This community gets lots of negative attention, and for a very vocal group of people it becomes a focus of animosity
Carnivore is a tool - the people using this tool want to be healthy
Opportunities for common causes:
-
- Whole foods - Single Ingredient foods - No Processed Foods
The Zero carb community as a whole focuses on single ingredient foods, without any processing.
-
- Sustainably produced
We all live on spaceship earth, and that system needs to be maintained for our future and our children's future. Any solution to health needs to be sustainable ecologically. That means using natures own biocycles and minimizing the need for industrial chemicals. i.e. crop rotation rather then mono-cropping, using ruminants to regenerate top soil
-
- Locally sourced foods
Moving a special product around the globe via airplanes or ocean vessel simply is a waste of energy, time, and logistics. This should be minimized in the food supply, and any solution to health and sustainability shouldn't use any imported food or ingredients. Food independence is critical for every community.
-
- Ethically raised animals
Carnivores are aware that they are part of a complex biocycle that involves many levels of life and nature interacting. Sadly this means animals will die for food production (this is unavoidable regardless of food choice). Animals that live as close to their natural biocycle as possible are the healthiest for the food supply. Good carnivores who can afford it will try to find sources of ethically raised and harvested meat - animals that are eating their natural diet in as close to their natural environment as possible.
Industrial farming is bad, and needs reform.
-
- Reduction of sugars in the diet
By virtue of being zero carb Carnivores avoid dietary sugars, but we do recognize how dangerous fructose and sucrose is in the general population (remember most of us are here to be healthy). Many Carnivores recognize the benefits of ketogenic and low carb metabolism.
-
- Progress not Perfection
For the most part the zero carb people I've met are very welcoming, non-judgmental, and don't prosecute people for not being perfect. I think we all have histories of struggling, and the understanding and empathy we can provide is the best thing we can do for each other (including our non-zero-carb friends).
-
- The need for self-experimentation
Seeing is believing, encouraging people to try their different theories and diets and seeing their own results is the only way to resolve "debates". Whatever the "philosophy" is it should be tested, and if its not working it needs debugging, or given up on.
-
- Avoiding industrial processed oils
Along the philosophy of avoiding processed foods, and foods from plants, we have double strikes against most of the industrial seed oils. While there is open debate and unclear literature on the harm of these oils, there is almost no downside to removing them from a diet, and it just becomes another uncontrolled variable that could be impacting people's results. This is just KISS
-
- Monitor your progress, only you are responsible for you
Everyone should record their biometrics periodically, especially if they are experimenting with a diet. I think Carnivore's by virtue of trying to be healthy are very likely to have a record of their biometrics going back years. This helps in the self-experimentation of the dietary adventure. In addition to the normal metrics
- height
- weight
- muscle mass
- blood pressure
- resting heart rate
- lipid panels
- hba1c
people should include a daily feeling journal, how much energy they had, any small aches or issues, just so they can look back and see their mood changing over time and make connections with diet.
While we may not agree on most things, or even many things, there should be some philosophical overlap so that our communities could be on nodding terms with each other.
How do you ethically “harvest” meat? And why are you using a plant term for this?
I don't know what the plant term is here, harvested?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harvest
I've just generally seen harvest as the results of labor or a process. I was using harvested here as a indirect term to speak of the slaughter of the animal.
Ethical Meat: Raised in as near its natural environment as possible, on its natural diet, geographically local to the consumer.
Ethical Harvesting: As human as possible, with as little stress as possible, as quick as possible.
Can you describe how you humanely kill an animal?
https://www.avma.org/sites/default/files/2024-09/Humane-Slaughter-Guidelines-2024.pdf
If you go to page 52 you can see the options for cattle dispatch in technical detail.
I meant like the steps. Would you use a knife or a gun or?
The text you quote seems to misuse “humane” which means showing compassion. How do you compassionately kill an animal that doesn’t want to die? Is there some specific step that makes it compassionate? Or do you only kill the ones that are sick and dying?
Page 52 has all the steps you want in extreme detail.
Humane is terminating the animal with a minimization of anxiety, fear, and pain while expediting unconsciousness as quickly as possible. If you disagree on the definition of humane then I don't think our conversation is going to be very productive.
Within the context of a animal being harvested, the best way to conduct the slaughter would be.... whatever you want to call that.
Or if you prefer something less food based, if you come upon a animal in pain on the side of the road, the best way to ease its passing, the humane way.
I was asking what you personally think. (Repeatedly)
Linking to guidelines is such an “industry spokesperson” way of talking. I was hoping to have a bit more friendly/informal conversation.
Personally? To humanely terminate a cow, I'd use a captive bolt. Quick, low error rate.
Cows don’t die to a captive bolt, they usually don’t even lose consciousness from it. It’s basically like a lobotomy, it makes them less likely to resist and kick while being strung up.
How much time from knowing they are going to die to actually losing consciousness would you think is quick enough to be considered humane?
The document I have given you goes into detail of the process and even how fast captive bolts produce unconsciousness. They go into the theory of both mind and conceptualizing pain. They go into studies of ekgs, cortisol response, and other measures to actually get down to a science of what humane dispatch looks like.
They make a distinction that decapitation isn't humane because of those measurements meaning there is experienced pain.
I suggest you read the document.
Regardless, what is the best method of dispatch, in your opinion, that keeps the meat usable?
Okay let me rephrase again. In your opinion how much time from knowing they are going to die to actually losing consciousness would you think is quick enough to be considered humane?
Since eating animals is optional during all stages of our life (say all major dietician organizations), I think that we have no justification to take someone’s life. So the best method of slaughter is none. Animals are here with us not for us.
I believe the best use of flesh is when it makes up a living being.
We disagree on the fundamental premise. If you see an animal on the side of the road in pain, do you leave it be? Or do you help it exit
In the animal-based food community, we're following a program that is removing plant foods, because of the associated problems they have, specifically plant steriles, lectins, other inflammatory compounds.
The ketogenic community also has significant problems with the dietetics philosophical approach. Basically it is a philosophy, it is not based in hard science, and that's the core problem. The ketogenic community is generating hard science showing that the previous dietetic beliefs do not lead to the outcomes people are looking for
I'm happy to continue this discussion with you, but only in the context where we both work towards a more humane way to process meat.
If your philosophy is that you don't eat meat, I respect that, you're making a major lifestyle choice based on a philosophy. That's commendable. However, for health reasons I've made a different choice. And I ask that you respect that and help me be the best version of myself I can be in that context.
If you're trying to use the Socratic method to persuade me to your viewpoint, you have to start with a point of common agreement. And we haven't established that
I don’t think we disagree on that point.
I don’t think we’ll agree here nor do I think it’s fruitful to argue it because in my environment I’ve heard that saturated fat is the devil and the main cause for heart decease which is the second most prominent cause of death only trumped by cancer, while you are stating it as a healthy thing. I don’t have the time to research this nor do I think health is a valid justification for harming animals.
I don’t think so for the Socratic method but for making friends, which is what this post is about, that makes sense. From your expression of wanting a more humane way to slaughter, and desire to euthanize a suffering animal I am assuming we can find common grounds in that direction.
Would you agree that animals can suffer and are you against animal abuse?
I don't trust things I hear either. Here is a excellent overview of the literature - https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/saturated-fat#evidence-to-date I highly encourage you to read the actual journal articles, I'll do a journal club with you. But TLDR CVD is rooted in inflammation and persistently elevated insulin levels.
Cancer is a interesting one too! While the mechanisms of cancer are still unclear, it is strongly rooted in a inflammatory injury causing mitochondrial dysfunction. Here is a post on cancer as a metabolic disease, I link the journals directly. https://hackertalks.com/post/8609461 TLDR - The metabolic theory of cancer is based on cancer cells being UNABLE to metabolize fat, and only able to consume glucose and glutamine.
Now taking this together, would insulin sensitivity in a person make them less likely to get cancer, and if they do get cancer, better able to fight off the cancer? I think so, at least the balance of evidence points in that direction.
Great, if you have recommendations on how I can source best practice, least harm, meat - please let me know.
Yes, but my premise is that ABF is critical and necessary for my personal health journey and not optional. Given that I must consume ABF what is the best way to do that?
Yeah just don’t kill animals for optional products like meat. That causes the least harm.
Sorry for being blunt but you literally just made that up. Every dietician organization in the western world agrees you can be healthy on a vegan diet during any stage of life.
I don’t like that you’re talking about trying to cause the least harm and being compassionate or humane when your actions show the opposite. That’s just lip service.
You know what community this is? right? Plant based foods do cause inflammation in some people. Some people can tolerate some plants, but not all people can tolerate all plants.
Every western dietetic organizations is also on the fence about keto, the problems with dietitians is they don't do foundational research, they are mostly philosophy based organizations typically started by religious groups.
Vegan eating is not self-sustainable, if nothing else vitamin b12 needs to be supplemented.
Look at India, the words most plant based food country, they lead the world in type 2 diabetes with an astounding 30% diagnosis rate. There is something in that food plant that isn't working for them.
Right now the western world already eats 70% of their food from plants, 30% of their calories from vegetable oil. We also have seen a geometric rise in type 2 diabetes, cancer, and auto-immune issues. Meat existed before the current crisis of non-communicable chronic diseases.
Please read my Going Carnivore post before denying my own experience.
This is true for every diet, just if you eat meat you’re eating the bodies of cows that were supplemented with b12 (or cobalt which they process into b12). Might as well eat the supplement yourself. But this argument is silly anyway because I’m sure you also eat iodine in your fortified salt but don’t see that as an argument against your diet.
All of your other arguments are health related and they are easily debunked by a quick google search which I think you can do yourself too so clearly you are not convinced by conventional research and therefore this is a waste of time.
Either way you keep fully ignoring the moral argument I bring forth or defending it with health arguments (which I already said I don’t think is a valid justification for killing an animal. I’d gladly be obese if it saved even one animal but instead you kill hundreds of animals a year to feel marginally better against all conventional wisdom) and you seem to be struggling with this too when you say “please tell me how to kill an animal more humanely”. I wish you would open your eyes and see you can live in a way that aligns with your desire to reduce suffering in others.
Claims against Carnivore or claims against PBF? I have no problem with people eating PBF, I respect their choices, I've made a different choice.
I thought you wanted to be friends, that is what you said.
One cow gives 350kg of usable meat, That is at least enough meat for one year of eating. I agree that the conventional wisdom is hurting people, the is why a billion people have type 2 diabetes.
I'm not struggling. I'm going to eat meat, I want to do it in the way that is best for the earth. I'm at peace with this. You were asking the questions here about humane dispatch, I tried to answer them, you were not satisfied, I asked you for a better solution and you can't provide one. Your solution is to not eat meat, great - good for you - but that doesn't work for me.