All the palaeo evidence shows an average lifespan of c.35 years for men and 30 years for women in palaeo times

Does anyone have any actual evidence to this common claim? I recall we debunked using the bone remains as evidence of dying early. The bones don't show they lived to 30, rather they died of old age with bones that looked like those of a modern 30 year old. So anything else?

seems like a lot of money, any reviews somewhere?

I doubt their claims were unsubstantiated since every study (it probably is almost 100% of them...really) that puts people on cooked low carb diets, i.e. removing carbs improves the person's health. Uncontrolled observational studies full of enormous variables are all that exist (anything else?) against cooked meat being the biggest problem in peoples diets. Raw is a universal improvement, but the macro composition is of course important.

I can sleep anywhere if it's dark and quiet. I sleep great then.

I actually get pretty poor sleep though because living at home in a small place, always have to deal with people staying up late (to like 4am) making noise, slamming doors, lights going on and off etc.

medicine doesn't slow down biological aging, can just allow longer chronological age.

Really the link between aging and disease is established and would require very strong evidence to disprove. It's what Calorie restriction is entirely based on. Aging can be seen as the parent 'disease' with heart attacks, cancer etc all being the symptoms of rapid aging - literally the body choosing to turn off systems to maintain health itself having sensed the time to reproduce (the purpose of life) has past, and this sensation is because of rapid aging. The effects of stress actually mimic over eating and rapid aging. The same hormonal changes that speed aging are also disease causing (insulin, blood sugar, blood lipids, lowered sex hormone binding goblin).

Intermittent fasting could prove beneficial, however I'm not sure about on a high carb diet. IF studies conducted by some person called mattson(sp?) showed that IF (warrior diet method) is actually not beneficial (when eating a regular diet and not calorie restriced). It would make sense really since carnivores practice IF while herbivores (carb eaters) are grazers, so really IF would benefit carnivores more seems natural.

there is no real evidence that they aged faster. Stefannson just said they looked older (which i don't think they do based on the few pictures I've seen). That comment is rather out of place i think, and am curious why he chose to close 'adventures in diet' on such a negative note. His final paragraph saying that everything he wrote is basically worthless and there is no reason to follow such a diet that he just spent thousands of words discussing the benefits of. I wouldn't rule out him being pressured into ending it on a negative note as to not be 'promoting' a meat-only diet.

Accelerated aging is associated with increases in disease. Less disease invariably means slower aging as after all biomarkers of aging such as insulin, blood sugar levels etc are also the causes of disease. It's impossible for an entire population to be suffering from rapid aging yet remain disease free. Plus if  we look at the Inuit in isolation, hypothetically if they did have rapid aging (they didn't really) changing their diet has made them age even more rapidly.

I was referring to comments made on the migraine thread by 1 poster re cooked grainfed meat supposedly being healthy.

but plant based oils like sunflower, peanut, canola have a much worse omega 3:omega 6 ratio than grain fed meat.

Unfortunately for you, 1000s of studies show that exercise negates or alleviates damage from heart-disease. So, this is nonsensical. The fact of the matter is that that study shows very clearly that the Masai had a strong tendency towards arterial hardening, despite their diet. If their diet were truly healthy, one wouldn't even expect to find that.

Never seen anything conclusive. Athletes eating SAD have heart attacks or get cancer often.

Unfortunately, a far greater  multitude of studies  all show that the higher the proportion of cooked, grainfed meats/animal food there is in the diet, the higher the mortality-rate is. The claims re grainfed meat being better are in  very tiny numbers, by comparison, and that usually means that the latter studies are hopelessly flawed(science operates by concencus, after all, with credence being given more to the majority as, inevitably, no matter how rigorously studies are performed, there will always be a minority which have been badly performed.

I haven't seen studies showing that increasing meat intake is bad when the rest of the diet is controlled. The studies showing (cooked) meat to be bad are done on high carbohydrate diets, which is the actual problem there. No studies show low carb diets full of cooked meat to make people's health worse than SAD.

Of course raw meat is healthier than cooked meat, but from my experience and data I've looked at carbohydrates and particularly very processed carbohydrates are worse than cooked meat

My thoughts

2 things

1) Are you losing weight in other areas? If you aren't you need to eat less. My original post wasn't mean to imply that you will automatically lose belly fat on this diet, rather that fat is stored and utilized more evenly over the body (eg storing 1000 calories would be stored 300 in gut, 300 in arms, 300 in legs, 100 somewhere else, for me from 1000 surplus calories 500+ would be stored in my gut when eating standard diet). IMO a calorie defect is still required for weight loss. Though I am already at a very light weight. This may make things different.

if you are losing weight all over except for your stomach see point 2

2) I was eating low/zero carb with grain fed cooked meat for some time, but it's obvious raw meat has much more positive effects for me even when compared to only lightly cooked or rare meat.

We'd be better looking. Younger looking skin, no need for glasses, no bumps in nose bridges, straight teeth, proportioned limbs, thick hair, less body fat, no acne.

Red meat refers to the meat from a mammal. The specific colour is actually not important to whether it is 'red' meat or not.

I eat 'organic' meat not specifically grass fed meat, but I had a look at what certifies organic meat in australia and it said that they must always have acess to pasture eating grass, plants, sometimes hay. Maybe you could access the UK organic standards online.

Grass fed organic animals would live better, happier lives than wild animals i.e. not having to worry about predators, and have a much more pleasant death. The way animals for example lions kill their prey in the wild is horrific, traumatic and extremely painful as uncensored footage shows. Footage can be found on youtube. Nature is not always nice, but why sacrifice your own health for some pointless rebellion?