28
I got permabanned from the Friendly Carnivore com and I think that's really funny. (lemmy.today)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/casualconversation@piefed.social
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I eat meat, but man do I see some dumb shit posted on that com. Apparently I called someone too hard on their bullshit. Hardcore carnists sure are fucking delicate. Maybe they should get a little more fiber in their diet.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -20 points 5 months ago (27 children)

Maybe they should get a little more fiber in their diet.

Fibre is not an essential nutrient, there is no need to consume it - especially if your not eating carbohydrates and producing your own short chain fatty acids.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    If you don’t eat fiber you’re going to have some serious gut issues later in life. Lack of fiber has been linked to colon and other gut cancers.

    Also i prefer to not be backed up for two weeks waiting to poop from lack of fiber but you do you.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    You'll be surprised to learn that eating no fiber at all completely relieved idiopathic constipation in a study done on the topic: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3435786/

    Observational study, obviously, and correlation isn't causation. But it's easy enough to experiment on yourself. I have no constipation and consume no fibre in my diet.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Idiopathic constipation - these people were not healthy. It's a bit like saying reducing gluten for patients with celiac disease makes people healthier so no one should eat gluten.

    But who cares about science when you can cherry-pick papers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago

    But who cares about science when you can cherry-pick papers.

    Pick a lane! Either you want scientific papers, or you don't. Ignoring papers because they don't line up with your pet hypothesis is anti-science.

    also has other benefits, slowing down blood sugar absorption, and fat absorption.

    Yes, this is why fibre is a anti-nutrient. If you don't eat unhealthy food this isn't a positive thing.

    usually it keeps your regular too.

    If people enjoying bulking up their stools, good for them, but this isn't a health benefit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Have fun with your eventual colon cancer.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (13 children)

    Have fun with your eventual colon cancer.

    Do you have non-observational data to support this position that the lack of fibre is causal for colon cancer?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 4 months ago (10 children)

    It's funny how most real scientists highly respect epidemiology—the field that uncovered the harms of smoking, forever chemicals, thalidomide etc.

    The company dupont had to confess and pay a hefty fine for poisoning the planet with pfas chemicals. Clearly they aren't as smart as carnivore influncers.

    Why don't they hire some lawyers to hand wave and ignore observational studies because they are "weak evidence" or bad science?

    Maybe smoking is good too because it helps you lose weight, reduce anxiety and issues like ibs. You can do a 30 day test and see it for yourself.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (9 children)

    If you find epidemiology compelling I invite you to read - https://discuss.online/post/40722935 - Animal Based Food Beneficial Epidemiology List

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (8 children)

    I'll check them out.

    But my initial thoughts are that those are highly cherry picked (and probably funded by meat companies, I have to check) and that the highest quality epidemiological studies like Framingham show eating plants is way better for heart and brain in the long run.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (7 children)

    But my initial thoughts are that those are highly cherry picked

    YES! All epidemiology is bullshit, by its very nature - the vast majority are cherry picking and polluted by confounders. However, if your standard for compelling evidence is epidemiology you have to account for every study going against your hypothesis.

    highest quality epidemiological studies like Framingham

    Why do you consider this epidemiology better quality then other epidemiology? It generates a hypothesis that needs to be tested! It has just as many confounders! If you rate quality by alignment with a pre-existing bias, you have to be aware of it.

    show eating plants is way better for heart and brain in the long run.

    You have to look critically at every study - In what population? In what metabolic context? Enumerate every confounder, every "controlled" variable that has assumptions baked in. Realize FFQs are highly unreliable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (6 children)

    I don't consider epidemiology to be bs or just hypothesis generating as do most scientists.

    It finds subtle long term trends that are too impractical to find with other methods like RCTs. So if a lot of high quality epidemiology says saturated fats increase heart disease risk by 20-30% over decades then I will likely believe it. Just like it found a trend with smoking.

    Why do you consider this epidemiology better quality than other epidemiology?

    The same reason why any experiment can be better quality and well respected than others. You should look at a study's design, strengths, weaknesses etc and evaluate it.

    Let me ask you one question back. Do you consider astronomy or evolution to be bullshit too because they are based on observation as well?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago* (5 children)

    I don’t consider epidemiology to be bs or just hypothesis generating as do most scientists.

    That is a curious statement, science is a procedure that requires falsifiable and testable hypotheses.

    So if a lot of high quality epidemiology says saturated fats increase heart disease risk by 20-30% over decades then I will likely believe it.

    Ok, so your appealing to consensus? But that is fine for personal beliefs, however, there is evidence supporting saturated fat for long term health.

    You should look at a study’s design, strengths, weaknesses etc and evaluate it.

    Agreed, a observational study cannot establish cause and effect - by design.

    Do you consider astronomy or evolution to be bullshit too because they are based on observation as well?

    Astronomy has testable falsifiable hypotheses. As does evolution. You build a model and see if new data you didn't train on fits the model. With plant based nutritional epidemology, people reject new data by leaning things like 'a lot of high quality epidemiology says' and ignoring that contradiction of the model.

    These are not impossible things to test. We did it in the 1960s.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (4 children)

    I fail to see how epidemiology is different from any other branches of science. Apart from all the successes I mentioned it has done a great deal in understanding infectious diseases.

    a lot of high quality epidemiology says

    With better data you can overthrow any theory or hypothesis. I don't think anyone thinks the consensus view cannot be changed or plant based results from epidemiology are unfalsifiable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago* (3 children)

    I don’t think anyone thinks the consensus view cannot be changed or plant based results from epidemiology are unfalsifiable.

    Great, it does come across that way some times.

    I fail to see how epidemiology is different from any other branches of science.

    falsifiable hypothesis and interventional experiments would be a good start.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    thanks I am familiar enough with falsifiability and interventional studies to understand what you mean.

    As I said I have carefully studied epidimiology and it's historical successes. And I have directly experienced how the branch is viewed in the communities of actual scientists. I trust their judgement more than some health influencers and guys on the internet obsessed with spreading carnivore diet.

    I don't think we'll make much progress here. I'll go with carnivore diet bad.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    I trust their judgement more than some health influencers and guys on the internet obsessed with spreading carnivore diet.

    I post the actual papers you know.... Let's take a single issue we discussed, saturated fat and cardiovascular outcomes - I've posted this paper, but here it is directly https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2020.05.077 Saturated Fats and Health: A Reassessment and Proposal for Food-Based Recommendations: JACC State-of-the-Art Review

    How does your reading of consensus based epidemiology reconcile such analysis?

    I don’t think we’ll make much progress here. I’ll go with carnivore diet bad.

    Totally fair, I'm not trying to recruit you!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    ... "non-observational data"?

    What even is that? Math proofs?

    Research papers are unfortunately based on a combination of observation and theories derived from more observation, but for anyone curious, just type "colon cancer dietary fiber" into Google Scholar and then put the article DOIs into Anna's Archive. (wikipedia keeps safe links for Anna's Archive).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 4 months ago (3 children)

    Not for you but for your microbiome.

    I'm sure nothing can go wrong if you basically have only a handful of species that all thrive on the same nutrient in your gut ...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Would you know which species does what, exactly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    There is a whole concept out there about the microbiome in the human gut and how a more diverse microbiome can protect you from a lot of things, that is all.

    And if some funny thing like Clostridium difficile comes knocking I'd rather have a diverse microbiome so there is no space for it, that's all basic and boring ecology.

    But for me it's EOT here, since you can't argue against a believe system.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -1 points 4 months ago

    But for me it’s EOT here, since you can’t argue against a believe system.

    That is exactly the problem, you brought your belief without evidence and there is no way to persuade someone out a position they 'believed' themselves into.

    And if some funny thing like Clostridium difficile comes knocking I’d rather have a diverse microbiome so there is no space for it, that’s all basic and boring ecology.

    This is actually a fun myth! zero-carb carnivores have a very diverse gut microbiome. We have posted about this before - https://discuss.online/post/39760974 - [Paper] Long-term adherence to the carnivore diet and its impact on the gut microbiota: a cross-sectional study - 2026

    The issue is that the literature really doesn't understand the mechanisms of the gut microbiome at all, it's early days - the publication is mostly observational and associative. Lots of assumptions are being made.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent