Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Bullet_2300 t1_iy9uyfp wrote

Reply to comment by Moont1de in "Green Mediterranean diet” high in polyphenols and fiber can reduce that visceral fat. After 18 months, those subjected to the diet saw a visceral fat reduction of 14 percent; eaters of the Mediterranean Diet saw a 7 percent drop. Visceral fat among “healthy eaters” was reduced by 4.5 percent by Wagamaga

>I review biomedical literature daily for my job.

>two awfully wrong assumptions

My stated claim is that you haven't looked into the matter, not that you are vegan, and not that you don't have a related job. I dislike that you nitpick at these points without addressing the actual claim.

The reason I doubt you've looked into the matter is because the elimination of processed foods is responsible for many of the health benefits we see from alternate diets. This would include any carnivore diets that also eliminate processed foods, as is evidenced by a plethora of studies showing so called "short or long term" benefits you've "yet to see."

−2

Moont1de t1_iy9wh1x wrote

> I dislike that you nitpick at these points without addressing the actual claim.

What claim? Even if we pretend that you did not imply that I am vegan and rather just went on an entirely unrelated tangent about veganism for no reason at all, your comment is void of any point that is not an easily disproven assumption.

> The reason I doubt you've looked into the matter is because the elimination of processed foods is responsible for many of the health benefits we see from alternate diets.

This is a sophomoric understanding of the state of the art of the bromatology and nutrition scholarly fields, hypothesis design in modern studies accounts for this variable and does not simply compare diets with processed products vs. without.

> This would include any carnivore diets that also eliminate processed foods

There is evidence that eliminating processed foods (if you define processed foods in the very specific framework of ultra-processed foods) leads to short-term benefits such as weight loss and improved cardiovascular health, and long-term reductions in overall mortality. When you account for that variable, I have not seen a single study whatsoever that shows short or long-term benefits to carnivore diets.

I have seen such results for plant-based or low-meat diets.

4

Bullet_2300 t1_iybbufl wrote

>What claim? Even if we pretend ....your comment is void of any point that is not an easily disproven assumption.

What's funny is I initially misread the triple negative to mean that you purposely ignored my accusation because neither you nor I could feasibly prove via a reddit thread what dietary studies you've read in the past — i.e. whether you've looked into carnivore diets is not easily proven or disproven, and therefore a pointless avenue of argument. I was prepared to shrug, agree, and move on.

Then I realized you meant "What point? Even if there is a point it's easily disproven anyway" while neglecting to include any such proof.

>When you account for that variable, I have not seen a single study whatsoever that shows short or long-term benefits to carnivore diets.

>I have seen such results for plant-based or low-meat diets.

For sake of argument, if I gave you full confidence, then my question is to clarify what point of reference these diets are being compared to when determining short and long term health benefits.

I have the same issue with the initial post:

>I can see a short-term benefit to low carb and keto since they are diets that naturally reduce appetite and thus lead to weight loss...I'm yet to see a short or long term benefit to a carnivore diet

−1

Darwins_Dog t1_iybdl7d wrote

Just accept the L dude. You made bad assumptions and got called out on it.

2

Bullet_2300 t1_iyc0ben wrote

If this user has a reasonable answer for what looks like a glaring inconsistency in their claims; I was intending on politely bowing out.

This guy argues in a similar style as vegans and just extremists in general: avoiding simple refutations, identity shenanigans like claiming not to be vegan (sometimes with multi-accounts), and writing in as gaudy a manner as possible to emphasize intellectual superiority. There's also the biggest indicator, which is being willing to write walls of text but becoming coincidentally silent or evasive when you ask evidence based questions, such as a simple clarifying question regarding the methodology of the studies they cite.

Or even the simple question of whether they specifically researched the topic they're arguing about.

Edit: All that amateur writing analysis gets blown away by evidence, however. Psychopaths like that are rare anyway.

1

Darwins_Dog t1_iycpy12 wrote

Also, you never actually even said you have evidence to the contrary (let alone provide any). Just straight in with the personal attacks. You had the chance to win the argument with one link, but here we are instead.

1