People always go on these extreme diets... From raw veganism to stuff like this.
What's wrong with just eating a bit of meat, fish, vegetables, carbs and fats? Just nice, real food in moderate amounts...
What's wrong with just eating a bit of meat, fish, vegetables, carbs and fats? Just nice, real food in moderate amounts...
For one thing you won't get many likes, subscribes, retweets, or what have you.
But yes, as you pointed, there has been a real increase in "weird" diets in the past 3-4 decades. The internet is one factor. The other major reason for this, I believe, is the increased commercial competition in the food and agriculture industry. In the last 2-3 decades, we've all been bombarded with ads and PR campaigns about organic foods ("eat pure / natural / raw") and superfoods ("eat smart / right") or promotions of old-new crops ("eat what our elders ate") like Millets etc. etc. Then there's the PR campaigns from fast food and processed food industries and the PR campaigns from the instant cooking industry.
However much we would all like to think that we are immune from advertising campaigns, the reality is that it does impact us. So we shouldn't be surprised that people are confused and there has been a rise in eating orders - https://www.yandex.com/search/?text=rise+in+eating+disorders
Usually it's not just the diet, but it is an easy and even fun place to start.
It's just against the operating principles of a society with a massive industrial food economy. People are conditioned to eat on every occasion to the point that consuming food becomes the occasion.
People like that need to into all the way into eg no fiber, no carbs or they won't heal.
Including yours truly: https://srid.ca/carnivore-diet
For instance on that page about the Comanche it is claimed they only ate meat (which is absolutely inplausible from the start) but Wikipedia says they "also gathered wild fruits, seeds, nuts, berries, roots and tubers, including plums, grapes, juniper berries, persimmons, mulberries, acorns, pecans, wild onions, radishes, and tuna, the fruit of the prickly pear cactus. The Comanche also acquired maize, dried pumpkin, and tobacco through trade and raids."
Also, it seems, that meat is indeed not "nutritionally" complete and your source for that claim is some quack trying to sell his book?
It's great if a meat-only diet works for you, but I don't think there's scientific evidence to support it.
Finally, in regards to your "some quack" put-down, it actually behoves on you to provide evidence that an exclusively animal-based diet (especially with offal) is necessarily "deficient". It would seem that you lack sufficient understanding of nutrient bioavailability (generally high in animal foods), as well as the fact that RDA is not absolute (note for instance the reduced requirement speculations for Thiamin & Vitamin C in <https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/17/1/140>)?
"The carnivore diet met several NRV thresholds for nutrients such as riboflavin, niacin, phosphorus, zinc, Vitamin B6, Vitamin B12, selenium, and Vitamin A, and exceeded the sodium threshold. However, it fell short in thiamin, magnesium, calcium, and Vitamin C, and in iron, folate, iodine and potassium in some cases. Fibre intake was significantly below recommended levels."
Yes, I read it beyond the abstract. And if you did too, you'd know about the theory that "the requirement for thiamin is reduced due to a reduction in thiamin-requiring glycolytic metabolism" or that "the large quantities of carnitine available in an animal-based diet may provide Vitamin C sparing effect".
> As I understand it it only confirms my view
As even the abstract, that you limited yourself to read, goes on to confirm that these nutrient requirements are reduced in a carnivore diet -- cf. "facilitates a lower requirement of certain nutrients" -- then your understanding is a doozie, let alone it support your unsubstantiated view that "meat is indeed not "nutritionally" complete".