Introduction

The escalating prevalence of metabolic syndrome represents a critical public health issue. Emerging anecdotal evidence suggests that various dietary interventions, including carnivore, vegan, and standard American diets (SAD), may offer significant benefits. This study aims to rigorously evaluate these claims through a controlled, blinded, and comprehensive approach.

Objectives

1. Primary Objective: To compare the long-term effects of carnivore, vegan, and SAD on key metabolic health indicators.
2. Secondary Objective: To ensure the integrity of dietary intervention data through strict monitoring of supplement intake and dietary compliance.

Revised Methodology

Participant Recruitment and Grouping

• Sample Size: 30,000 participants, equally divided into three diet groups, ensuring a 50/50 male-to-female ratio.
• Selection Criteria: Based on initial comprehensive bloodwork and basal metabolic rate, without regard to race or pre-existing health conditions.
• Group Assignment: Participants will be assigned to their diet groups based on their current dietary practices.
• Each dietary group will be assigned to three categories: Long term diet (5+ years), medium term diet (6+ months), and brand new to diet (starting for first time).

Dietary Intervention and Control

• Nutritional Oversight: Each diet group will have dedicated nutritional teams comprising two nutritionists, two doctors, and two registered dietitians who are advocates of their respective diets.
• Controlled Food Delivery: Collaborating with specialized food delivery services to ensure adherence to prescribed diets. Meal plans will be adjusted as needed, based on health feedback and participant preferences within diet constraints.
• Monitoring and Compliance: Participants will use a study-provided app for daily food logging. Weekly self-reports and periodic unannounced recalls will further ensure adherence.

Supplement Monitoring Protocol

• Baseline and Monthly Screening: Blood tests to detect unauthorized supplement use. Markers for common dietary supplements will be screened to ensure compliance with study dietary restrictions.
• Stool Sample Confirmation: Upon detection of potential supplement use, stool samples will be analyzed for confirmation. Participants confirmed to have used unauthorized supplements will be removed from the study, and their data will be expunged.
• Participant Agreement: All participants will sign an agreement acknowledging the study's dietary and supplement restrictions. Counseling will be provided to discuss the importance of adherence for the study's integrity.

Health Monitoring and Data Collection

• Health Assessments: Monthly health check-ups, including blood tests and biometric measurements, complemented by continuous glucose monitoring for real-time metabolic feedback.
• Ethical Safeguards: An independent data safety monitoring board (DSMB) will oversee participant health, with protocols in place for intervening in cases of health deterioration.

Budget and Funding

• An expanded budget will account for controlled food delivery, nutritional team compensation, health monitoring technology, and participant support services. Funding will be sought from unbiased sources, with transparency in financial disclosures.

Ethical Considerations

• Informed Consent: Detailed consent forms will explain the study's procedures, dietary interventions, and health monitoring protocols.
• Safety and Well-being: Continuous monitoring and immediate intervention for adverse health effects will prioritize participant safety.

Impact and Significance

This study aims to fill critical gaps in our understanding of how distinct dietary patterns influence metabolic health. By employing a rigorous methodology, including controlled dietary interventions and strict supplement monitoring, the study will provide high-quality evidence to inform future dietary guidelines and public health recommendations.

Conclusion

Addressing the metabolic health crisis requires evidence-based dietary interventions. This study represents a significant step towards understanding the impacts of carnivore, vegan, and SAD on metabolic health, offering a blueprint for future nutritional research and public health policy.

On 3/17/2024 at 8:43 AM, J_R said:

• Sample Size: 30,000 participants

...

• Nutritional Oversight: Each diet group will have dedicated nutritional teams comprising two nutritionists, two doctors, and two registered dietitians who are advocates of their respective diets.
• Controlled Food Delivery: Collaborating with specialized food delivery services to ensure adherence to prescribed diets. Meal plans will be adjusted as needed, based on health feedback and participant preferences within diet constraints.

This sounds like quite the undertaking, to ensure that all 30,000 individuals are eating on plan by assigning them what they are to eat.

What is the souce of this study? Do you know when it will commence?

Naturally, I would expect to see improvements to metabolic syndrome in carnivores, as well as vegans depending on what they are fed, and not much expectations from the S.A.D. dieters.

Actually, this is my basic outline of a proposal for an actual study. Notice how the diet requires there be no supplementation. This will prove once and for all that vegans cannot be healthy without supplements and that carnivore is actually the only truly healthy diet for humans.

2 hours ago, J_R said:

This will prove once and for all that vegans cannot be healthy without supplements

Oh, I 100% agree. My comment was based on your introduction...

On 3/17/2024 at 8:43 AM, J_R said:

metabolic syndrome represents a critical public health issue... various dietary interventions, including ...vegan..., may offer significant benefits. This study aims to rigorously evaluate these claims

I do think veganism can benefit someone with metabolic syndrome, "depending on what they are fed" I said. The vegan who eats junk food, bread, and sugary cereals and treats will only be compounding his problem, whereas the vegan who sticks to whole foods in their [mostly] natural state may see improvements. 

But in time, they will end up with other issues and eventually find their way to some degree of animal-based/carnivore nutrition for sure.

Sounds like it has to potential to be a really good study but I have no faith that it can be a controlled study unless they are going to be confined and monitored for five years. I would be willing to bet that the majority of participants will cheat within those five years.
It will be interesting to see the results though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If studies can help some people open their minds to carnivore, that’s great. But in general I think people put too much emphasis on science. True science is always open to questions and therefore it can be disproven. Anecdotes are proof of actual experiences. Can you disprove an experience? 

Yes Les, you can disprove an experience. Human experience isn't reliable. People lie. And worse, people lie to themselves. Delusion is rampant in the human species, so science and consistent replication is the only way to get through the delusional state of humanity.

Yes Les, you can disprove an experience. Human experience isn't reliable. People lie. And worse, people lie to themselves. Delusion is rampant in the human species, so science and consistent replication is the only way to get through the delusional state of humanity.

I don’t lie, I just misremembered a time or two.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

9 hours ago, J_R said:

Yes Les, you can disprove an experience. Human experience isn't reliable. People lie. And worse, people lie to themselves. Delusion is rampant in the human species, so science and consistent replication is the only way to get through the delusional state of humanity.

I appreciate your view J R; I just don’t see it that way. 

Now, I do not claim to have all the answers; I just express my point of view, for what it’s worth… 

I would say experience and delusion are not the same thing. Delusion is an interpretation or response to an experience. Science doesn’t eradicate delusion, only evolved consciousness can.

Science has limitations—most especially in the area of health and well-being. If you want to determine the tensile strength of a metal alloy at sub-freezing temps, the scientific method is very reliable. But health and well-being are something entirely different, and the limitations of science become very apparent—at least to me. Ergo…

Both Bob and Geoff commented that strict monitoring of 30,000 individuals would be quite the undertaking; at best, I think it’s highly improbable. I would even say it’s probably not possible. So these types of studies don't carry much weight for me, but if they open the minds of people to consider carnivore, great.

If some people need science to help them feel better about what they eat, that’s fine. We’re all different and have different perspectives. I share mine, and I acknowledge yours. Discussion is good. 👍‍

8 hours ago, LesW said:

I would say experience and delusion are not the same thing. Delusion is an interpretation or response to an experience. Science doesn’t eradicate delusion, only evolved consciousness can.

 

Very well said and I can see where that is applicable in so many areas. 

 

8 hours ago, LesW said:

If some people need science to help them feel better about what they eat, that’s fine. We’re all different and have different perspectives. I share mine, and I acknowledge yours. Discussion is good. 👍

In the beginning of becoming carnivore the science I choose to follow validated what I was getting into. After a time the science was proven in my results. I no longer need the science for validation because my experience is the proof of concept. 

On 3/21/2024 at 6:30 AM, Geezy said:

After a time the science was proven in my results. I no longer need the science for validation because my experience is the proof of concept. 

I agree. My results speak volumes. But I am a research hound and I love to have secular resources to back up what I am doing. These are powerful when arguing with the doctor, lol 😄

10 hours ago, Bob said:

I agree. My results speak volumes. But I am a research hound and I love to have secular resources to back up what I am doing. These are powerful when arguing with the doctor, lol 😄

These are not secular resources, they are science. Profoundly religious men came up with the scientific method in order to refine our knowledge and get to the truth of the world we live in. The scientific method has no parallel or competitor in any other methodology. So using a properly controlled randomized control trial to prove scientifically what many in the carnivore diet community think they already know is extremely useful. Anecdotes are only raw data and useless when compared to actual proper RCT data.

7 minutes ago, J_R said:

So using a properly controlled randomized control trial to prove scientifically what many in the carnivore diet community think they already know is extremely useful

Absolutely, and I don’t think anyone is debating that point. We just are doubtful that an RCT can be acutely achieved over a long period of time with that many people. They would have to be locked up and only be allowed to eat what was given them. 
There have been similar RCT’s but they all failed because they couldn’t be controlled accurately. 
I personally believe what would be more accurate is if everyone who is ketogenic/carnivore would be honest with their doctors about what they are doing. This could all be documented and correlated to show the benefits across a wide spectrum of metabolic healing. 
The individual is much better at controlling what they do that someone else trying to control them. 

11 hours ago, Bob said:

I agree. My results speak volumes. But I am a research hound and I love to have secular resources to back up what I am doing. These are powerful when arguing with the doctor, lol 😄

I’m a consummate researcher myself, although as I’ve gotten older, I’ve tried to cultivate more use of the non-analytical side of my brain.

BTW, anyone who argues with doctors is a friend of mine 😁

14 hours ago, J_R said:

... using a properly controlled randomized control trial to prove scientifically what many in the carnivore diet community think they already know is extremely useful.

Oh I absolutely agree, and that is what I was trying to get at. If this proposal could be executed as outlined, it would be a valuble reference. 

14 hours ago, J_R said:

These are not secular resources, they are science... Anecdotes are only raw data and useless when compared to actual proper RCT data.

I agree with this too. 

I am a religious person, so sometimes that language crosses over into other things I say and talk about. Maybe I could have not included the word "secular" and just said "resources", but by "secular resources" I meant resources outside my own (anecdotal) experiences.