this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
1 points (52.2% liked)

Friendly Carnivore

92 readers
6 users here now

Carnivore

The ultimate, zero carb, elimination diet

We are focused on health and lifestyle while trying to eat zero carb bioavailable foods.

Keep being AWESOME


Purpose

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Stay on topic
  3. Don't farm rage
  4. Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
  5. No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you

Other terms: LCHF Carnivore, Keto Carnivore, Ketogenic Carnivore, Low Carb Carnivore, Zero Carb Carnivore, Animal Based Diet, Animal Sourced Foods


Library

The relation of alimentation and disease - Salisbury 1888

The fat of the land - Stefansson - 1946


founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
 

TLDR - Meat has been unfairly blamed by bad (possibly biased) statistical analysis.

some investigators may test many alternative analytic specifications and selectively report results for the analysis that yields the most interesting findings.

when investigators analyze data from observational studies, there are often hundreds of equally justifiable ways of analyzing the data, each of which may produce results that vary in direction, magnitude, and statistical significance

Evidence shows that investigators’ prior beliefs and expectations influence their results [5]. In the presence of strong opinions, investigators’ beliefs and expectations may shape the literature to the detriment of empirical evidence

Basically given a all the possible variable permutations they took a very large sampling of inputs to outcomes and looked at the resultant hazard ratio, demonstrating that you can cherry pick to get the results you want (good or bad). This is the core weakness of observational studies.

Curve analysis demonstrates itself as a valuable too in iterating through many of the combinations of observational data to show stronger trends.

The left/blue side of the graph are outcomes that show meat decreased all cause mortality, the right/red side of the graph are outcomes that show meat increases all cause mortality. If you were a hungry researcher, you could publish unending papers indicating either way from this same observational data pool! - Hence the constant news cycle driven by dietary agendas - not based on hard science RCTs.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] superkret@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Hence the constant news cycle driven by dietary agendas

Who is pushing a veggie agenda and has enough funds to influence scientific consensus as a whole?

More importantly, why? No one with that kind of influence makes more money when people eat less meat. Even Big Soy profits off of increased demand for soy-fed cattle.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Just from a researcher perspective, you have lots of paper fodder here, one way or the other.

As far as people having motivations to push a dietary agenda, it could be religion (7th day adventist), philosophical (meat is murder), or financial (private research funding). Could even be social pressure, don't want to rock the boat, go against current social trends.

However, science should be repeatable, and have good math, good hypothesis, which lead to good question, then good RCTs.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

If only you guys would apply the same logic to the rest of carnivore ideology. I have yet to see any evidence that such diet restriction would do anything good to anyone but severely disabled.

[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Observational studies with LOW hazard ratios, should be the START of in-depth science and RCTs, not the end of science.

Reminds me of this little book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics