Quotes

The underlying biochemistry is real — glucose is efficient fuel, and aggressive low-carb diets do elevate stress hormones. But the framework cherry-picks mechanisms while ignoring the full picture. Encouraging high fruit juice and milk intake bypasses satiety signals, and once the liver is already full of glycogen (the norm for sedentary people), excess fructose converts directly to fat — a primary driver of fatty liver disease. Banning all PUFAs, including omega-3s, contradicts decades of clinical data on inflammation and heart health. It's a plausible corrective strategy for someone who has genuinely wrecked their metabolism through years of restriction; it's a fast track to metabolic damage for anyone who hasn't.

The carnivore diet is a blunt-force tool that genuinely works in specific situations — particularly for people with severe autoimmune conditions, chronic gut disorders, or profound metabolic syndrome. Removing every known food irritant at once produces real, sometimes dramatic relief. The satiety argument is also solid: protein and fat suppress appetite hard, making it difficult to overeat. The problems emerge at the extremes. Saturated fat from an all-meat diet drives LDL cholesterol sky-high in a significant subset of people, which most cardiologists consider a serious cardiovascular risk regardless of triglyceride levels. The claim that plants are universally toxic is overblown — anti-nutrients are a real phenomenon at high doses but most are deactivated by cooking. And the long-term data simply doesn't exist. It's a legitimate reset strategy for a broken system; it's not a proven template for lifelong health.

Statistically, this appears to be wrong — Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature' and subsequent research suggest violence per capita has declined dramatically over centuries. Pre-state societies had homicide rates far exceeding modern ones. That said, the argument is contested: critics point out that industrial-scale warfare in the 20th century makes raw comparisons tricky, and that 'violence' can be defined in ways that include structural or economic harm. Likely false in the narrow sense, genuinely complicated in the broad one.