3
why do people get so triggered by the carnivore diet? (hackertalks.com)
submitted 2 days ago by to c/carnivore@discuss.online
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

there seems to be a real emotional response by many people...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 8 hours ago* (3 children)

I'm actually arguing that the phytochemicals are probably good with hormesis being one of the mechanisms.

Observational studies with millions of people and over decades have shown plant based diets are good. Epidemiology proved the harms of many industrial chemicals, smoking and the benefits of exercise etc.

I know carnivores reject epidemiology. But I personally find it convincing. (Along with the health benefits I have experienced)

Interestingly I found some studies even in obligate carnivores like cats which when they go vegan have longer lifespan and healthspan.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (2 children)

    Hormesis is heavily debated. But just in general, I'm not a fan of "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger." What doesn't kill you generally makes you very sick.

    Epidemiology didn't prove smoking causes cancer, btw. It cannot. But the study in question that I presume you're referring to, Doll and Hill's, had a very significant relative risk finding:

    https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5298160/#%3A%7E%3Atext=And+what+did%2Cincreased+by+%E2%88%BC50%25.

    It showed a 45 fold increase for men smoking more than 35 cigarettes a day. In comparison, our favourite study of colorectal cancer by IARC had a RR of 1.18. In the same figures, that's a RR of 45 for smoking vs RR of 1.18 for processed meat. In percentages, that is 4500% vs 18%. And yet this is the most significant epidemiology that we have for studies in nutrition.

    An interesting aside is that Austin Bradford Hill, the Hill in "Doll and Hill", is also the person responsible for the Bradford Hill criteria . Generally, anything interesting worth investigating should have a RR of > 2. I don't reject epidemiology, btw, I think it's a good way to generate a hypothesis. But it cannot prove causality and isn't science on its own.

    You are free to draw your own conclusions, of course.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 hours ago (1 child)

    Epidemiology didn't prove smoking causes cancer, btw. It cannot

    It doesn't prove causation. I agree.

    It did show an 18% increase in risk for colorectal cancer in those that eat processed meat. It's small and maybe future studies might overturn it. But why take that risk now?

    Hormesis is heavily debated. what doesn't kill you generally makes you very sick.

    I think you do believe in certain forms of hormesis like exercise. If you look at its immediate effects, it breaks down your muscles, increases bp, stresses your liver, kidneys, bones etc. But as you recover you super compensate by growing bigger muscles, more efficient circulation and metabolism etc. Exercise makes you live better and longer. (I think carnivores also believe that)

    It's the same with other environmental and psychological stresses. It been demonstrated in studies too. It's all about Context, recovery and dosage.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •