips if I really need the liquid. That's pretty good advice regardless the selection of food.

I don't think your food is transiting that quickly. Eating is supposed to trigger the dump response.

It's definitely not the food I just ate, it's just the liquid content that includes much of the oils and juices. The other stuff gets digested pretty well.

I didn't know that keeping food and drink separate was a general piece of advice, that's good to hear. Almost nobody I have ever met seems to follow it, though, and every restaurant seems to assume the opposite!

 

[bilby]

I was hoping for an update. Thanks. Glad it's going well.

BTW I do the same thing with the water, always an hour before or after, never during, except maybe sips if I really need the liquid. That's pretty good advice regardless the selection of food.

I don't think your food is transiting that quickly. Eating is supposed to trigger the dump response.

It's definitely not the food I just ate, it's just the liquid content that includes much of the oils and juices. The other stuff gets digested pretty well.

I didn't know that keeping food and drink separate was a general piece of advice, that's good to hear. Almost nobody I have ever met seems to follow it, though, and every restaurant seems to assume the opposite!

Keeping food and drink separate sounds like pointless bollocks to me, but then, I'm just a failed biochemist so what would I know.

Almost all of the water you drink (with food or not) is absorbed by the stomach lining; the fluids in your intestinal tract are largely sourced from various digestive secretions, notably bile, or is a breakdown product of the food itself, and that intestinal fluid is then removed (or not) by the large intestine. It's the latter process that affects the consistency of the stool, and that is largely determined by the osmotic potential of the excreta.

So much processing takes place between consumption and excretion that the difference between drinking water with meals or at a few hours remove from them should be minimal (in the absence of dehydration effects).

Humans are basically big sacks of water, and the small intestine contents of a person who isn't severely dehydrated are mostly a very dilute watery slurry, regardless of how much fluid you drink, or at what time.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that this cannot possibly be a real effect, but the absence of a reasonable mechanism for it, coupled with the overwhelming amount of half-baked nonsense that self appointed nutrition 'experts' and diet gurus are known to spout, leaves my skepticism sense tingling.

 

[humbleman]

https://www.quora.com/What-happens-to-a-body-that-consumes-only-meat

Lots of carnivores are healthy and eat meat.

I don't know of any culture in which people only eat meat, but I would like to see some people trying a pure meat diet of natural meat. No hormones or weird chemicals in the feed or the meat. Some of the meat should likely be seafood, and some eaten raw.
Great experiment!

As always, the answer is Yes, you can survive eating only [whatever].

The question is how well and how long. For most people and most instances of raw meat the answers will be very poorly and not very long. Even if the meat were all bacteriologically safe, the resulting diet would be very narrow, leading to malnutrition.

Read the book “2 years before the mast” by Richard Henry Dana, published in 1840. It tells the story of the people that sailed up and down the California coast trading hides in the pioneering days. He describes how he lived on nothing but beef for the entire time and never felt healthier. The town Dana Point in Southern California is named after him.

Depends on how much meat you eat versus how much energy you are putting out, otherwise you may keep living a perfectly healthy life.

A completely carnivorous diet isn't without certain implications, however, as like a completely vegetarian diet, you'd need to attempt to eat more varieties in order to get the necessary vitamins and minerals.

I’m not sure I’m fully qualified to answer but surely semi qualified.

I have been eating meat twice a day for last 15 years or more. I rarely eat any carbs. Or make any conscious effort to eat fruit or vegetables. I drink coffee. Thats pretty much my diet all these years. Some indulgence here and there. Thats about it.

So what happened to my body - NOTHING

Stefansson and a friend later volunteered for a one year experiment at Bellevue Hospital Center in New York City to prove he could thrive on a diet of nothing but meat, meat fat, and internal organs of animals.[4] His progress was closely monitored and experiments were done on his health throughout the year. At the end of the year, he did not show any symptoms of ill health; he did not develop scurvy, which many scientists had expected to manifest itself only a few months into the diet due to the lack of vitamin C in muscle meat. However, Stefansson and his partner did not eat just muscle meat but also fat, raw brain, raw liver (a significant source of vitamin C and others), and other varieties of offal.

Stephen Eickhoff is correct: eating lean meat results in a malady known variously as "rabbit starvation", "mal de caribou" and "protein poisoning". A diet that comprises more animal fat than raw meat will sustain you for years and since much fat is contained in brain (around 60% of the brain is fat), around the heart, kidneys, stomach, and liver, eating the organs is essential.

Humans are not obligate carnivores, but are very adaptive. I think that eating protein and fat (in meat) without carbohydrate or fiber would lead to an extreme state of survival ketosis which is not sustainable. It's impossible to predict how long a person could survive on this very limited diet.

Since the other answers here pretty well answered the question, I don't want to beat a dead horse too much, but I will add to the conversation that the diet of UFC fighter Brock Lesnar consisted of almost only meat, and because of this imbalance he developed a condition called diverticulitis.

Well, if you don't get a gout disease, you might suffer from the lack of many different vitamins. What Stephen Eickhoff failed to mention is that there is no scientific evidence for thriving on such a diet. Raw meat could also mean many different parasites.
Water, on the other hand, can get you far. You can live on only water for 40 days and you won't get harmed.

If you're talking about a diet of pure meat and water and nothing else then you're in for a lot of trouble. Meat, as you might know, consists of plenty of roughage which is good for bowel movement. And nothing else. If you're old enough I sure you've gone through some books that states the different vitamins and minerals and the diseases caused by their deficiency. Expect to retract most of these as meat does not contain essential citric and keratin vitamins very very important for proper body function. And the only minerals possible for you may come from the water you will drink.

You can live for a very long time just on meat and water. But as many point out you will not thrive.

I once saw documentary on a woman who only ate one particular brand of chips, and nothing else. She was not healthy but she was living.

So you can survive on just meat and water, but you will not be healthy.

You could survive for a while but not too long. Your body needs other essential nutrients to fight diseases and to keep your system working properly. Lack of nutrients will lead system malfunction and eventually organ failure.

From all of these opinions from above, I think that a diet of meat and water should keep you OK for life SOLELY when you start such a diet since childhood.

I am a kind of sleptic that a body used to carbohydrates, sugars from fruits and others, vegetables and more, will keep a healthy status after changing the diet to meat and water alone. The opinions from above mention the Alaska natives and their diet, but surely the aborigines have kept that diet since they were born.

The prediction of many that yes, the body will survive after changing to such diet or meat and water is correct, however it is clear that eventually the body might show symptoms of an unhealthy status.

As an experiment lasting months I guess should be OK, but if this experiment is made by older people, it is possible that the results won't be positive as expected.

 

[Old Woman in Purple]

If my husband tried this diet, he'd end up hospitalized from the gout pain that resulted.

 

[PyramidHead]

From all of these opinions from above, I think that a diet of meat and water should keep you OK for life SOLELY when you start such a diet since childhood.

I am a kind of sleptic that a body used to carbohydrates, sugars from fruits and others, vegetables and more, will keep a healthy status after changing the diet to meat and water alone. The opinions from above mention the Alaska natives and their diet, but surely the aborigines have kept that diet since they were born.

The prediction of many that yes, the body will survive after changing to such diet or meat and water is correct, however it is clear that eventually the body might show symptoms of an unhealthy status.

As an experiment lasting months I guess should be OK, but if this experiment is made by older people, it is possible that the results won't be positive as expected.

As long as you're just looking at internet quotes, do check out the ones from the many people who have started this diet late in life and have never been healthier:

https://zerocarbzen.com/testimonials/
http://www.zerocarbhealth.com/index.php/category/testimonials/