My weird carnivore diet

Hi guys, I was just wondering if there is something wrong with my food choices. Ever since I was a kid, now I am currently 32, I've been only meat. I don't eat vegetables and sea food. But my health is still in very good condition. Is it possible that I am living a healthy life without the help of vegetables?

Sorry Christian, a bit late to see this. In any animals early years, protein and fat are used to fuel growth and the repair of tissues, so if you are a hard worker and very active, this may have served you well til now with no apparent ill effect. A person's body can compensate for a very long time for any imbalance. However, it will catch up to you. A lack in the necessary vitamins and minerals needed to maintain healthy vision will cause a more rapid than usual deterioration in vision, for example. Also, any protein above what the body needs has to be filtered out of the bodys systems via the kidneys, which are damaged by that excess protein (the reason it's a bad idea to feed catfood to dogs is because the higher protein levels in the catfood will eventually destry the dogs kidneys).

Much as you may not like them, I'm afraid it's time to start eating those veggies.

I have to agree with Kitty, you have been operating on 'borrowed time' and an incomplete diet can go on only for so long, same as anything else. The American Indian oftentimes had only meat as a food source and they soon learned that they would become sick/scurvy without adequate Vit. C. So, they often made up Pine Needle Tea, which you aren't even doing. Mal-nourishment sets up a whole cascade of problems, much like what would happen, if you didn't do any maintainence on your car, or neglected your garden, houseplants or pets.

Living off only meat and water, no juice/fruit/honey/flour/vegetables/root crop.
Makes you a very interesting human. Do you eat animal fat raw to get fat soluble vitamins. cooked/raw Liver/internal organs for minerals
Do you drink the blood raw, I suppose you can get alot of nutrients from just milk from smaller animals without over taxing your organ.
I am pretty sure that quite a few doctors would like to bring you in for a consultation to see what adaptation your body have made in gene expression, etc.

If you are eating really good meat, as in food forest fed meat, it is possible to get everything you need. But you probably have to be as careful as a vegan is to get everything you need.

Your post might be uncomplete... do you eat fruits and some cereals or what else?
You mntion you do not eat veggies, but it does not mean to me that you do not eat smething else!
And yes, you do not mention the variety, the quality and the preparation of your meat.

Kitty Hudson wrote: Also, any protein above what the body needs has to be filtered out of the bodys systems via the kidneys, which are damaged by that excess protein (the reason it's a bad idea to feed catfood to dogs is because the higher protein levels in the catfood will eventually destry the dogs kidneys).

Kitty, I am afraid this is not true, and I believe this is the kind of information thought to be true because it has been repeated over and over.

What destroys most dogs is the excess of cereals in their kibbles.
Or soya proteins...
Most good kibbles have more proteins and fats!
And their way of life is no more adapted to their natural diet.

About extra proteins: they are converted into sugars...

I have reduced my need for meat by eating it raw.
I guess this comes from the better quality proteins I now offer my body...

I also eat raw veggies, and I mince everything together.
This makes a global new taste and helps chewing, as I do not buy fine tartar meat.

If you're healthy, don't change a thing.

In the winter of 1928, Stefansson and Karsten Anderson, a thirty-eight-year-old Danish explorer, became the subjects in a yearlong experiment that was intended to settle the meat-diet controversy. The experiment was planned and supervised by a committee of a dozen respected nutritionists, anthropologists, and physicians.*95 Eugene Du Bois and ten of his colleagues from Cornell and the Russell Sage Institute of Pathology would oversee the day-to-day details of the experiment. For three weeks, Stefansson and Anderson were fed a typical mixed diet of fruits, cereals, vegetables, and meat while being subjected to a battery of tests and examinations. Then they began living exclusively on meat, at which point they moved into Bellevue Hospital in New York and were put under twenty-four-hour observation.
Taubes, Gary (2007-09-25). Good Calories, Bad Calories (Kindle Locations 6582-6587). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

“The only dramatic part of the study was the surprisingly undramatic nature of the findings,” wrote Du Bois, when he later summarized the results. “Both men were in good physical condition at the end of the observation,” he reported in 1930, in one of the nine articles he and his colleagues published on the study. “There was no subjective or objective evidence of any loss of physical or mental vigor.” Stefansson lost six pounds over the course of the year, and Anderson three, even though “the men led somewhat sedentary lives.” Anderson’s blood pressure dropped from 140/80 to 120/80; Stefansson’s remained low (105/70) throughout. The researchers detected no evidence of kidney damage or diminished function, and “vitamin deficiencies did not appear.” Nor did mineral deficiencies, although the diet contained only a quarter of the calcium usually found in mixed diets, and the acidic nature of a meat-rich diet was supposed to increase calcium excretion and so deplete the body of calcium. Among the minor health issues reported by Du Bois and his colleagues was the observation that Stefansson began the experiment with mild gingivitis (inflammation of the gums), but this “cleared up entirely, after the meat diet was taken.”

Taubes, Gary (2007-09-25). Good Calories, Bad Calories (Kindle Locations 6597-6599). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Cj Verde wrote:If you're healthy, don't change a thing.

Yes and no...
The problem is not about meat but what we do not know about the rest of his diet.

Some people live on junk food with no evidence of having problems with their diet!
Most people that develop diabetis do so after years of a bad diet.

Well, I'm taking him at his word that he only eats meat and no vegetables. Meat and cheese doodles or soda would be different. He seemed concerned about his lack of vegetables & I merely offered proof that you can live on meat alone.

How long?
The study seemed to have been 1 year long only...
The way of cooking changes the proteins etc, so it will make a difference.

Hehe - we've got discussions going on over multiple thread Xisca!

The study was set up because people thought that the Inuit must have adapted to their carnivorous diet and that white people could not live on meat alone. There were white traders, however, who lived on that diet for years while they stayed with the Inuit. So the study was to prove that people could live on meat alone and remain healthy.

The Inuit were very healthy - almost no heart disease or cancer - until they started eating a Western diet.

Yes...
The inuit ate their foods prepared in special ways that we do not practise!

They could not heat at very high temperature.

What's about fermented birds?
I mean the whole bird with feathers and full intestine.

They ate raw organs and we know that fresh liver contains Vit C.
Raw bufalo liver was also eaten much south.

I eat meat and eggs as much as I want and I eat no carbohydrates, so I do not deasagree with a very "animal" diet.
In any case, I have noticed the importance of the way of cooking!

Cj Verde wrote:The Inuit were very healthy - almost no heart disease or cancer - until they started eating a Western diet.

The reason why the Inuit had virtually no heart disease before eating a western diet was because of the type of meat they were eating. The traditional Inuit diet is predominantly fish, seal and whale, all of which are very high in omega 3, which reduces the blood's viscosity and ability to coagulate, reducing pressure on the heart.

But that doesn't explain the results of this year long experiment I cited above. I'm quite sure they weren't eating seal and whale in NYC in 1928.

Cj Verde wrote:If you're healthy, don't change a thing.

In the winter of 1928, Stefansson and Karsten Anderson, a thirty-eight-year-old Danish explorer, became the subjects in a yearlong experiment that was intended to settle the meat-diet controversy. The experiment was planned and supervised by a committee of a dozen respected nutritionists, anthropologists, and physicians.*95 Eugene Du Bois and ten of his colleagues from Cornell and the Russell Sage Institute of Pathology would oversee the day-to-day details of the experiment. For three weeks, Stefansson and Anderson were fed a typical mixed diet of fruits, cereals, vegetables, and meat while being subjected to a battery of tests and examinations. Then they began living exclusively on meat, at which point they moved into Bellevue Hospital in New York and were put under twenty-four-hour observation.
Taubes, Gary (2007-09-25). Good Calories, Bad Calories (Kindle Locations 6582-6587). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

“The only dramatic part of the study was the surprisingly undramatic nature of the findings,” wrote Du Bois, when he later summarized the results. “Both men were in good physical condition at the end of the observation,” he reported in 1930, in one of the nine articles he and his colleagues published on the study. “There was no subjective or objective evidence of any loss of physical or mental vigor.” Stefansson lost six pounds over the course of the year, and Anderson three, even though “the men led somewhat sedentary lives.” Anderson’s blood pressure dropped from 140/80 to 120/80; Stefansson’s remained low (105/70) throughout. The researchers detected no evidence of kidney damage or diminished function, and “vitamin deficiencies did not appear.” Nor did mineral deficiencies, although the diet contained only a quarter of the calcium usually found in mixed diets, and the acidic nature of a meat-rich diet was supposed to increase calcium excretion and so deplete the body of calcium. Among the minor health issues reported by Du Bois and his colleagues was the observation that Stefansson began the experiment with mild gingivitis (inflammation of the gums), but this “cleared up entirely, after the meat diet was taken.”

Taubes, Gary (2007-09-25). Good Calories, Bad Calories (Kindle Locations 6597-6599). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.