this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
1 points (66.7% liked)
Friendly Carnivore
63 readers
5 users here now
Carnivore
The ultimate, zero carb, elimination diet
Meat Heals.
We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.
Keep being AWESOME
We welcome engaged, polite, and logical debates and questions of any type
Purpose
- lifestyle
- food
- Science
- problems
- Recipes
- Sustainability
- Regenerative lifestyle
Rules
- Be nice
- Stay on topic
- Don't farm rage
- Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
- No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you
- No LLM generated posts . Don't represent machine output as your own, and don't use machines to burn human response time.
Other terms: LCHF Carnivore, Keto Carnivore, Ketogenic Carnivore, Low Carb Carnivore, Zero Carb Carnivore, Animal Based Diet, Animal Sourced Foods
Resource Post!- Papers - Books - Channels
founded 3 weeks ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Whooh, lots to unpack here.
So the normal horsemen of weak science, tiny hazard ratios, low probability associations, relative risk only, observational, cohorts, food frequency questionaries, not clinically significant.
evidence pyramid
This is observational, which is hypothesis generating, not showing causation. We have healthy patient confounders, sugar and fructose confounders, etc.
So every FOUR years people were asked to categorize what they had eaten in the last 4 years....
They didn't like the data... so they reclassified people posthoc.
Major Issue: These FFQs don't take into account metabolic health. People on a Ketogenic LCHF, or a Zero Carb (Carnivore) diet absolutely do not have increased mortality. These FFQs can be sliced to show any association that you like, the fact they are mixing healthy patients (following guidelines) with people who don't follow any guidelines (including alcohol, sugar, fructose, etc) and seeing a overall health benefit from the guideline followers doesn't meat every single association is causative.
The Standard American Diet (SAD) is so absolutely BAD that any intervention looks good compared to it. Sadly a major component of the SAD diet is seed oils, which this paper is trying to promote. If they wanted to do real science they would hold seed oils constant in a study and add real butter on top, or have a 100% ASF fat diet vs 100% Seed oil diet (oh wait, we did that study already, they didn't like the data and hid it for 30 years - spoiler seed oils kill people)