Topic: I made an article on why America doesn't want you to know about carnivore diet. (Read 138 times)

for years people paid for cheap walmart(asda) economy 'basics' meat.. but more recently people are preferring to buy the more organic premium meat.

i personally stay away from the cheap own brand crap. their ready meals taste of cardboard and their 'basics' range of frozen meat is tasteless..
i prefer a real joint of beef or real fresh chicken breasts from a proper butchers/farm shops, even if it is a premium.

by the way. the 'lab' meat wont be producing a whole 'breast' of chicken it will produce chicken cell lumps which then become nuggets or chicken burgers.

you are not going to get a 'lab made' T-bone steak. but you will get lab made burgers

even if they can recreate the cells. they will have other additives and stabilisers to combine it into form.

take alook at them cheap turkey 'rounds' you can get (reformed and binded turkey meat)

which use potato and rice starches to bind actual breast meat together..
these actual breast meat with bindings to form it into a 'round', taste worse compared to a proper turkey/crown.
so dont expect lab meat to be exactly the same as their equivalent steak, breast, crown proper counterpart.

after all who buys walmarts 99p pink sludge economy 20 nuggets, when there are actual breast meat nuggets at £3 for 10
many people prefer to spend £6 on mcdonalds 20 piece breast meat nuggets instead of getting walmarts 99p pink sludge equivalent, since the "pink sludge" saga become commonly known. even mcdonalds stopped doing the pink sludge variety

At some point I think either lab-grown meat, or sufficiently realistic synthetic "meat" will become cheaper to produce than the real thing, and real meat that has come from an actual animal will come to be seen as more of a luxury item. There are other factors that can accelerate this trend, health concerns, climate impact, etc, but price to the consumer will be the fundamental driver. Would you pay $2 for a fake or lab-grown steak that is 99% realistic, or $20 for the actual thing?

I doubt whether we could sustain the world's population on meat – at least not meat which I would like to eat. It certainly bears reasoning that any party which demands compliance would also prefer its subjects to be fed on vegetables.

yes we are stimulated by certain things, like a sugar high, and tryptophan zen (post christmas nap), salt makes you thirsty.

but the thing is that when food manufacturers actually supplement and fortify(add) extra of these things to over stimulate the body to make people want the product more and become loyal customers. there are things that can be done.

take cheap unbranded soda's (lemonade/cola) you can go to a store in the UK and buy 2 litres of the stuff for under 20p (25c) yet a bottle of just half a litre(500ml) of pure water can be over £1($1.20)

this should be flipped, after all if a company can take 2 litres of water, and then add carbonisation and sugar but sell it for less than the same water without additives, then this is wrong on so many economic and production cost levels.

the UK is trying to make sugared beverages more expensive(sugar tax 5p 7c). but this has not translated into making pure water cheaper.
yes a 330ml can of branded pepsi was 50p (70c) a few years ago and is now £1($1.20) but the non sugar version 'pepsi max' can is now also £1($1.20), and a bottle of 500ml pure water is £1.50($1.85)

so branded beverages have not really made healthy water more economically best option. and people if they dislike the branded sugared and unsugared stuff due to price end up having unbranded cheap stuff with additives

but like i said the government can intervene more and make it so pure water is the cheapest option.

Yes, focusing solely on any single food group is generally a bad idea. We have evolved to be omnivores, a bit of everything.




Probably the major cause of unhealthy eating in the developed world is that we eat too much heavily-processed food, which is laden with salt, sugar and fat, and often stripped of much of its nutritional content. We can certainly encourage exercise, but we can act to reduce the amount of processed, unhealthy food we eat, too. As you say, it is hard to get people to change, but governments can play a part in this too, should they so desire (which they usually don't), e.g. disincentivising purchase through selective taxation on high-sugar and high-salt foods, and processed foods.

The optimal human diet is probably what we have evolved to eat over the last few million years. A bit of everything, in the right quantities, as is naturally available.

Diets are useless. They aren't compatible with the western lifestyle. Humans receive psychoactive reward any time they eat, it's a reward mechanism with evolutionary backing that stemmed from a desire to keep full when food supplies were high so they'd be fueled during shortages. You can't change the way human brains are wired. Any restrictive diet is really just a coping mechanism. Keto, calorie restrictive, low fats, whatever the case, it doesn't work long term.

If you can't change human physiology and the response to nutrition, what can you change? Activity level, but try getting an obese/overweight person to change from a sedentary life style to an active one. It's difficult.

Carnivore diet will put strain on your kidney from all the protein, and probably raise your cholesterol. Nothing says pristine health quiet like clogged arteries.

You're very combative, aren't you? Do you ever pause to reflect on anything, or is it all fire and fury?



A nomadic people may tend livestock, but they're not going to have fields, are they? The distinction I am making, as you are well aware, is between agrarian and non-agrarian societies.



If you read back, you'll see a post discussing a nomadic 'carnivorous' people terrorising and subjugating a settled people. My response was simply to mention that a nomadic people, without agriculture, are not likely to progress technologically to the same level as an agrarian people. This should not be controversial. Indeed, based on the quote below, you seem to agree.



If all societies were hunter-gatherer, then no. If some are and some aren't, then hunter-gatherers can certainly use trade and conquest to enrich and expand their society. They aren't going to develop technologically to the same level as an agrarian society.



I do wonder whether your response here is coloured somewhat by our discussions in other threads, on the subject of vaccines.

Were they now.  Fascinating!  Can you spare more of your deep knowledge and understandings of reality?

Note to interested people:  'nomadic' is not equal to 'hunter-gatherer'.  Neither term implies anything about diet either, although a common reason to be nomadic is that the livestock being raised need forage, and that is what the people of the steppe were up to.

'hunter-gatherer' economies are not conducive to the formation of organized societies of any scale, and certainly not ones which can conquer a large percentage of the earth's surface and arrange taxation from it.  One of the few genuine hunter-gather societies where an economy of any substance developed was on the NW coast of the North America (my stomping grounds), and this seems to have been associated with the phenomenon of salmon runs (which emulated seasonal harvests in agrarian societies to a degree.)

keto diet is not desirable if you are already lean. because you have no spare fats to burn and so you end up going into ketoacidosis which can kill you.

yes if you are obese taking out fats and sugars will force your body into ketosis and while you have the excess fats to burn, then you can benefit from it. but its not a diet that fits all people.

it can mess up your organs.

..
as for the government involvement in food standards. well we all [should] know by now that when cereals are 'fortified' then they are obviously not naturally good to be eaten straight from the farm. if something requires fortification or supplements or even some kind of added sweetener or flavouring then that just shows that its not naturally palatable and requires additives to fool your tastebuds/palette into accepting it.
government food standards agencies should be more stricter on what things should be deemed food. and what should be considered a non toxic consumable product.
i do say people "should" know the differences. but many dont, many are not taught the basics at school, but the government think that if they believe people know the difference they dont have to separate "food/nutrition" from "consumable products"


a medium rare steak, the body enjoys. no additives needed. a bowl of cornflakes thats fortified with iron and only tastes nice if you add milk and sugar.. is something thats not natural to the body to eat raw corn or flaked corn without additives

even bread is not natural. chewing on wheat your body dislikes. and it involves milling and mixing with other ingredients to make it somewhat acceptable. so bread is not a natural thing.

basically if your obese and want to 'keto' dont replace your breakfast bacon butty for a dry bowl of unsweetened, unfortified, organic cornflakes. because you are not going to get the nutrients

Yes, I should have been clearer. I was just making the point that although hunter-gatherers can beat the agrarians using sticks and spears, it is the agrarians and not the hunter-gatherers who will, over time, develop advanced technology.




Certainly the food industry has its own motivations, which are based on money rather than ensuring that everyone eats healthily. But there is additional complexity here (as I posted in your thread), in that the demand on the part of the consumer is for things that taste good, not things that are healthy. The food industry can be manipulative and does not have our best interests at heart, but also they are satisfying a demand that already exists.

I also do keto-low carb and IF. I agree with a lot of things you say, and I wrote about it a while back:

How the Government made you fat.

The food industry makes money by selling processed products, they don't like that you mainly eat meat (fatty) eggs and butter.

Eating only meat may seem surprising at first glance, especially with the nutritional guidelines that have been sold to us for the last 4 or 5 decades, but eating meat and eggs is much better for humans than eating cereals.


I would say that it was a nutritional development that, although not ideal, made it possible to feed many more people. In the same way that mass production and the food industry have made it possible to feed billions of people who were starving before, but with foods that are nutritionally sub-optimal if not toxic in the long term.

I admit I've not read the entirety of your article, but the human body has evolved over many millions of years to be omnivorous, not carnivorous. You can see it in our teeth: canines, incisors, molars. We are generalists. You can argue that we can get everything we need from being exclusively carnivore or exclusively herbivore, but biologically we are omnivores.




The agricultural revolution was perhaps the most important step in human development. There could never have been an industrial revolution without an argicultural revolution. The Mongol horde were hunter-gatherers. They may have been fierce fighters, but they had strict limitations due to the nature of their society. Eventually, the porridge-eaters can build guns and tanks, whilst the Mongols are still waving spears and riding horses.

Well said, with carb based nutrition it appears to be more cheap and sustainable for large populations so would flipping this paradigm ever be practically possible? I don't know but I believe an educated society is a dangerous one and that we deserve better for ourself overall.

Quite an interesting article. You touch on something in the end: that the Mongol horde was fed on meats and yogurt, while the peasants they so easily slaughtered ate grain porraige. It doesn't make one wonder which sort of people a government would have an easier time ruling.

I tackled some things like common myths, ancient/modern history of the diet, my theory on why America doesn't want you to know about it and why it's the most optimal diet for a human being.

I included many scientific studies and would like some honest feedback thank you.https://mirror.xyz/0x32fC951CE03681345C0975dE970Bc8cFc65c8bB1/bpyd6QzTfroACVGDpbu-t_GQibtOdg0ae1klmragjQY