I’m kidding. I’m very onboard with the way you are doing this, and I can certainly believe there are real health benefits; the discipline to grind liver and heart into my food is a next step I’m not ready for, yet, though. On the other hand, I am just now being mature enough to not eat pizza and burritos whenever I feel like… so I’m on the journey.
I do think organ meat is the very obvious health difference for what you’re doing vs. “I like cheeseburgers without a bun.” There’s a lot of good thought going on here!
I think it happens to most folks. I went about 8 days without the loo, although I didn’t have the urge in that time. And then the floodgates opened, as they say!
I’m not trying to critique you here, merely understand, but if I didn’t go to the restroom in eight days I’d imagine what I was doing was not good for me.
I know one of the things you’ve mentioned that has been so great about this is that you’ve been able to lose fat easily, but could that be because you’re not able to digest as many calories out of your food as you would be on a more balanced macro split?
Coincidentally, I also recall that you’ve reported better energy levels but from my own anecdata I have more energy when I’m in a deficit (or, as I’m suggesting here: maybe adequate calories going in but not being digested) than I do when I’m in a surplus.
Please don’t read this as a dig. I’m genuinely curious, I’m only trying to relay how it looks like the puzzle pieces match from where I am reading your accounts.
Most people poop less on carnivore because more gets absorbed. There is very little indigestible material in meat. The digestion thing also works both ways. If you are carnivore and add in plants it will generally mess up digestion too.
Any wholesale revamp of a diet does seem to consistently flabbergast the digestive tract. Vegans adding meat back in. Babies starting to eat whole food. Keto-flu, although I wonder if the latter cannot be mitigated by successively taking say 50g of carbs out of the diet over time. Say, reducing by said amount every week.
This happened to me after kidney surgery. The bloating and stomach pain was far worse than the actual surgical pain… or living with a severely hydronephrotic kidney
I remember loosing 3-4lbs in the first bathroom trip back
Anesthesia might have played a role; however, idk about pain meds since I didn’t take any. The incisions make it pretty much impossible to use abdominal pressure and I also had some extra tubing in place
I was able to drop all statins, and bp medication with my caridologists OK. However, one must be healthy, show commitment, show awareness, and not be obese to even get their attention to go “off script” of the (current) standard medical practice. Which is changing before our eyes.
I had my follow up this morning, and it was great.
My doc is very much in the school of heart disease being a product of inflammation rather than from dietary fats (within reason).
So, if you don’t mind my asking, what was the impetus for your pursuit? People aren’t put on heart meds for no apparent reason.
I’m not familiar with any of this data, specifically, but I think all-cause mortality is a tough outcome to look at in retrospective analyses. There’s an inherent bias when looking at someone on a drug for a chronic condition, because those things don’t tend to come one at a time. Obviously good statistical analysis will try to match data for incidents of diabetes, etc., but now you start reducing samples to a point of insignificance; so that’s a balancing act.
Like I said, I haven’t read any of this, but I do think there’s value in looking at more specific outcomes (cardiovascular events, in this case) for these types of studies.
Well when you said the benefit was “statistically significant” that usually means more patients didn’t die from CVD. The study I referred to was the meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials involving statins (covering 90,000 subjects over a 4-year period). What this found was that in subjects who had a history of CVD, taking statins increased their lifespan, on average, by 5.2 days.
For ref: “The effect of statins on average survival in randomised trials, an analysis of end point postponement” (BMJ)
I take your point about statistical significance. It is a technical term which I should not have used in that context.
I think you are totally misrepresenting what my initial comment was about, i.e. statins and lifespan. That was the sole factor highlighted. Yes, I read the conclusion.
The importance of this is in the scale. These are large numbers and don’t move one way or the other very quickly.
For example, the US population life expectancy has only moved up or down by . 0X % year to year.
So, if the average lifespan was 75 years old and moved up . 03% what would that be?
5.xx days on average isn’t bad at all really, especially when talking about them within the context of a given population.
Then zooming in, we’re looking at CVD patients who have already had one major cardiac event. This is a population that starts dropping like flies quickly. From literally everything.
Even taking niacin has been shown to cause an increase in mortality. So yeah, something that increases lifespan on average is pretty good in that regard.
Results back today. High LDL, as predicted (11.2mmol). I’m a heart attack waiting to happen.
Yet, my triglyceride to HDL ratio is 0.3. Plugged in my cholesterol stats into Dave Feldman’s calculator and I’m in the lowest risk tier in three separate matrices. My C-reactive protein is also way down - 0.5 (anything under 5 is good).
Statins, like many other drugs, cannot be tolerated very well by certain patients (something like 10%, if memory serves me correct). Would you trade - take the side effects and it’ll give you more 5.2 days? Just playing devil’s advocate here. But, anyway, good debate, good thread.
