Let’s not lump religion in with ethics - there’s no real relationship there.
No, she’s not the only one and out of the panoply she isn’t the worst. But she’s notable for being extreme and getting amplified by daddy dearest. As I pointed out above, Freelee the Banana Girl has to generate her own publicity and isn’t being taken nearly as seriously.
But just suppose, Magoo, that someone, or perhaps many someones, believed your claim that their lives would be made better in every way by these magical ice cubes, and spent their last $50 to buy your secret recipe. Would you say that you had acted ethically?That would come down to whether or not I genuinely believed that this "solid water" actually helped me. That's how religions get around the whole "acting ethically" thing, isn't it?
Good point, since it seems plausible that Ms. Peterson actually does believe her diet has saved her life.
But she’s notable for being extreme and getting amplified by daddy dearest.
Well, nothing but beef, beef and beef is surely pretty extreme. Even the people who pretend to only eat meat to goad vegans eat other meats.
But I'm kind of thinking that "daddy dearest" is the real issue here.
Without the amplification, she'd just be another nut ranting into the void of youtube. With the endorsement from her father, she's garnered an tremendous amount of press and a lucrative following. So yes, he's a large part of the problem.
I'm not convinced promoting the diet is a bad thing. The medium-term (1 week to at least 6 weeks) benefits are very similar to a ketogenic diet, and I would presume that after that point most people would notice if they start to experience negative symptoms as a result of depleted nutrient stores. At that point, I suspect most "carnivores" will reintroduce foods in either a keto or paleo structure as necessary.
I'm not convinced promoting the diet is a bad thing.
From the Atlantic article cited by Timebandit some posts back:
“Physiologically, it would just be an immensely bad idea,” Jack Gilbert, the faculty director at the University of Chicago’s Microbiome Center and a professor of surgery, told me during a recent visit to his lab. “A terribly, terribly bad idea.”
Gilbert has done extensive research on how the trillions of microbes in our guts digest food, and the look on his face when I told him about the all-beef diet was unamused. He began rattling off the expected ramifications: “Your body would start to have severe dysregulation, within six months, of the majority of the processes that deal with metabolism; you would have no short-chain fatty acids in your cells; most of the by-products of gastrointestinal polysaccharide fermentation would shut down, so you wouldn’t be able to regulate your hormone levels; you’d enter into cardiac issues due to alterations in cell receptors; your microbiota would just be devastated.”
While much of the internet has been following this story in a somewhat snide way, Gilbert appeared genuinely concerned and saddened: “If she does not die of colon cancer or some other severe cardiometabolic disease, the life—I can’t imagine.”
Yes, and the keto diet is no screaming hell when it comes to healthy eating either. It’s another dangerous fad diet, the level of poor effect commensurate with what level of restriction you go with (there are several versions).
The thing about diets is that they all work in the short term. The only thing that works long term is a varied diet at about the calorie level you burn.
Yes, and the keto diet is no screaming hell when it comes to healthy eating either. It’s another dangerous fad diet, the level of poor effect commensurate with what level of restriction you go with (there are several versions).
The thing about diets is that they all work in the short term. The only thing that works long term is a varied diet at about the calorie level you burn.
I'm not going to proselytize. All I will say is, that's quite a broad generalization, and not at all congruent with the results I've seen for the half-dozen people I personally know who adhere to it.
And, @Michael, I'm pretty sure I made it clear in my previous post that I acknowledged the inevitable issues with the carnivore diet as a long term solution to anything, but consider it a useful gateway to something better.
that's quite a broad generalization, and not at all congruent with the results I've seen for the half-dozen people I personally know who adhere to it.
I assume these six people have had good results. How long have they been adhering to the diet?
I acknowledged the inevitable issues with the carnivore diet as a long term solution to anything, but consider it a useful gateway to something better.
What wouldn't/couldn't be better?
It's like saying that holding your breath until you nearly pass out is a useful gateway to inhaling and exhaling.
As I said, Cody, all diets work - in the short term.
Here are some blog posts from a science POV that might challenge your anecdotes:
https://angry-chef.com/blog/the-natural-alternative-part-1
https://angry-chef.com/blog/the-natural-alternative-part-2-revenge-of-the-chef
https://angry-chef.com/blog/the-natural-alternative-part-3-the-bullshit-menace-awakens
If he’s not to your liking as an expert, perhaps Canada’s own Dr Yoni Freedhoff? He’s an obesity specialist in clinical practice.
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2014/09/what-i-learned-by-actually-reading-that.html?m=1
http://www.weightymatters.ca/2018/01/when-weight-loss-makes-you-stupid.html?m=1
It seems to me that people with insulin resistance have to find a way to maintain healthy blood sugar levels. One way to do that is to lower their intake of carbohydrates. Another way is to regularly fast to allow their blood sugar levels to normalize. I can't see how a person with insulin resistance can have a higher carbohydrate diet as that creates unsafe levels of blood sugar.
The jury is out on carbohydrate restriction for insulin resistance. It's a theory that low carb diets can help with that, but there are also complications that can come with those diets that may outweigh the benefit. Have a boo at Freedhoff's blog, there's lots on the subject there.
It should also be pointed out that a person can also lower their carbohydrate intake without eating much meat or even any meat at all. Many vegetables, fruits, nuts, fats, etc.., don't raise blood sugar very much. Sugar and starchy foods seem to be what's problematic for people with insulin resistance.
Right, but the vast majority of low carb and especially keto diets are incredibly meat-heavy. So much so that there’s concern that people on them are eating very little fruits, legumes and vegetables.
that's quite a broad generalization, and not at all congruent with the results I've seen for the half-dozen people I personally know who adhere to it.I assume these six people have had good results. How long have they been adhering to the diet?
All of them at least a year. And one of them was a healthy weight to begin with, still loves it. It's not just a weight loss diet.
I acknowledged the inevitable issues with the carnivore diet as a long term solution to anything, but consider it a useful gateway to something better.What wouldn't/couldn't be better?
It's like saying that holding your breath until you nearly pass out is a useful gateway to inhaling and exhaling.
For clarity: Better than a standard western diet.
Right, a year is still considered relatively short term. You can’t be sure of no ill effects for closer to 5. The more extreme the diet, the sooner ill effects will appear.
That’s part of the problem with a keto or paleo diet - people mean different things when they talk about them. If it’s not so extreme it’s probably fine. It’s the really restricted diets that are most hazardous. Those are also diets that are hard to maintain but whose advocates are the most evangelical.
And everybody lies about what they eat. sometimes not intentionally - it’s why diet is so difficult to study. so many confounding factors
Anyway, unless you’re observing their eating habits in detail, you may know 6 keto dieters with 6 fairly different diets.
I would bet that the long term "success" (defined however) of any diet is probably inversely proportional to how many things that diet says you must never eat, because they're poison/wrongheaded/sinful.
No good person could ever advocate for feeding a rabbit nothing but meat, if they know that rabbits are herbivores.
But folk don't seem the least bit shy to tell humans that they MUST eat this or they MUST NEVER eat that, even as they (should) know that we're omnivores.
Anyone else remember Morrissey's "vegan" cat? That's like feeding a dolphin nothing but bread.
Right, a year is still considered relatively short term. You can’t be sure of no ill effects for closer to 5. The more extreme the diet, the sooner ill effects will appear.
That’s part of the problem with a keto or paleo diet - people mean different things when they talk about them. If it’s not so extreme it’s probably fine. It’s the really restricted diets that are most hazardous. Those are also diets that are hard to maintain but whose advocates are the most evangelical.
And everybody lies about what they eat. sometimes not intentionally - it’s why diet is so difficult to study. so many confounding factors
Anyway, unless you’re observing their eating habits in detail, you may know 6 keto dieters with 6 fairly different diets.
I think a common and positive aspect that has recently driven a lot of people to lower their carbohydrate intake has been the recent recognition that excess sugar intake has been very detrimental to people's health.
Yes, excess sugar is bad. Excess anything is bad. A little sugar, in moderation, won't hurt you, either. That goes for any foodstuff. The problem with moderation is that it isn't sexy and offers no shortcuts. Everybody wants the quick and easy miracle diet that melts off pounds and keeps them off. Lots of extreme diets will offer the former in the short term, but the only one proven to do the latter is moderation.
Anyway, major thread drift. Back to odious Peterson and daughter and their ridiculous diet. I notice, from one of the articles, that Michaela can't touch a morsel of anything other than beef, but can still drink - vodka being preferred. Curious, eh?
I notice, from one of the articles, that Michaela can't touch a morsel of anything other than beef, but can still drink - vodka being preferred. Curious, eh?
Also bourbon.
In the spirit of rabble's "Vegan Challenge", anyone up for the "Beef and Hard Liquor" challenge?
Just like the Vegan Challenge, you don't need to commit forever -- just try it on for a week!
And just like the Vegan Challenge, if you're trying super hard but you still accidentally eat a fully loaded baked potato with your ribeye and your Grey Goose, don't beat yourself up about it! We're only human, after all. Just throw a striploin on the grill and rinse it down with some Jim Beam and get back on that horse.
Dammit, you made that sound appealing -- ON PURPOSE!
You're evil, Magoo... Sheer evil...
Yes, excess sugar is bad. Excess anything is bad. A little sugar, in moderation, won't hurt you, either. That goes for any foodstuff. The problem with moderation is that it isn't sexy and offers no shortcuts. Everybody wants the quick and easy miracle diet that melts off pounds and keeps them off. Lots of extreme diets will offer the former in the short term, but the only one proven to do the latter is moderation.
Anyway, major thread drift. Back to odious Peterson and daughter and their ridiculous diet. I notice, from one of the articles, that Michaela can't touch a morsel of anything other than beef, but can still drink - vodka being preferred. Curious, eh?
It seems to me that Peterson's extreme diet is emblematic of his generally black and white views of the world. I find it surprising that for an academic Peterson has great difficulty seeing the grey areas of issues. He seems to do little in moderation.
I think it has a lot to do with discovering that having an extreme opinion could translate into a lot of money. Is he for real? I don't know and frankly, don't care. But that Patreon account isn't generating chump change, so I suspect that at some level it's not 100% genuine.
Well, if having an extreme opinion can be converted to gold, why do so many people with extreme opinions seem to not be rich? Left-wing, right-wing, fundie, atheist, anarchist, vegan... I'm not shilling for the guy when I wonder if there might necessarily be more.
It can be under the right circumstances. It’s not enough to have an extreme opinion. It has to be one that not only do enough people agree with, wish they could express but can’t reayget away with, but want it expressed badly enough that they’ll bankroll you to do it in their steads.
Peterson’s message is crafted for an audience so that it can be monetized.
Interestingly, lots of extreme anti-science supplement pedlars do a similar kind of thing. Joe Mercola. Mike Adams. Even Freelee the Banana Girl.
Reducing concentrated sugar seems to be a positive, no? Not sweet vegetables (tomatoes, peppers etc) but certainly candies, oversweetened, frosted cakes etc.
The vodka thing is just bizarre. That is harcore alcohol delivery. I guess that if she had a beer or glass of wine, it might be a gateway to a balanced diet...
