Travis
Member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2016
- Messages
- 3,189
There is a population model for this, and that is the Inuit. These people had eaten essentially all meat, and since they'd eaten it raw the vitamin C content had been preserved. Because of this they'd been largely free of scurvy and cardiovascular disease, which had further been ensured by their avoidance of omega−6 fatty acids: They had eaten practically all sea animals with an outrageously-high omega−6/omega−3 ratio, leading to negligible amounts arachidonic acid and 2-series prostaglandins. Since only thromboxane A₂ is a potent platelet aggregator and not thromboxane A₃, derived from EPA (20∶5ω−3), they had been practically 99.9% free of stroke and heart attack. The Inuit had bleeding times twice as long as their Danish neighbors and an EPA∶AA ratio so high that aspirin had actually shortened this, ostensibly by inhibiting thromboxane A₃ synthesis (Dyerberg, 1979). Yet most people eating a carnivorous diet would cook their food beforehand and it'd come with a much greater omega−6/omega−3 besides. An American carnivore would likely be quite different, and were a person to cronometer an all-cooked beef diet I don't imagine they'd be very impressed. Such a diet would have an osteoporotically-high level of protein (204 g), low calcium (221 mg), and high phosphorous so it should be no surprise that the Inuit are known for low bone density (Lazenby, 1997). I would also imagine that the Inuit would have substantial amounts of lipofuscin in their neurons from their excessive intake of long chain marine oils and iron.I would like to know your opinion on the carnivorous diet Travis. A lot of people are trying it, obviously because of the popularity of it on social media recently.
I’ve heard all of the generic reasons why people think it is apparently very effective for some, but I am really interested in your perspective.
Last edited: