It also raises levels of LDL cholesterol, which increases the risk of cardiovascular disease.
This is completely ignoring that there’s multiple varieties of LDL cholesterol, some of which are benign. And basic blood draws don’t differentiate them, you need more detailed blood tests.
They are also low in dietary fiber, possibly causing constipation.
Dietary fiber is not an essential nutrient. Not only that, when I went carnivore for 2 months, after the first week of acclimation I was more regular than I have ever been in my life.
A carnivore diet high in red meat increases the risks of colon cancer and gout.
The study referenced is an epidiological study based on surveys of people that were asked to recall what they’ve eaten for the past 30 years. This resulted in clearly erroneous data where average daily calory intake was wildly off from average human requirements.
And you’re not supposed to draw conclusions from epidemiological studies with results lower than a 100% risk increase (aka doubling risk). The result of this study was 18%.
At best, this study should have been used to propose a more focussed double-blind study on the subject. But they didn’t. The WHO should be ashamed for platforming this trash study as if it’s 6-sigma physics results
The high protein intake of a carnivore diet can lead to impaired kidney function
The amount of protein that you’d need to eat to make this a problem is far beyond what a normal human could eat in a day. You’d die from rabbit starvation before it’d get that far. This study is like the one rat study claiming that asperthame causes cancer, but they were giving the rats 1000x the dose a normal human would consume if you corrected for body weight.
basic blood draws don’t differentiate them, you need more detailed blood tests.
You can get pretty close with a standard lipid panel: the TG/HDL ratio < 2, is strongly correlated with insulin sensitivity and LDL being pattern A (the undamaged, good type).
And you’re not supposed to draw conclusions from epidemiological studies with results lower than a 100% risk increase (aka doubling risk). The result of this study was 18%.
Epidemiology cannot establish causation in any circumstance, but if the hazard ratio is > 4 (so 400% risk increase) then further studies/interventions are warranted. This is why epidemiology is more accurately called hypothesis generating. But yeah a 1.18 hazard ratio is such low noise it doesn’t warrant further study, only people with agendas try to use such a low noisy signal for political ends.
The WHO should be ashamed for platforming this trash study as if it’s 6-sigma physics results
This is completely ignoring that there’s multiple varieties of LDL cholesterol, some of which are benign. And basic blood draws don’t differentiate them, you need more detailed blood tests.
Dietary fiber is not an essential nutrient. Not only that, when I went carnivore for 2 months, after the first week of acclimation I was more regular than I have ever been in my life.
The study referenced is an epidiological study based on surveys of people that were asked to recall what they’ve eaten for the past 30 years. This resulted in clearly erroneous data where average daily calory intake was wildly off from average human requirements.
And you’re not supposed to draw conclusions from epidemiological studies with results lower than a 100% risk increase (aka doubling risk). The result of this study was 18%.
At best, this study should have been used to propose a more focussed double-blind study on the subject. But they didn’t. The WHO should be ashamed for platforming this trash study as if it’s 6-sigma physics results
The amount of protein that you’d need to eat to make this a problem is far beyond what a normal human could eat in a day. You’d die from rabbit starvation before it’d get that far. This study is like the one rat study claiming that asperthame causes cancer, but they were giving the rats 1000x the dose a normal human would consume if you corrected for body weight.
You can get pretty close with a standard lipid panel: the TG/HDL ratio < 2, is strongly correlated with insulin sensitivity and LDL being pattern A (the undamaged, good type).
Epidemiology cannot establish causation in any circumstance, but if the hazard ratio is > 4 (so 400% risk increase) then further studies/interventions are warranted. This is why epidemiology is more accurately called hypothesis generating. But yeah a 1.18 hazard ratio is such low noise it doesn’t warrant further study, only people with agendas try to use such a low noisy signal for political ends.
!!!