Starting The Carnivore Diet

Forums › Health and fitness › Starting The Carnivore Diet

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

20940 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5408

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3505169 22-Jun-2026 10:46

It's probably easier to go to your GP, request the tests, and say you are happy to pay for it. I can't vouch for any particular testing provider those are just ones that I found.

Paul1977

5271 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2236

#3505170 22-Jun-2026 10:55

dafman:

One of the issues with Ozempic type drugs is that you have to stay on them for life. Evidence shows users gain their original weight back + some when they stop using. Plus the weight you lose includes muscle mass - when you put it back on, you don’t get the muscle back, so more fat. Plus, despite many reported benefits, there are also risks to pancreas plus other organs, and these are very new to market. The current cost, if not subsidised, is $500 to $800 per month. So long story short, if me, no.

Which brings me back to the balanced diet + exercise.

One thing I taught myself some years back is that food, while essential to life, can also be one of the most enjoyable things you do every day. I no longer eat on the run. I no longer snack while doing something else (like watching TV). Why? Because when you do this food becomes secondary to the other thing (eg watching TV, eating on the run). When you eat, food should be the core focus of what you are doing at that time. Sit down and focus your attention on your food. Enjoy it, savour the taste.

And natural is important. Try to avoid processed food. This is a key thing, so I will suggest it again - avoid processed food when you can. When you eat, think about what you have just eaten, how it tastes, what is the texture - there is a huge difference processed food and natural food. Once you discover the difference, processed food doesn’t stand a chance.

I don’t know if you cook. Have a look at recipetineats on youtube - a wonderful Australian channel that has really great videos on how to prepare great meals from natural ingredients. Experiment! And experiment again. Fail a lot, thats ok and to be expected. Eventually the fails becomes less and you have occasional wins. Over time, the wins increase.

And keep moving. If you enter a multi story building, use the stairs. If you live in a major city and the walk is less than 30 mins, skip the bus.

My 2 cents.

Good luck.

At the moment the only processed food I'm having is bacon, which is salt cured with a little brown sugar (so not strictly carnivore, but the amount of sugars in the final product is tiny) no nitrates or other chemicals or preservatives. Also canned salmon (only listed ingredient is salmon, so not sure if that counts as processed or not).

Prior to this little experiment, I ate a lot of processed foods.

cddt

2096 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2036

#3505180 22-Jun-2026 11:09

Paul1977:

bacon, which is salt cured with a little brown sugar (so not strictly carnivore, but the amount of sugars in the final product is tiny) no nitrates or other chemicals or preservatives.

Where do you get bacon without nitrates? Every brand in the supermarket has "salt" in the ingredients, but this means sodium nitrate.

lachlanw

253 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 113

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3505184 22-Jun-2026 11:16

Hendeersons is nitrate free I think

Paul1977

5271 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2236

#3505190 22-Jun-2026 11:54

cddt:

Where do you get bacon without nitrates? Every brand in the supermarket has "salt" in the ingredients, but this means sodium nitrate.

Henderson's bacon. Website says nitrate free.

https://www.hendersonsfoods.co.nz/news/what-to-look-for-when-shopping-for-bacon

I get the streaky stuff.

https://www.hendersonsfoods.co.nz/products

They seem to be out of it at my local New World, so will need to search grocer app for who else has it as I only have a few days worth left.

cddt

2096 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2036

#3505205 22-Jun-2026 13:17

Thanks, that's really useful to know.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

MikeAqua

8328 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4057

#3505226 22-Jun-2026 14:59

Rikkitic:

MikeAqua:

Our 'family tree' does not include monkeys, lol.

Depends on how far up the tree you go. We are closer to monkeys than to crocodiles.

It doesn't matter how far up the tree you go. Monkeys and apes (incl humans) are divergent evolutionary branches. It's more valid to say we're descended from fish, or reptiles (or the LUCA) than from monkeys.

We share a common ape-like ancestor (Aegyptopithecus) with monkeys, but there are no monkeys among our ancestors. Evolution then branched into monkeys and 'apes'. We arose from the 'ape' branch.

Monkeys arose from the monkey branch, which then branched into old world and new world monkeys. New world monkeys are endemic to the Americas and have prehensile tails. I believe I earlier said gibbons were monkeys. They aren't. They're in the ape Superfamily with us great apes.

Crocodiles ... nothing alive is closely related to the Crocodilia. They're a relic, like sphenodons (tuatara). Very different from other extant reptiles.

Crocodilians have their own phylogenetic Order, with only 26 species. They're a much more isolated branch of evolution than kakapo.

Mike

Paul1977

5271 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2236

#3505234 22-Jun-2026 15:20

MikeAqua:

It doesn't matter how far up the tree you go. Monkeys and apes (incl humans) are divergent evolutionary branches. It's more valid to say we're descended from fish, or reptiles (or the LUCA) than from monkeys.

We share a common ape-like ancestor (Aegyptopithecus) with monkeys, but there are no monkeys among our ancestors. Evolution then branched into monkeys and 'apes'. We arose from the 'ape' branch.

Monkeys arose from the monkey branch, which then branched into old world and new world monkeys. New world monkeys are endemic to the Americas and have prehensile tails. I believe I earlier said gibbons were monkeys. They aren't. They're in the ape Superfamily with us great apes.

Crocodiles ... nothing alive is closely related to the Crocodilia. They're a relic, like sphenodons (tuatara). Very different from other extant reptiles.

Crocodilians have their own phylogenetic Order, with only 26 species. They're a much more isolated branch of evolution than kakapo.

Being on a divergent branch does, by definition, mean they are on the same tree though. But then so is all life on Earth if you trace the tree back far enough and look at all the divergent branches.

When you eat a salad, you're eating distant relatives.

MikeAqua

8328 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4057

#3505255 22-Jun-2026 16:38

Paul1977:

Being on a divergent branch does, by definition, mean they are on the same tree though. But then so is all life on Earth if you trace the tree back far enough and look at all the divergent branches.

When you eat a salad, you're eating distant relatives.

Evolution runs forward, like time. Something that did not evolve before you, cannot be your ancestor.

Fish are our ancestors because they evolved before us and you can draw a simple line back from humans to fish. You cannot draw a simple line from humans to Monkeys you'd have to go back to Aegyptopithecus and then forward again to monkeys.

Think about family. Your sibling isn't your ancestor (hopefully!). You do share a common ancestor with them.

Mike

Eva888

2905 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2566

Lifetime subscriber

#3505256 22-Jun-2026 16:43

Paul1977:

When you eat a salad, you're eating distant relatives.

There you go…eat only salad and you’re still on the carnivore diet :))

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19212 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16557

Lifetime subscriber

#3505259 22-Jun-2026 16:52

The phrase 'in a manner of speaking' comes to mind. Monkeys are often used figuratively to suggest something about people and human nature. I did not think we were actually descended from them though I did not know all the detail you provided, for which I thank you. it is always interesting to learn new things.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30088 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6266

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3505263 22-Jun-2026 17:25

Paul1977:

MikeAqua:

It doesn't matter how far up the tree you go. Monkeys and apes (incl humans) are divergent evolutionary branches. It's more valid to say we're descended from fish, or reptiles (or the LUCA) than from monkeys.

We share a common ape-like ancestor (Aegyptopithecus) with monkeys, but there are no monkeys among our ancestors. Evolution then branched into monkeys and 'apes'. We arose from the 'ape' branch.

Monkeys arose from the monkey branch, which then branched into old world and new world monkeys. New world monkeys are endemic to the Americas and have prehensile tails. I believe I earlier said gibbons were monkeys. They aren't. They're in the ape Superfamily with us great apes.

Crocodiles ... nothing alive is closely related to the Crocodilia. They're a relic, like sphenodons (tuatara). Very different from other extant reptiles.

Crocodilians have their own phylogenetic Order, with only 26 species. They're a much more isolated branch of evolution than kakapo.

Being on a divergent branch does, by definition, mean they are on the same tree though. But then so is all life on Earth if you trace the tree back far enough and look at all the divergent branches.

When you eat a salad, you're eating distant relatives.

put it this way. you could be the pioneer species in the evolution of the yet to exist carnivore human. who knows. perhaps with AI using up our drinking water perhaps the carnivore human doesn't need too much water. etc etc.

that's why i'm interested in your lab results, artery health etc, unlike people who assume certainty without data.

dafman

4117 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2719

Trusted

Subscriber

#3505363 23-Jun-2026 08:44

Batman:

that's why i'm interested in your lab results, artery health etc, unlike people who assume certainty without data.

I'm pretty sure the medical profession that warn against the carnivore diet do so with plenty of solid data.

mudguard

2363 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1275

#3505370 23-Jun-2026 09:12

At the risk of derailing the thread, at what point in history have we ever eaten like this? Having lost some weight recently, and I don't want to be blase about it, it was accidental and not required. I went from a job eating in restaurants four nights a week doing lots of exercise, to not eating in restaurants and still doing the same amount of exercise.

I realise it's really hard for folks to shift weight that's unwanted.

That said, back to my original point, for most of our history we were probably scavenging omnivores with odd bonus bit of caught meat. I thought I heard a paleo anthropologist say in one of her podcasts, is that the problem with any kind of paleo/carnivore type diet is that by and large humans didn't live that long back then anyway so they weren't dying because of diet related issues. Probably more likely of hunger/accident/ than age or diet related disease.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30088 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6266

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3505371 23-Jun-2026 09:15

dafman:

Batman:

that's why i'm interested in your lab results, artery health etc, unlike people who assume certainty without data.

I'm pretty sure the medical profession that warn against the carnivore diet do so with plenty of solid data.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12845189/

"Overall, the quality of evidence is very limited due to small sample sizes, short study durations, and the absence of control groups." Jan 2026

The author does say s/he thinks this is a terrible diet and cannot be recommended. But not from data but conjecture (aka "substantial risks").

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7