I went 90% meat and eggs for a few months and it absolutely worked: digestive problems gone, lots of fat gone, general health improved.

However, it was not the meat only: I increased raw meat dramatically (beef tartar 3-4 times a week, usually with raw or fried eggs), and switched to intermittent fasting with one meal at noon with maybe something like a yoghourt in the afternoon, so 16-18 hours of fasting.

Completely eliminated raw veggies (salads), all breads, all pastas, and most rice. I did keep some of the potatoes and cooked veggies like onions and peppers as sides for the meat.

Now I have tuned down the amount of meat (increased slightly carbs, but more the cooked veggies), while keeping the rest, and I seem to retain most of the benefits.

So I'm inclined to believe I was initially right about this whole "carnivore" thing.

Radical proponents of it are people who had horrible diets to begin with. Mainly Anglo people who come from terrible culinary deserts and have little food culture to begin with. It even seems it gives them an excuse to insist in their rather infantile foods habits - hating on veggies, fish, and complex flavors and textures, like 3 year olds.

Sorry, but it's true, and there's a reason why this carnivore nonsense doesn't come from Japan, Spain or Italy, which incidentally have some of the longest life expectancies, quality of life and number of individuals over 100 years old.

The truths of the diet are hidden by the theatrics of its proponents. It is true for instance that many of us do need to increase our (good quality) meat and animal fat intake, and that ALL of us need to heavily and radically cut down in carbs and vegetable stuff that's indigestible and ferments inside our gut.

It is also true though that Homo sapiens are not obligate carnivores and thus *require* more than animal meat (and definitely more than just beef) to survive and thrive.

nostr:note1tfzxl0cmt2yzgz46qcln4nn0ezptpl0y42t3kfu25useu7hhdw7qcead9v