(2018-09-01, 08:42 PM)Steve001 Wrote: You read it incorrectly. I wasn't implying (or critical) what you think I am. There's no fiber in an all animal protein diet.
Campbell, in my book, is not very reliable, even if he does (hopefully) mean well.
Denise Minger addressed pretty much everything Campbell said, and in my opinion, ripped him a new one . . . in a well-meaning, humorous way.
He responded to her, and she responded back. But then he never responded again. To bad! Could've been an interesting conversation had he wanted to keep it going. From my view, it looks totally like he got out-argued and then cashed out.
Here's a link to Minger's articles on the subject:
But the main thing that I find so disingenuous about the article is that it only tries to brush away what's going on with the Maasai and Inuit, as though by doing so (however poorly) the problem is resolved. It's not! Every group that Weston Price looked at basically shows something that completely and totally flies in the face of Campbell's shoddy plant-based argument. Every. Single. One. Not just those two. All those groups he examined should've had incredible amounts of heart disease and cancer and god-knows what else that meat supposedly causes. But instead, what did they have? Nothing at all except for damn near perfect health. So, to me for Campbell to argue against that makes it hard for me to weigh in on whether or not he's displaying considerable cognitive dissonance or something else is going on.
Reply
Reply
The following 1 user Likes Reece's post:1 user Likes Reece's post • Valmar
(2018-09-01, 10:40 PM)Reece Wrote: Campbell, in my book, is not very reliable, even if he does (hopefully) mean well.
Denise Minger addressed pretty much everything Campbell said, and in my opinion, ripped him a new one . . . in a well-meaning, humorous way.
He responded to her, and she responded back. But then he never responded again. To bad! Could've been an interesting conversation had he wanted to keep it going. From my view, it looks totally like he got out-argued and then cashed out.
Here's a link to Minger's articles on the subject:
But the main thing that I find so disingenuous about the article is that it only tries to brush away what's going on with the Maasai and Inuit, as though by doing so (however poorly) the problem is resolved. It's not! Every group that Weston Price looked at basically shows something that completely and totally flies in the face of Campbell's shoddy plant-based argument. Every. Single. One. Not just those two. All those groups he examined should've had incredible amounts of heart disease and cancer and god-knows what else that meat supposedly causes. But instead, what did they have? Nothing at all except for damn near perfect health. So, to me for Campbell to argue against that makes it hard for me to weigh in on whether or not he's displaying considerable cognitive dissonance or something else is going on.
Frankly, I could not care less what he wrote.
I'm just saying all meat diet for most of humanity is a recipe for spending an I ordinate amount of time on the crapper that we would not spend when we incorporate appropriate amounts of fiber.
Reply
Reply
(This post was last modified: 2018-09-02, 01:11 AM by Steve001.)
(2018-09-01, 09:45 PM)Ninshub Wrote: Naive question but: aren't you going to be missing out on vitamins, other important nutrients, etc., if you only eat meat?
After living with the inuit for five years, he came back to western society and said, "I'm living on only meat and some eggs." They thought this was crazy and that he should've been deficient in this, that, and the other thing. He lived under medical care, as I understand it, for another year so that they could monitor him, still eating only meat and eggs . . . This is what the book is about.
Also, listen to the the latest Rogan podcast with Mikhaila Peterson; she's carnivore and healed herself from extreme arthritis and depression. They address your question somewhat (and she actually mentions that book). Listen all the way to the end, though, because it gets brought up several times.
And though it may be anecdotal, the number of people reporting healing from an insane amount of ailments on the carnivore diet defies belief. You should follow Shawn Baker on social media somewhere to get an idea. I mean, after you watch someone who battled psoriasis (or whatever else) for years heal it with four weeks of only meat, it seems to strange to think that it's at this point they'd be deficient.
Also, for what it's worth, bear in mind that there are no essential carbs. There are definitely essential fatty acids and essential amino acids, though.
Personal: my teeth lost (all? a lot?) mineralization on a vegetarian diet . . . and ended up chipping out on more than one occasion while eating something as soft as air. But even after years of returning to eating meat in a paleo type form and getting the healthiest carbs available - fruit, veggies as opposed to empty grains - and even doing supposedly nutrient rich things like juicing, I still didn't remineralize them. Well, guess what: after about a month of carnivore, my teeth have taken a totally unexpected upshot. While I don't claim to know exactly what it means, I can't help but take it as an extremely good sign that almost all my sensitivity has gone away. And it was really bad, too. The reason I know that is because I've cheated several times with foods that used to bother me, but after eating them I realized they didn't bother me at all - or almost at all . . . and was somewhat shocked. I say that because the way it seems to me is that I absolutely have to be absorbing more nutrients than on all other past diets . . . but one would think, after all the stuff on juicing, that I would've long ago taken in ample minerals to remineralize my teeth with all those thousands of veggies I juiced or all those handfuls of spinach I threw in the blender. Yet I didn't; they were still getting significantly worse while I was doing those things.
Why not? My own speculation runs along these lines, though I'm claiming to fully know: an animal's defenses are only available when it's alive. A plant's, on the other hand, are there after it's been picked. This is one reason we have to cook all those plants and tubers and such for so long. They're inedible otherwise. Even things we think we don't have to cook, we still probably should: leafy greens because of acid, for example . . . and nuts, which should be soaked. Only fruit, which the plant intends for you to eat, can be harmlessly eaten raw. The animal though, once dead, is harmless and all nutrients are readily absorbed. Seeds, which all grains are, are actually anti-nutrients: they actually absorb them from us! The difficult of absorbing nutrients from plants is a big one and I only know a little about it . . . I used to be dismissive of it as a vegetarian and even afterwards as paleo, but I now take it very seriously.
Basically, no one knows for sure, but more people appear to be much healthier on only meat than on almost anything else . . . even to the degree of healing supposedly unfixable things. Perhaps it will be seriously (and honestly) studied.
(2018-09-02, 12:57 AM)Steve001 Wrote: Frankly, I could not care less what he wrote.
I'm just saying all meat diet for most of humanity is a recipe for spending an I ordinate amount of time on the crapper that we would not spend when we incorporate appropriate amounts of fiber.
Again Steve, not to be overly rude, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Meat doesn't make one constipated. It corrects people's digestion. Period.
But as usual, you go ahead and believe what you'd like.
Reply
Reply
The following 2 users Like Reece's post:2 users Like Reece's post • Valmar, Doug
— Fiber doesn’t ward off colon cancer, according to the Harvard School of Public Health: “For years, Americans have been told to consume a high-fiber diet to lower the risk of colon cancer […] Larger and better-designed studies have failed to show a link between fiber and colon cancer.” Scores of other studies, cited in Fiber Menace, have demonstrated that fiber increases the risk of colon cancer. (p. 181)
— Fiber doesn’t prevent breast cancer either, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, it’s the complete opposite: “Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with breast cancer risk.” Fiber happens to be a carbohydrate too, and carbohydrates are the only food that contains fiber. (p. 183)
— Fiber doesn’t reduce the risk of heart disease, according to the American Heart Association: “A fiber supplement added to a diet otherwise high in saturated fat and cholesterol provides dubious cardiovascular advantage.” Furthermore, these supplements caused “reduced mineral absorption and a myriad of gastrointestinal disturbances” — factors that in fact, contribute to heart disease. (p. 41)
— Fiber doesn’t counteract diabetes, according to the Harvard School of Public Health: “Fiber intake has also been linked with the metabolic syndrome, a constellation of factors that increases the chances of developing heart disease and diabetes.” Truth is, fiber requires more insulin or drugs to control blood sugar, and makes diabetes even more devastating. (p. 220)
— Fiber doesn’t curb appetite, according to the Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University: “…fiber supplements did not alter hunger, satiety or body weight in a pilot study of men and women consuming self-selected diets.” In fact, fiber stimulates appetite, extends digestion, expands stomach capacity, and makes you hungrier the next time around. (p. 60-76, or here.)
— Fiber doesn’t keeps “colon clean” by speeding elimination, according to the highly respected and authoritative Rome II: The Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders textbook: “There is little or no relationship between dietary fiber and whole gut transit time.” In fact, fiber delays transit time more than does any other food ingredient, and is the primary cause of chronic constipation, hemorrhoids, diverticulosis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease. (p. 21,23, 29, 103)
— Fiber doesn’t relieve chronic constipation, according to the American College of Gastroenterology Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders Task Force: all legitimate clinical trials demonstrated no “improvement in stool frequency or consistency when compared with placebo.” How could it, if it caused it in the first place? (p. 105, 115)
But that's only a small part of fiber’s menacing role in human nutrition. It also has it’s imprint in practically all digestive disorders. In that context, learning from Fiber Menace diet may end up becoming one of the most transformational experiences of your life.
Reply
Reply
The following 1 user Likes Reece's post:1 user Likes Reece's post • Valmar
— Fiber doesn’t ward off colon cancer, according to the Harvard School of Public Health: “For years, Americans have been told to consume a high-fiber diet to lower the risk of colon cancer […] Larger and better-designed studies have failed to show a link between fiber and colon cancer.” Scores of other studies, cited in Fiber Menace, have demonstrated that fiber increases the risk of colon cancer. (p. 181)
— Fiber doesn’t prevent breast cancer either, according to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In fact, it’s the complete opposite: “Carbohydrate intake was positively associated with breast cancer risk.” Fiber happens to be a carbohydrate too, and carbohydrates are the only food that contains fiber. (p. 183)
— Fiber doesn’t reduce the risk of heart disease, according to the American Heart Association: “A fiber supplement added to a diet otherwise high in saturated fat and cholesterol provides dubious cardiovascular advantage.” Furthermore, these supplements caused “reduced mineral absorption and a myriad of gastrointestinal disturbances” — factors that in fact, contribute to heart disease. (p. 41)
— Fiber doesn’t counteract diabetes, according to the Harvard School of Public Health: “Fiber intake has also been linked with the metabolic syndrome, a constellation of factors that increases the chances of developing heart disease and diabetes.” Truth is, fiber requires more insulin or drugs to control blood sugar, and makes diabetes even more devastating. (p. 220)
— Fiber doesn’t curb appetite, according to the Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University: “…fiber supplements did not alter hunger, satiety or body weight in a pilot study of men and women consuming self-selected diets.” In fact, fiber stimulates appetite, extends digestion, expands stomach capacity, and makes you hungrier the next time around. (p. 60-76, or here.)
— Fiber doesn’t keeps “colon clean” by speeding elimination, according to the highly respected and authoritative Rome II: The Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders textbook: “There is little or no relationship between dietary fiber and whole gut transit time.” In fact, fiber delays transit time more than does any other food ingredient, and is the primary cause of chronic constipation, hemorrhoids, diverticulosis, ulcerative colitis, and Crohn's disease. (p. 21,23, 29, 103)
— Fiber doesn’t relieve chronic constipation, according to the American College of Gastroenterology Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders Task Force: all legitimate clinical trials demonstrated no “improvement in stool frequency or consistency when compared with placebo.” How could it, if it caused it in the first place? (p. 105, 115)
But that's only a small part of fiber’s menacing role in human nutrition. It also has it’s imprint in practically all digestive disorders. In that context, learning from Fiber Menace diet may end up becoming one of the most transformational experiences of your life.
I have not the slightest idea why you quote all that crap when I'm specifically talking about constipation in healthy people with no pre-existing gastrointestinal disorders. You might want to recalibrate you BS meter over that author he's presenting a skewed perspective. Look, if you want to not consume fiber, (eat only meat or be a vegan or whatever I could not care less). As for me with no pre-existing gastrointestinal disorders I'll include fiber even though it's a menace.
P.S. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3435786/
Reply
Reply
(This post was last modified: 2018-09-02, 08:47 PM by Steve001.)
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)
