Watched part of Joe Rogan's podcast with Dr. Rhonda Patrick where the carnivore diet was discussed, here are the
notes:
My thoughts based on a rudimentary understanding of the topics concerned:
Sulforaphane
Rhonda Patrick's position on sulforaphane is based mostly on petri-dish experiments, along with some context-specific circumstances.
Whilst it
does upregulate NRF-2 (and subsequently increase glutathione), increasing glutathione is the primary result of that pathway... and there are lots of ways to increase glutathione. Eating lots of cysteine and glycine does that, and those amino acids are highest in... animal foods
.
There are also lots of other ways to upregulate NRF-2: high intensity training, extreme cold, extreme heat,
In simple terms, minor stressors activate this pathway to allow the cell to adapt accordingly, by increasing endogenous antioxidants. Is this good in all scenarios? Maybe, but maybe not. Sulforaphane is a pesticide... meaning that it is
toxic. Yes, it can kill cancer cells, but it can also kill healthy cells indiscriminately in certain situations.
My take on it is this: The situation is
extraordinarily nuanced. Whilst it may be beneficial in certain circumstances, in a certain health condition, that does not imply that we should eat the stuff liberally across the board for every single person's daily diet. Hence, i fundamentally disagree with Patrick's assertion that human beings will be somehow deficient in sulforaphane... since we only adopted those veggies in most western countries a couple of centuries ago.
Fibre/Protein
Protein degradation by gut bacteria can produce isobutyrate, methylbutyrate, etc - so that argument is null. Likewise, a low fiber high fat ketogenic diet produces abundant beta-hydroxybutryate, which performs the same function as butyrate (and more!).
The studies done on protein putrefaction have been performed on people with standard diets and also lab-based models, so like most nutritional research, it is very difficult to draw conclusions based on these things. The essentiallity of fiber is one of conventional nutrition's long-held sacred cows, so it will not go down easily. I think its fair to say that some people may need fiber, but it is preposterous to say that everyone needs lots of it.
Nutrients
Folate - Paleomedicina have been doing this for a decade... Folate levels remain perfectly in range when organ meats are incorporated into the diet.
Vitamin E- Its main function is to protect certain PUFAs in the body, hence why it is found in the foods which contain the most degradable PUFA. Lowered intake of PUFA equates to drastically reduced vitamin E requirements.
Vitamin C - Only found in foods which also contain glucose/glycogen. Very likely spared and efficiently utilised in the absence of glucose/fructose.
My impression of Rhonda's stance
She's an extremely intelligent individual with a lot of knowledge regarding the detailed mechanisms and whatnot, but seems a little set-in her ways with her conventional training. I have listened to multiple podcasts that she has been interviewed on, and she tend to be very reluctant to experiment with these kinds of things. This seems to be similar for many PhDs who act as established authorities in the nutrition world, who can't quite get their head around this concept - as it challenges too many of their long-held beliefs.
I think the problem is that many trained scientists can't seem to look past the science. Rather than honestly looking at the thousands of anecdotal accounts of miracles taking place and then questioning/rethinking their theories, instead they try to explain it away in some way which fits in with their assumptions.
You will often hear "
The reason that they benefit is because they have poor gut health, and if you were to fix their gut, then they would not need to go on a carnivore diet".
I think the above might be the case for some people, but it seems that for many, the only way to heal their gut is to eat animal foods and ONLY animal foods. This flies in the face of conventional and alternative nutritional training, and there are not many professionals (other than Rob Wolff etc) who are willing to look at it with an open mind.
Overall, it would be good if they could come up with some hard evidence supporting the necessity of plants, but until then, I am not convinced. Patrick's points are vague, and not backed by anything sold from what I can see so far (and I have looked to the best of my ability). That said, I could be wrong, and I hope that new information comes out to solve this case once an for all.
