ApoB not LDL cholesterol in blood work.

[trophy33]

Coronary artery calcium scores aren't necessarily indicative of cardiovascular disease risk. Calcified plaques are sometimes more stable than those that aren't calcified.

I do not claim it is, I just gave the source as an example of a better wording - "associated".

 

[trophy33]

The funny thing is that most nutritionists and most MD's including the mainstream medical websites like Mayo Clinic doesn't agree with your exceptionally expensive dietary preference.

Not agreeing - as long as there is nothing proven, just opinions, its OK they do not agree. Appealing to the majority is a logical fallacy. Facts are what matters.

If its "exceptionally expensive" - thats hard to define, its dependent on one's location and financial situation. Its almost always cheaper than medical treatments related to bad diets, so, this is quite subjective. I would always prefer a more expensive diet and being healthy than having a cheaper diet and being unhealthy.

The things you keep saying, you yourself don't follow. You supplement your "carnivore diet" with berries which contains sugar, carbs, and fiber because the true carnivore diet is giving your problems.

I would not call my diet a carnivore diet, I am somewhere between keto and carnivore. Berries contain about 7grams of sugar per 100grams, I eat daily or every other day about 50 grams, which is about 3.5 sugars a day, which is hardly something to even talk about in this context.

The "problems" were just high alertness and being too lean, which is common in the beginnings. It seems to be solved now, but I will probably continue with some low sugar fruit, who knows. Also, if I am more carnivore or ketovore, fluctuates. Its not a law written in the stone.

Even most experts say that a carnivore diet is unrealistic simply due to the fact most people around the world can't afford the diet due to high cost.

Which is irrelevant from the nutritional standpoint. Poor people have poor diets, thats the nature of things. Good things are frequently more expensive than low quality things.

Its also quite a strange argument, everybody would need to compare prices in their own shops, "experts" from the other side of the planet are irrelevant for my personal prices in my specific town.

Even if most experts are lying and there's a conspiracy at hand against the carnivore diet, most people really have no choice because the "perfect" carnivore diet is unaffordable to most people. The rest of us just have to adapt won't we? Find alternatives, fill the gaps with exercise for example. At least exercise is free. I'll run barefoot on the streets if I have to.

This is just repeating your previous two points - appeal to majority and arguing from your personal economic standpoint.

In western countries, if you do not buy bio/organic, then meat is quite cheap. If bought instead of pizzas, nutritionally-empty veggies, unnecessary exotic sugary fruit, various sugary drinks, alcohol, cigarettes, highly processed vegan meat alternatives etc, it may be even cheaper. It may be more expensive "per 100 grams" than for example rice or bread, but its also much more nutrient-dense.

 

[timewerx]

Coronary artery calcium scores aren't necessarily indicative of cardiovascular disease risk.

It may indicate excessive intake of calcium supplements or phosphorus or Vitamin D deficiency.

Sedentary lifestyle can also do this because the bones won't be absorbing all the calcium from diet or supplements and the excess calcium will end up in places it shouldn't be like the blood vessels and the heart.

Bones need to be stressed in order to absorb all the calcium from your diet. Resistance exercises is best for making bones absorb more calcium and get stronger.

Low impact cardio like cycling may actually make the bones weaker and not absorb all the calcium leading to calcification of the blood vessels so it's important to have resistance training (even if only short sessions) alongside cardio workouts to keep the bones strong.

A riskier approach is just reduce intake of calcium from diet and supplements but a usually (far better) approach is just exercise. Specially with resistance workouts.

 

[FireDragon76]

The funny thing is that most nutritionists and most MD's including the mainstream medical websites like Mayo Clinic doesn't agree with your exceptionally expensive dietary preference.

The things you keep saying, you yourself don't follow. You supplement your "carnivore diet" with berries which contains sugar, carbs, and fiber because the true carnivore diet is giving your problems.

Even most experts say that a carnivore diet is unrealistic simply due to the fact most people around the world can't afford the diet due to high cost.

Even if most experts are lying and there's a conspiracy at hand against the carnivore diet, most people really have no choice because the "perfect" carnivore diet is unaffordable to most people. The rest of us just have to adapt won't we? Find alternatives, fill the gaps with exercise for example. At least exercise is free. I'll run barefoot on the streets if I have to.

It just seems like the wrong approach to the problem.

If a person has trouble consuming plant foods, they need need to see a gastroenterologist. Avoiding otherwise healthy foods because you have GI problems seems counterproductive, and won't result in improved health long term.

There's alot of misinformation out there that isn't really based on good science, but has the color or appearance of being so. The internet has allowed alot of these types of voices to be promoted beyond what they would otherwise be.

 

[timewerx]

If its "exceptionally expensive" - thats hard to define, its dependent on one's location and financial situation. Its almost always cheaper than medical treatments related to bad diets, so, this is quite subjective.

Cheaper doesn't always mean affordable.

If me and my mom would switch to carnivore diet, we'd at least be at a $300 deficit per month. $300 maybe chump change for you but for me, it's over half of my monthly salary already.

And by deficit, I mean negative and if we have some savings in the bank, that means depleting our savings. If we go on a carnivore diet for 1 year, we'd be at a significant debt.

Dealing with additional financial stress trying to cope with an expensive diet would probably cut our lives shorter and negate all the "hypothetical, imaginary or even placebo" benefits we may get from a carnivore diet.

Ironically, if more people would get onboard the carnivore diet, it will only drive prices of meat even higher.

This is why experts are criticizing the carnivore diet as unsustainable or even "elitist". If most people would be gullible enough to be pulled by this fad diet, even the prices would get so high from the sky-rocketing demand that even many people in USA would be unable to afford the carnivore diet.

 

[trophy33]

If a person has trouble consuming plant foods, they need need to see a gastroenterologist. Avoiding otherwise healthy foods because you have GI problems seems counterproductive, and won't result in improved health long term.

Did you not say you had a trouble eating meat/saturated fats (it was giving you gout), and thats why you eat plants?

And meat is much more natural food for humans than eating modern plants. So having problem with such basic nutrition like with meat is more important to be solved than having problems with sugars, pesticides, antinutrients and allergens in plants. These can be/should be simply just left out.

 

[trophy33]

Cheaper doesn't always mean affordable.

If me and my mom would switch to carnivore diet, we'd at least be at a $300 deficit per month. $300 maybe chump change for you but for me, it's over half of my monthly salary already.

And by deficit, I mean negative and if we have some savings in the bank, that means depleting our savings. If we go on a carnivore diet for 1 year, we'd be at a significant debt.

Dealing with additional financial stress trying to cope with an expensive diet would probably cut our lives shorter and negate all the "hypothetical, imaginary or even placebo" benefits we may get from a carnivore diet.

Ironically, if more people would get onboard the carnivore diet, it will only drive prices of meat even higher.

This is why experts are criticizing the carnivore diet as unsustainable or even "elitist". If most people would be gullible enough to be pulled by this fad diet, even the prices would get so high from the sky-rocketing demand that even many people in USA would be unable to afford the carnivore diet.

I am not ordering you what to eat. Eat what you can or want. I do not know why you take everything personally.

Diet of our ancestors is hardly a fad diet, its just using buzzwords without making any sense.

Regarding "experts", everybody can find dozens of experts on anything with dozens of different opinions. You need to live your own life and make your own decisions.

 

[trophy33]

There's alot of misinformation out there that isn't really based on good science, but has the color or appearance of being so.

Agreed, even in the respected institutions, associations, journals and studies.

The internet has allowed alot of these types of voices to be promoted beyond what they would otherwise be.

It also allowed the voices, that are not supported by big money or by the official establishment, to be heard. It also allowed your voice to be heard, here. Its a good thing. It allows questioning things with leads to breakthroughs and improvements.

 

[FireDragon76]

Agreed, even in the respected institutions, associations, journals and studies.

Respected institutions tend to have more reputation at stake and engage in more vetting of the kinds of studies they will promote.

It also allowed the voices, that are not supported by big money or by the official establishment, to be heard. It also allowed your voice to be heard, here. Its a good thing. It allows questioning things with leads to breakthroughs and improvements.

I don't think that's likely. More bad actors with money can use mediums like the internet to promote misinformation for malicious or self-serving purposes, especially if there is a financial interests at stake. Behind the misguided maverick physician that thinks butter or pork belly is the new superfood, there's lots of animal agriculture interests funding him, with the intended goal of sewing fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

 

[trophy33]

Respected institutions tend to have more reputation at stake and engage in more vetting of the kinds of studies they will promote.

Sadly, they are also much more rigid in changing according to new research and much more dependent on money from pharmaceutical or junk food companies.

I don't think that's likely. More bad actors with money can use mediums like the internet to promote misinformation for malicious or self-serving purposes, especially if there is a financial interests at stake. Behind the misguided maverick physician that thinks butter or pork belly is the new superfood, there's lots of animal agriculture interests funding him, with the intended goal of sewing fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

This is too vague and unspecific. If you see some conflict of interest in the sources I use, you can tell me more.

 

[FireDragon76]

Sadly, they are also much more rigid in changing according to new research and much more dependent on money from pharmaceutical or junk food companies.

If there is a well established body of evidence, why should they change? Why throw caution to the wind? That's not how good science is done, particularly when it comes to medicine.

 

[trophy33]

If there is a well established body of evidence, why should they change? Why throw caution to the wind? That's not how good science is done, particularly when it comes to medicine.

What if there is not? A well established opinion or interpretation that leads to health crisis and is not confirmed by repeated experiments, is not a good science.

 

[FireDragon76]

What if there is not?

There is. There is no doubt among the vast majority of cardiologists and lipidologists that diets high in saturated fat contribute to heart disease.

 

[trophy33]

There is no doubt among the vast majority of cardiologists and lipidologists that diets high in saturated fat contribute to heart disease.

Thats nice, but its a logical fallacy. Majority was wrong so many times in history that its not even countable. What matters (in medical science) are clinically significant findings that can be repeated/confirmed by multiple labs.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thats nice, but its a logical fallacy. Majority was wrong so many times in history that its not even countable.

That's called the Galileo Fallacy. That's in itself illogical thinking. It's an appeal to a conspiracy theory or claims of persecution.

 

[trophy33]

That's called the Galileo Fallacy. That's in itself illogical thinking. It's an appeal to a conspiracy theory or claims of persecution.

I do not argue with minority or against majority. I am saying that appealing to majority is a logical fallacy. Majority does not establish truth.

I say that what matters is what is repeatable, testable.

 

[FireDragon76]

I do not argue with minority or against majority. I am saying that appealing to majority is a logical fallacy. Majority does not establish truth.

It doesn't seem wise to follow the advice of a minority, just because it is not the consensus.

I say that what matters is what is repeatable, testable.

And the pro-saturated fat camp conveniently dismisses all the evidence indicating diets high in saturated fat cause heart disease, out of hand.

 

[trophy33]

It doesn't seem wise to follow the advice of a minority, just because it is not the consensus.

Nobody claimed you must follow the advice of a minority just because its not the consensus. So this is a strawman.

And the pro-saturated fat camp conveniently dismisses all the evidence indicating diets high in saturated fat cause heart disease, out of hand.

Not sure how you qualify the word "indicating", but it does not sound very solid. Probably some kind of statistical associations?

 

[FireDragon76]

Nobody claimed you must follow the advice of a minority just because its not the consensus. So this is a strawman.


Not sure how you qualify the word "indicating", but it does not sound very solid. Probably some kind of statistical associations?

The US Surgeon General in 1964 said that smoking caused lung cancer, based on similar weight of evidence. There have never been blinded controlled trials using cigarettes, and for good reason. The same is true with a diet high in saturated fat. The evidence is so high, no doctor could ethically recommend such a diet (that's why half the "doctors" you see on Youtube promoting such a diet, either never were medical doctors, or they've lost their license to practice medicine, because they are quacks).

I notice a trend of criticizing epidemiology, by people that often know little or nothing about the field. Again, more fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

 

[trophy33]

The evidence is so high, no doctor could ethically recommend such a diet

You are welcome to present the "so high evidence".