Okay, so let's talk about reasons against a modern-day carnivore diet. So, a lot of people will kind of use the Inuit as an argument and say the Inuit ate mostly meat. They were essentially carnivore and they were healthy. So, let's go through some of the reasons why this is not a good argument for a modern-day carnivore diet. Number one is the glycogen content of the animal foods that they were eating. So in diving marine mammals like let's say whales, walruses, seals, because they can die for hours without oxygen. After they die, their glycogen doesn't break down up until about 24 hours. So essentially the meat if you consumed u you know marine mammals which a lot of the inuit did they would have much more glycogen content because non-diving marine mammals their glycogen content would start breaking down and would increase lactic acid and the basically the meat and the foods would become more acidic and the glycogen content would decrease. But because d they were consuming a lot of diving marine mammals this would not happen. So out to 24 hours there would be glycogen. So they would be consuming carbohydrates in the forms of glycogen especially in blubber too and the intestine. So actually diving marine mammals they would basically store more glycogen than a typical mammal uh in their blubber and in their intestines as glyoproteins. Okay. The second thing too is that the inuit lived in the Arctic which was extremely cold. At minus 18 glycogen breakdown is completely shut down. So, you don't even break down glycogen if it's - 18 Celsius, which it could easily get to in the Arctic. And it doesn't have to be that cold. That's to completely shut down glycogen breakdown. As the temperature decreases, it slows the glycogen breakdown. So, even if they weren't consuming diving marine mammals, but they were consuming uh animals in the cold of the Arctic, which they were, then there would have been more glycogen. So again, they would have been getting more carbohydrates from the animals they consumed because they were consuming animals in a cold climate and they were also consuming unique diving marine mammals which would have had more glycogen. So in other words, the Inuit got more carbs from the animals than they ate than modern-day carnivores because modern day carnivores are consuming, you know, basically grocery store muscle meat. So, which is basically been hung for 2 or 3 weeks and it's completely different than consuming, you know, fresh uh meat or essentially frozen meat in the Arctic. Okay, so that's one good argument against the argument that the Inuit basically, you know, were a high high carnivorous diet. Well, it was completely different. They were getting way more glycogen. Next to looking at the bone health of the Inuit both uh Inuit back who were born in the late 1800s uh who were eating a traditional diet for most of their lives showed that the women developed osteoporosis an entire decade earlier than matched Caucasian women despite getting good vitamin D and calcium intakes. Okay. And we believe and the authors believe this to be the high acid load of the animal foods that they were consuming. Um, basically they did eat a high animal protein diet and basically they they basically stated especially in women because basically bone health is more affected in women than men because even men eating a traditional standard American diet never develop a low enough bone mineral density to develop spontaneous fractures. Only women do and that even takes 70 basically 75 years old is one that typically develops eating a standard American diet. So this was happening uh basically osteoporosis at about the age of 60 in inuit women. So they had poor bone health. So this is not also a good argument. Looking at the extinct inuit as well, they had a lot of compression vertebral fractures as well. So that is speculative as well, but it still isn't a good argument to use the Inuit when they had when the women had poor bone mineral density. So basically the women in their 70s had about 30% less bone mineral density than age matched women and they had higher rates of osteoporosis and high rates of vertebral compression fractures. Okay, which is which probably was due to the acid load of the animal foods. Uh carb intake as well. They did consume some carbs. On average, it's very likely that the Inuit got somewhere around 60 grams of total carbs per day from both the glycogen intake, but also they would store berries in the winter, right? Because it's basically like an ice box in the Arctic or in blubver. They several studies said they would store berries and nuts, etc. in blubver and store them for the winter. They would actually eat and savor the plant contents of the stomachs of their kills. So, they would consume that as well. They said they would pass them around like appetizers. And they actually, it was stated by someone, a doctor who lived with the anyway for over 20 years that they cherish the plant matter of the stomachs of their foods more than actually protein and fat, which is kind of kind of crazy. Also, they actually didn't consume a highfat diet. It was actually more high protein. Most of the studies show that they ate somewhere like 250 to 300 gram of protein. So, they were they were getting a tremendous acid load. And because they had to use the fat for light and heat. Think about it. They're living in sub-zero temperatures. So they would use the the fat the blubber to heat um where they were living and for light. And so they actually consumed not that high of a fat diet. It wasn't super high. It was super high in protein though. Um and that's from several sources back looking at traditional inuit intake. Um they would also harvest seaweed from the dead of winter at low tide. So they were getting PL and they would they would basically consume every Arctic plant that was edible. So they never they wouldn't avoid plant matter. So basically just eating muscle meat and the associated fat. You can't use the Inuit as an excuse because they also consume the berries, nuts, um seaweed, plant content from the stomachs of their kills. So the Inuit, this is not a good argument to to eat a modern-day muscle meat diet. The other argument against a modern-day carnivore diet would be the Belleview study which is a one-year carnivore study back in 1928 and it was a four-month also metabolic ward study which can proves prove causation and they gave them all the food. So everything was measured even the the calcium content of the food was measured that they were given and they were basically under lock and key for 4 months but they were studied intensely for one year and out to a year they had calcium balance studies which still showed both of them to be significantly negative calcium balance eating just muscle meat the associated fat and some organs. Even at a year they were basically losing 175 milligrams of calcium every single day because the acid load of animal protein acidifies the interstatial fluid that activates osteoclass to break down bone. Most of this calcium is coming from bone. So, um, basically Anderson lost like 35,000 milligrams of calcium that from the basically they had about four months worth of calcium balances and Anderson lost about 10,000 and they had about 40 days worth of calcium balances from from Stephenson. Okay. Other metabolic w studies too not going out as long have shown increased bone breakdown markers and decreased bone formation markers on a carnivore diet again due to the acid load. So in other words, it induces lowrade acidosis. So that is why I take sodium/ potassium bicarbonate with every 7 ounces of my animal foods. At least 1.3 g. Sometimes I'll take like 1.9 g per 7 ounces of animal foods. So basically your higher uh acid foods would be whey and casein protein powders are going to be your highest. After that would be like your processed meats. Then after that would be like fish. after that would be like meat, red meat, etc. And then basically you you have other things like whole eggs etc that are below that and even cheeses are below that. So we we used to think that parmesan cheese etc was higher but that's based on um looking at overall protein intake but it's lower in sulfur compared to meat and it's really the sulfur amino acids that truly contribute to the acid load. So basically offsetting the animal protein with bicarbonate is important. And you might say, well this well why we never used to have to supplement with bicarbonate but we used to get the bicarbonate when we consumed if we consumed animals that were fresh. So basically there will be good bicarbonate. There's about 1,000 milligs of bicarbonate per kilogram of muscle meat within about 4 hours of death. So after 4 hours it's much more limited but in the Arctic as well when you're decreasing the breakdown of glycogen due to you know the cold etc there is a slower basically anorobic metabolism a slower acidification of the meat but they were consuming very very high amounts of protein but regardless you you meat comes naturally within the cell bicarbonate and also within fresh fluids blood and interstial fluid There's about 1,800 millig of bicarbonate per liter of extracellular fluid. And I said 1,000 millig of bicarbonate per kilogram of muscle meat if you consume that animal within about 4 hours. Now obviously the worm weren't always doing that and weren't always consuming foods that were super cold, okay? But I'm just saying that muscle meat in in eating fresh animals and colder animals would have more bicarbonate. So basically an elephant has about 200 million mg of bicarbonate or bicarbonate forming substances if you consumed it fresh within 4 hours because the bone contains most of the bicarbonate forming substances because it has a lot of calcium carbonate and citrate etc. And basically modern day carnivore carnivores are not consuming and gnawing on bones etc. So everything needs to be nuanced. Everything needs to be discussed in a very nuanced state. And people trying to argue that, oh, I am carnivore and that's how our ancestors used to live, so I'm just going to eat grocery store muscle meat and that's going to be totally fine are not taking into account the higher glycogen content. The bicarbonate that's in fresh meat and fresh fluids and bone. the bicarbonate that would have been consumed from plant matter, fruits and vegetables, you know, they have bicarbonate forming substances to offset the low-grade acidosis that happens, which has been proven in several metabolic ward studies, which can prove causation. So, all of this needs to be more nuanced and this is basically a good explanation of reasons against using the inuette as an argument for why someone, you know, basically can be healthy eating just muscle meat, the associated fat, and some organs.