Transcript excerpt from a dialogue about dietary approaches, weighing carnivore, vegan, and Mediterranean diets. Speakers discuss practical outcomes for health (especially autoimmune, depression, gut issues), emphasize individual response over dogma, and argue that dietary diversity combining plant and animal foods can mitigate risks and provide synergistic benefits.
My goal is to get people healthy. I'm not necessarily out here saying that every human needs to be a carnivore or going on a carnivore diet. What I say is I get people that have autoimmune conditions, they might have depression, they might have, you know, some gut issues, and just out of experience, out of practical results, we see pretty good results with that. I tell people, hey, if the diet ain't working for you, don't do it. I'm not religious about it. I'm like, hey, if your results are not what they need to be, go do something. I'll go do Joel's diet. Go do a vegan diet, do Mediterranean diet, whatever.
We all want what's sustainable and real. And I would just argue that too much of either side of that debate creates probabilities of outcomes that we don't want and that the synergy between plant animal foods actually.
Protects you from both.
You can kind of find these synergies that show that diversity in the diet actually allows us to enjoy the benefits of animal foods and completely nerfs any potential liabilities. And it doesn't even have to be a ton.
It's just some.
Some diversity in the diet.
Let's say there's 50 risk factors for colorectal cancer, and, you know, the carnivore diet increases 2 of them, but mitigates 42 of them. What's the net effect here? So, again, that's why when we focus on one mechanistic pathway to the exclusion of the other 150, sometimes it leads us to the wrong conclusions.
So to my mind, if there's no negatives and only benefits, then you get all the benefits of meat and none of the negatives. I don't know why not to do it would be my response to that.