Evaluation of Carnivore Diet Video

[Margaret Hayek]

Hi all,

Various of the claims in this video seem deeply misguided, but I was wondering if anyone could do a detailed evaluation of its various arguments and respond in detail (ideally with cited sources):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isIw2AN ... e=youtu.be

Thanks very much!
Margaret

[sykkelmannen]

I'm not getting into a diet debate. Sorry for the OT, but I have to:
Hypothetically, IF it should turn out that e.g. meat only is the healthiest diet, does it mean we should eat it? (I don't want to go into who'd be that authority determining that hard fact either)
Similarly, IF it should turn out that meat (and/or dairy, eggs, ...) does NOT cause climate change or any serious damage to the environment, should we abandon vegan lifestyle?

I'm asking because it kinda disturbs me that these two forms of this entirely selfish position continue as a dominant topic for discussion that should win people over.

[brimstoneSalad]

Only had a chance to look at his comment so far, looks like he's pushing the Inuit myth.
While obviously we don't have studies on uncontacted tribes of Inuit before colonization (making his demand for counter-evidence inherently absurd, and his wild claims unfalsifiable), we do observe trends in decreasing cardiovascular mortality during Westernization.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749

A decreasing trend in mortality from IHD in Inuit populations undergoing rapid westernization supports the need for a critical rethinking of cardiovascular epidemiology among the Inuit and the role of a marine diet in this population.

The authors there suggest a U-shaped curve when it comes to marine diets (a little bit reducing mortality, and a lot increasing it again) which is also in line with what we would expect due to mechanistic evidence.

This guy seems pretty terrible, I think this could be a good video to respond to if I have a chance after the other thing...

@sykkelmannen No and no. Veganism would stand on grounds of animal ethics alone. However, the harm to humans from those issues (in addition to things like antibiotic resistance) is an important part of the argument since it highlights the irrationality of what is a lose-lose proposition of animal agriculture.
It's good to be able to say it's bad for animals, but it's also bad for us so it's totally irrational (unlike an action that's good for us but bad for animals, which isn't nice but could be somewhat rational).

[carnap]

Its funny how easily distracted the vegan community gets by these sorts of ploys, I think its in part because its much easier to poke holes in nonsense like the "carnivore diet" than to address the difficult and nuanced issues in nutritional science and moral philosophy.

The carnivore diet isn't serious and very few people take it seriously so what exactly is gained by talking about it and trying to debunk it? From the eyes of the average person, when vegans discuss the carnivore diet its just one extreme diet vs another. That is to say, vegans delegitimize their own diet when they spend time discussing diets rooted in utter pseudo-science.

[brimstoneSalad]

Its funny how easily distracted the vegan community gets by these sorts of ploys, I think its in part because its much easier to poke holes in nonsense like the "carnivore diet" than to address the difficult and nuanced issues in nutritional science and moral philosophy.

It may be a little easier (the issues of moral philosophy are pretty simple despite your not being willing to engage with them honestly) but it's something that needs holes poked in it, since people are taken in by it.

You're the one who has argued that people are warming to meat, and if that's true at all it's likely this kind of bullshit that's contributing to it.

Given two messages, a neutral and a negative, people are likely to accept something in between, but throw in a message that says vegetables and grains are bad and that ONLY meat is good, and that apparent message can sow confusion (regardless of how credible it actually is). Showing people who might be on the fence that it's not a credible message is valuable: not to stop them from following the carnivore diet (which very few would) but to stop them from regressing toward inclusion of more meat in their diets as a "middle ground".

The carnivore diet isn't serious and very few people take it seriously

That doesn't seem to be the case. Its advocates and followers both seem to be taking it seriously. And the general public may not take the message in whole, but it could influence the general zeitgeist of pop nutrition in the mainstream to be more positive toward meat.

so what exactly is gained by talking about it and trying to debunk it? From the eyes of the average person, when vegans discuss the carnivore diet its just one extreme diet vs another.

Maybe in the eyes of a complete idiot. People know the vegan message carries moral and environmental weight; the carnivore diet is health messaging. However, if people are afraid to give up meat for pseudoscientific health reasons that's likely going to trump ethical concern.

We need only show that a vegan diet is healthy if properly planned, and that's easy to do with mainstream consensus. Unfortunately, people aren't always going to seek out that information and like the anti-vaxx movement, the carnivore diet message could do a lot of harm despite its absurdity to the reasonably educated.

That is to say, vegans delegitimize their own diet when they spend time discussing diets rooted in utter pseudo-science.

Many people don't know the carnivore diet is pseudoscience. But even if they did, that's complete nonsense.
With reasoning like that, nobody should EVER try to challenge pseudoscience. Do we delegitimize vaccines when we criticize anti-vaxx? Do we delegitimize evolution when criticizing young Earth creationism?

No, we do not delegitimize veganism by criticizing and revealing the pseudoscience of meat-based diets. The mainstream is with us on this one, and the trend and all of the credible evidence is toward less meat and more vegetables not more meat and abstention from vegetables.
Health vegans may be ahead of the trend, but carnivore diet pseudoscience is regressive and against the trend. That's a big difference on its own, even without any of the ethical issues.

[carnap]

(the issues of moral philosophy are pretty simple despite your not being willing to engage with them honestly)

There is nothing simple about moral philosophy which is why its been a contentious subject for thousands of years. That is true of even mainstream subjects, but its especially true of more fringe subjects like animal ethics.

You're the one who has argued that people are warming to meat, and if that's true at all it's likely this kind of bullshit that's contributing to it.

People do seem to be warming to meat but there is no reason to believe that some nutty fringe diet has anything to do with that.

That doesn't seem to be the case. Its advocates and followers both seem to be taking it seriously. And the general public may not take the message in whole, but it could influence the general zeitgeist of pop nutrition in the mainstream to be more positive toward meat.

The amount of followers is tiny and by talking about it you increase awareness of it. The issue here is that vegans as a population aren't well liked, as such when the average person hears a vegan debunk something they actually may be more likely to have interest in it or support it than before.

Maybe in the eyes of a complete idiot. People know the vegan message carries moral and environmental weight; the carnivore diet is health messaging.

Do they? Vegans spend a lot of time on health messaging and the vegan critiques of the "carnivore diet" are often health-oriented. Also you can easily find Vegans making similar bombastic health claims as those of the "carnivore diet".

Many people don't know the carnivore diet is pseudoscience. But even if they did, that's complete nonsense.
With reasoning like that, nobody should EVER try to challenge pseudoscience. Do we delegitimize vaccines when we criticize anti-vaxx? Do we delegitimize evolution when criticizing young Earth creationism?

You're missing the point. My point is by no means that people should never debunk pseudo-science instead its about the social dynamics of one fringe sub-culture trying to debunk another fringe group. In particular when that sub-culture is not well regarded by mainstream culture.

[brimstoneSalad]

There is nothing simple about moral philosophy which is why its been a contentious subject for thousands of years. That is true of even mainstream subjects, but its especially true of more fringe subjects like animal ethics.

It's not that contentious, and no animal ethics is not a "fringe" subject. It may just not have been practical in antiquity, but it has been long an important subject of philosophical inquiry.
It's been a matter of concern for thousands of years, even before modern philosophy, with instances of animal ethics recorded in every major world religion.
Our modern privilege and nutrition science is just what gives us the ability to really put those thoughts into action. B-12 was only discovered under a century ago, for instance. People of antiquity couldn't reliably be vegan.

People do seem to be warming to meat but there is no reason to believe that some nutty fringe diet has anything to do with that.

Do you think carnivore diet pseudoscience is pushing people away from meat?
You don't seem to understand how people work, or how the mainstream synthesize information to form the zeitgeist of pop-nutrition.

The amount of followers is tiny and by talking about it you increase awareness of it.

I believe in punching up. I don't think anybody with a really large platform is talking about any of these small promoters. Although sometimes Vegan Gains makes that mistake.

The issue here is that vegans as a population aren't well liked, as such when the average person hears a vegan debunk something they actually may be more likely to have interest in it or support it than before.

I don't think it's true that vegans are that disliked, particularly, now, and even for those who are (or seem to be) like Vegan Gains I don't think that's true. His followers seem to regularly mention hating him but admit he has a point when he makes certain arguments.

People are much more likely to accept an argument coming from a source they like, and just being a general asshole to people could push them away, but directing criticism toward a third party doesn't seem to have the latter effect, and just disliking somebody doesn't seem to turn people against anything that person says at all. There may be some extreme cases (Godwin's law), but I don't think that applies generally and most people seem to be able to reason better as long as the hate isn't directed at them.

Do they? Vegans spend a lot of time on health messaging and the vegan critiques of the "carnivore diet" are often health-oriented. Also you can easily find Vegans making similar bombastic health claims as those of the "carnivore diet".

I don't agree with the dramatic claims, and I don't focus primarily on health messaging. It's not that hard to make a health case against the carnivore diet, though, with more modest claims on veganism.

You're missing the point. My point is by no means that people should never debunk pseudo-science instead its about the social dynamics of one fringe sub-culture trying to debunk another fringe group. In particular when that sub-culture is not well regarded by mainstream culture.

Then why shouldn't it be done well, without repeating the same mistakes, to improve the reputation of the subculture?
Less Kahn vs Kresser nonsense.