Bob

I've tried some raw ground beef and some raw steak at home. Just a bit as I prepared it for cooking. It was fine. I did the same with raw liver, and it was surprisingly good. Cooked liver it hit or miss when I make it at home and it's mostly a miss. I would rather get it at a restaurant. But the raw liver wasn't repulsive at all.

More like carnivore thugs, lol. Carnivore purists are like gangs, cults, good-ole boys clubs, lol

Initially my high triglycerides skyrocketed into insanely high territory. But I'm an outlier. I have late stage renal disease, so I spill the enzyme that the body makes to break down triglycerides, and as I rapidly lost weight, the body fat dissolved, entered my serum as trigs, and accumulated. They came down over time to lows that were better than when I started carnivore, but it took quite a while, probably 2 years.

We’re on the same page there. The dose-response numbers from those meta-analyses are real as far as relative risk goes, but they don’t establish that any given amount of fresh beef causes cancer in any individual, and the absolute risk differences are small. Where I part ways is treating “habitual intake and the fresh-vs-processed distinction” as the main takeaway that should guide people here. Those observational signals come mostly from mixed diets heavy in processed foods, and they haven’t held up as a practical concern for people eating primarily fresh red meat while cutting out the refined carbohydrates and other factors that travel with higher meat intake in the general population. A lot of us have watched liver enzymes, insulin, and other markers improve on higher fresh-meat intakes—the opposite of what a straightforward reading of the relative-risk figures would predict. So yes, interpret the epidemiology carefully. Just don’t let the careful interpretation quietly default back to “therefore limit fresh red meat.”

You’re citing the same guidelines that have spent years telling people with fatty liver to eat a Mediterranean diet, limit saturated fat, and focus on “dietary quality” while liver disease rates kept climbing. Those documents are cautious by design and still lag the clinical results. Plenty of people have reversed fatty liver, dropped enzymes, and improved insulin sensitivity on ketogenic and carnivore approaches—often after the standard advice failed them (the study that @Pitmaster Pete shared provides some compelling evidence). The distinction you’re drawing between “keto” and “carnivore” is real on paper, but in practice both remove the refined carbohydrates and excess energy that drive liver fat in the first place. Waiting for perfect long-term carnivore RCTs before acknowledging what’s already working for people is just another way of saying “stick with the guidelines.” If the only acceptable standard is whatever NIDDK or EASL currently endorses, then yes, carnivore doesn’t have their stamp of approval. Most of us here aren’t waiting on that stamp.

A randomized trial comparing the Lion Diet, keto, and a waitlist group is recruiting people with ulcerative colitis, Crohn's disease, or rheumatoid arthritis. About 160 participants planned. The Lion Diet arm is ruminant meat, salt, and water. Stricter than how I eat. I've been carnivore about 3.5 years, and I keep dairy. My ulcerative colitis is in histological remission, confirmed by a negative biopsy. As far as I'm concerned, it's cured. This study hasn't produced results yet. I want to see what it finds. More information can be found here... https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07524244 https://fullerresearch.org/lion-diet-rct

You’ve mentioned liver enzymes and fatty liver a couple times now. Which dietary approaches have you seen improve or worsen them, and what does the evidence actually show for low-carb or carnivore-style eating on those markers? Or are you just saying we should look at evidence in general?

You said portion size matters when it comes to red meat and cancer. How, exactly? Is there a dose-response relationship in the studies you’re thinking of, or is this just the usual ‘everything in moderation’ line? Which papers are you referring to?

So did you break the butter record or not? lol

Yep, Denali's 20,310 ft, so we'll take that one 😄 Fair, you got us there. Dufourspitze beats Whitney by about 700 ft. I concede. lol, no contest. Measured from the ocean floor, Mauna Kea is taller than Everest. Not that I'm climbing either one.

Wow, what a view! That scenery is breathtakingly beautiful. I looked up the height of the Niesen, which is 7749 ft. That's taller than anything we have here in the Appalachian mountain range in the Eastern U.S. (the west has the Rockies, and they get super tall over there). Climbing all the way to the top of the Niesen is no joke. And yet you did it without carbs, lol 😝

Hey Jeremy. lol, you had me going for a second with the 9th language! Ah, got it 👍 Your English comes across pretty good, even though I could tell it's not your first language. And I like the idea of trying to read articles without translating them as way to learn it.

I think @jr1776 was being funny, because in his post entitled "My Journey [LONG POST]" in the Introductions forum he went from keto, then ditched the veggies, and went full carnivore. I'm also guessing English isn't his other tongue.

Well, the ingredients usually say "may contain up to 2% of the following garbage...." lol 😄 I still eat sausages. Love 'em!

I thought those were blueberries until I read that they were beans. "It's not about what I eat, it's about what I do NOT eat." <- that would make a great signature or tagline. Very true indeed. We know your keto, and that's cool. Clean keto is still a proper human diet.

On Reddit and in here we get a lot of newbies. They are just starting out, still learning. So we have to be patient and kindly give them the guidance they need. You're right about rabbit starvation, and the risks of heating too low fat and too high protein. The fat is our fuel.

Hey, Jeremy! Don't apologize for the long post — We appreciate you taking the time to write all that out. Going from hospital canes to "a beast in carnivore" is quite the turnaround. Sounds like you spent a long stretch treating food as something you had to earn and then paid for it. Glad to hear you’re now able to eat in the 3k range and feel like an athlete again. The joint issues clearing up once you dropped the plants is pretty common. With regards to training, the desire to do more now that you feel better is normal, but the history you described is exactly you should still work up to your goals gradually. Keep the strength work, bring the race walking back in slowly, and let the extra food do some of the work for a bit before you start chasing bigger numbers. You made it through the miserable phase without leaning on the autism as a reason to quit. Keep doing what you're doing. 👍

Hey Mary! A CAC score of ZERO — that's fantastic news! Awesome! :) There's nothing more reassuring than a big ZERO on your CAC, lol It's cool that your PCP is on board with holding off on the statin. I'll eventually get around to getting my own CAC score. I'm just lazy and want to spend my time doing other things, lol. And glad to hear you're up for a Northeastern Ohio meetup. I'll put some thought into it and come up with a plan.

Oooh this could make a good Monday Live Stream topic. Awesome! Thanks for sharing this! It's always nice to see the research that is in harmony with what we've learned and come to know. Saturated fat has been the villain for decades, so any study that pushes back on that narrative is worth saving and sharing with others.

The principles in this article regarding ultra-processed foods is something we can stand behind. Just ignore the horrible advice to build your meals around beans and grains, lol. There nothing more "whole food" or "real food" than a carnivore-centric diet.

Just one small serving of ultra-processed food a day linked to higher disease risk, major study findsStory by Deirdre Bardolf Just an extra 3.5 ounces of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) a day was linked to a higher risk of chronic disease, according to a new large-scale analysis. The study, published Sept. 22 in the journal Family Medicine and Community Health, looked at nearly 8.8 million adults who participated in studies across the Americas, Europe, Asia and Oceania, with follow-up periods ranging from two to 32 years. For every additional 100 grams of UPFs consumed daily, researchers found an association with a 14% higher risk of cardiovascular events, a 4% higher risk of cancer, a 3% higher risk of death from any cause and a 2% higher risk of metabolic syndrome or diabetes, according to a news release. UPFs are typically packaged and convenient, made through extensive industrial processing and often packed with additives. They can include sugary drinks, processed meats, packaged snacks and candy. One hundred grams is about the size of a 3.5-ounce bag of corn chips, a small box of candy or a single-serve cup of mini cookies. Ultra-processed foods can include sugary drinks, processed meats, packaged snacks and candy, according to the analysis. iStock© iStock People with the highest intake of UPFs also had higher risks of digestive diseases, depression or anxiety, obesity, cancer and cardiovascular events than those with the lowest intake of the foods. READ ON THE FOX NEWS APP "Given that UPF-related chronic diseases often cluster as multimorbidity, reducing consumption of UPFs and replacing them with minimally processed alternatives may be relevant for chronic disease prevention and primary care management," the researchers, led by Xiao Liu, a cardiologist at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital in China and a research fellow at Duke-NUS Medical School in Singapore, wrote. These types of foods tend to crowd out healthier, nutrient-dense options, according to Kelly Springer, a New York-based registered dietitian and founder of Kelly's Choice. "It's not that you can never eat them again," Springer, who was not involved in the research, told Fox News Digital. "It's the fact that we are not getting real foods — real foods like fruits, vegetables, beans, nuts, whole grains." Researchers said ultra-processed foods can add up throughout the day through snacks, sugary drinks and convenience foods. iStock© iStock Rather than focusing on taking foods away, Springer recommended adding protein and fiber to meals and snacks. She suggested options such as an apple with peanut butter, nuts with cucumbers, or meals built around beans, chicken or tuna alongside fruits, vegetables and whole grains. "A diet built around whole, minimally processed foods is one of the best investments we can make in our long-term health," she added. Springer noted that the study was observational, so it cannot establish that UPFs directly caused the poor health outcomes. It also relied on participants' self-reported diets and may not be able to account for other lifestyle factors. Nonetheless, the study can teach people about the link between ultra-processed foods and chronic disease, Springer said. ARTICLE SOURCE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/general/just-one-small-serving-of-ultra-processed-food-a-day-linked-to-higher-disease-risk-major-study-finds/ar-AA2cQVsy?