Hacker News Reader

Comment by ofrzeta | Hacker News Reader

It's fine if it works for you but still on your page as well as your linked resources there are a lot of false claims.

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.

View on HN

That page <https://justmeat.co/peoples/> actually says "have eaten meat-heavy, if not exclusive diets" and even follows up with "Not all are necessarily fully carnivorous". If this is all the supposed fault you can find, it does easily expose your "a lot of false claims" motte-and-bailey furphy for what it actually is. In regards to "I don't think there's scientific evidence to support it", 'tis just as well I didn't have you advicing me all those years ago, else this conversation wouldn't even be happening (and I be free of my chronic condition), eh?

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>)?

I don't get why you cite this study, or maybe you read it totally differently than me. As I understand it it only confirms my view:

"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."

> you read it totally differently than me

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".

Actually I read the abstract and the conclusion. However I think the abstract is there for a certain reason and my quote from the abstract absolutely confirms my point that a meat-based diet is insufficient. Anyway, I hope it's good for you, also in the long run (you mentioned something about cholesterol in another comment).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com