migraines caused by high carb?

[TylerDurden]

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

Given that professional athletes routinely doctor themselves with performance-enhancing drugs/steroids as a matter of routine, it's hardly surprising that  many eventually  get heart-attacks etc(bodybuilders are the worst, in this regard). However, that doesn't change the fact that exercise improves the various health-markers in the body.

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.

The trouble with this notion is that the multitude of studies don't merely state that (cooked) animal food is bad for you but they  also state that the health-problems become steadily worse the higher the amounts of (cooked) animal food there is in the diet. So the cooked carbs can't be as much of a problem if health-problems increase as cooked-animal food-consumption increases in the subjects' diet while plant-food-consumption in the diet decreases.

[TylerDurden]

In this study, olive oil contains a high amount of AGEs, so the old people you refer to should be in a better shape for other reasons than the use of vegetable oil. For exemple, the way they cook their food generates less AGEs than the way meat eater generally do.

The old people I referred to didn't necessarily souse all their foods with vegetable-oils , just used them with salads(which, though, do appear to be more frequently consumed than meats by these people). AFAIK, even non-raw olive-oil isn't as heavily heated pre-sale as meat is when it's cooked, so that would mean that they would be less affected by AGEs.

I indeed wonder if the difference between the amount of AGEs from cooking plants and animal foods is maiinly because of the way they are cooked : "Foods that are composed mostly of carbohydrates, eg, starches, fruits, vegetables, and milk, contain the lowest AGE concentrations. However, within this group, commercially prepared breakfast foods and snacks show signi?cant AGE content".

The study I linked to carefully heated all the various foods in the same way yet still showed that cooked-plant-foods had less AGE-levels than cooked animal foods at the various different stages,so the amount of AGE-creation can't be  due to the differences between the way animal-foods and plant-foods are cooked.

Can you elaborate on the heat-created toxins from satured fat ?

That's the trouble. So far, most of the studies have focused only on the amounts of AGEs/advanced glycation end products in cooked-diets in general. A rather smaller number of studies have focused on the average AGE-content of particular foods, with none really studying saturated fats in isolation. At least, this study on cooking suet(ie tallow which is 98.5%(?) fat and mostly saturated-fat in content) is the closest I've seen:-

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf00070a016

[carnivore]

Also, the various studies all seem to agree on this issue:- that cooked animal food contains way more AGEs than cooked plant-food and that cooked animal fat outperformed protein(or plant-fat) in terms of toxic AGE-creation. Here is a study, where butter(very high in saturated fats) is shown to be an extreme AGE-creator when heated:-

www.newcastleyoga.com.au/links/Food%20AGEs%20text.pdf

Now, granted that the relevant studies don't necessarily isolate the various fats(PUFAs/MUFAs/SFAs) from each other as they're more concerned with analysing the AGE-content of foods as a whole.But it is telling that other studies which don't necessarily focus on heat-created toxins like AGEs, do tend to single out those foods with the highest (cooked) saturated fats-content as being the most damaging/toxic. I think the exception is coconut oil, high in saturated fat, but, from what I understand, it's not usually heated as much as animal foods prior to consumption(?).

Unfortunately, there is no analyse of pure fat in this study. Butter contains casein and lactose (around 2%). Ghee, which is pure fat from butter can be cooked at high temperature without problems, contrarily to butter which turns black and dangerous. It does not mean that ghee is healthy, it just means that it can resist high temperature without being denatured.
There is no doubt that vitamins, cholesterol, etc. which are contained in the fat are affected by heating, but I just wonder if saturated fatty acids alone can resist ?

In my experience, I strongly react to cooked lean meat (headache, etc.) but have no really trouble with pure cooked animal fat. Of course, raw fat feels always better!

[TylerDurden]

Unfortunately, there is no analyse of pure fat in this study. Butter contains casein and lactose (around 2%). Ghee, which is pure fat from butter can be cooked at high temperature without problems, contrarily to butter which turns black and dangerous. It does not mean that ghee is healthy, it just means that it can resist high temperature without being denatured.
There is no doubt that vitamins, cholesterol, etc. which are contained in the fat are affected by heating, but I just wonder if saturated fatty acids alone can resist ?

In my experience, I strongly react to cooked lean meat (headache, etc.) but have no really trouble with pure cooked animal fat. Of course, raw fat feels always better!

Well, many others' experience is quite different, namely that they have no problems with cooked lean meat, but a multitude of problems with cooked animal-fat-heavy sources.

Also, last I checked, not even ghee can claim to be 100% fat , as even it contains trace amounts of casein and lactose.

And, anyway, ghee is only specially prepared cooked butter, and, as that other study showed, cooked/heated butter forms the highest amounts of AGEs in any foods.

[carnivore]

Well, many others' experience is quite different, namely that they have no problems with cooked lean meat, but a multitude of problems with cooked animal-fat-heavy sources.

Also, last I checked, not even ghee can claim to be 100% fat , as even it contains trace amounts of casein and lactose.

And, anyway, ghee is only specially prepared cooked butter, and, as that other study showed, cooked/heated butter forms the highest amounts of AGEs in any foods.

Do you have the links of these other studies ?

[William]

A rather smaller number of studies have focused on the average AGE-content of particular foods, with none really studying saturated fats in isolation. At least, this study on cooking suet(ie tallow which is 98.5%(?) fat and mostly saturated-fat in content) is the closest I've seen:-

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf00070a016

Does not apply to us, as the study is of fats used in deep fat frying which is heated to temperatures >225°F.
Also does not specify if the tallow was made from hide fat or kidney fat; and grassfed or grainfed. We know that there is a difference.


With reference to the long-lived East Asians, IIRC they ate a lot of cooked pork fat.

[Hannibal]

With reference to the long-lived East Asians, IIRC they ate a lot of cooked pork fat.

Look at the places like Rugao, Zhongxiang, Bama, where there is the highest number of long-lived people
"The Bama people have the custom of offering guests what they call Longevity Soup. One of its ingredients is hemp seeds oil extracted from the plants that grow in the mountains. Hemp seeds oil is high in non-saturated fatty acids and the world’s only edible oil that dissolves in water.

Seniors in Rugao swear by the porridge, made from rice, corn flour and barley, that they eat for breakfast and supper which Chinese herbalists say particularly nourishes for the spleen and stomach. Rugao also produces a yellow wine that contains proteins, enzymes, microelements and bifidobacterium that prolong life and health. None of the Bama people of advanced age have ever died of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular diseases or cancer."
China’s Centers of Longevity
their diet is high in carbs, low in meat and fat

[invisible]

The trouble with this notion is that the multitude of studies don't merely state that (cooked) animal food is bad for you but they  also state that the health-problems become steadily worse the higher the amounts of (cooked) animal food there is in the diet. So the cooked carbs can't be as much of a problem if health-problems increase as cooked-animal food-consumption increases in the subjects' diet while plant-food-consumption in the diet decreases.

The best way to measure the effects of a change in diet is to take someone measure some bio markers of health and then change their diet and measure the change.

I have not seen a study where the same group of people, have kept their entire diet the same, with the only change adding in more cooked meat and seeing negative changes in their lipids etc. Every time someone goes on a lowcarb diet in a study their blood lipid profile invariably improves.

Regarding longevity, these plant eating people are following calorie restriction when compared with SAD. Calorie restriction will improve health if diets are identical. Meat and fat is useless if eating grains and carbohydrates to the extreme that SAD people do. So again a direct comparison has too many variables to be too useful.

[TylerDurden]

Do you have the links of these other studies ?

Re mention of other study:- I was specificially referring to the previous link I gave re specific AGE-levels in certain foods.

[TylerDurden]

I have not seen a study where the same group of people, have kept their entire diet the same, with the only change adding in more cooked meat and seeing negative changes in their lipids etc. Every time someone goes on a lowcarb diet in a study their blood lipid profile invariably improves.

I'm sure there are also immediate benefits for people going vegetarian as well, in the short-term, after transitioning from a SAD diet - almost any markers would improve if the really serious junk-foods were avoided.
However, it's the longer-term studies that count  as they monitor changes over time. And, while there are plenty of long-term studies done on vegetarians there is very little in the way of studies done on cooked low-carbers over several years(with the exception of the Inuit who, anyway, don't eat grainfed meat and who eat partially raw(well the ones doing traditional diets , anyway).

Regarding longevity, these plant eating people are following calorie restriction when compared with SAD. Calorie restriction will improve health if diets are identical. Meat and fat is useless if eating grains and carbohydrates to the extreme that SAD people do. So again a direct comparison has too many variables to be too useful.

If cooked meat is supposed to be so incredibly healthy, then one would expect health-problems to improve the higher the amounts of cooked-meat there is in the diet, not decrease, like the various studies show.:-

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307518

Also, grains and dairy are also cooked prior to consumption(for most SAD-eaters, anyway). Eating fermented grains and raw dairy would improve health-issues, if only to some extent, judging from RVAFers comments in the past, so it's again the cooking that's the problem as opposed to the issue of plants versus meat.



Re the older people I know:- Most old people eat less and less as they get older, regardless of diet - this is partly due to metabolic slowdown(ie their physical activity decreases considerably so their appetite goes down as well). That's a standard. As regards caloric restriction, only some of the old people I know go in seriously for caloric restriction in a big way, the rest eat the usual 3 meals a day.

Regarding vegetarians, last I checked, just being vegetarian adds something like 7(?) years to your life, according to endless surveys. Vegetarians don't necessarily eat less foods each day(I remember my own  time as a fruitarian where I would binge on vast amounts of fruit each day due to a humungous appetite), and many eat large amounts of highly processed foods like tofu - plus, many(most?) vegans/vegetarians tend to be that way not for any health reasons but because they don't want to eat animal flesh out of concern for animal welfare - the latter group would not necessarily be healthier, therefore, as smoking/alcohol etc. would not be frowned upon.

[invisible]

Geez...how did I say it was so incredibly healthy? Wow...

Cooked grainfed meat is not healthy (in the sense that there is healthier food), but it is healthier than excessive/refined carbohydrates. Health won't be good if cooked meat and  high carbohydrates are eaten together but if carbohydrates are replaced by meat health will improve somewhat. If red meat was the main problem with the SAD it would be impossible for people who go on low carb diets to always show improvements in health in studies, and without any mention of the meat being grass fed it's safe to assume it's just regular supermarket meat.

[TylerDurden]

Geez...how did I say it was so incredibly healthy? Wow...

Cooked grainfed meat is not healthy (in the sense that there is healthier food), but it is healthier than excessive/refined carbohydrates. Health won't be good if cooked meat and  high carbohydrates are eaten together but if carbohydrates are replaced by meat health will improve somewhat. If red meat was the main problem with the SAD it would be impossible for people who go on low carb diets to always show improvements in health in studies, and without any mention of the meat being grass fed it's safe to assume it's just regular supermarket meat.

The claims re improvements in health-studies from low-carb are meaningless in light of the fact that vegetarians have also been shown to improve health in the short or long-term  when turning to vegetarian diets:-

http://www.cababstractsplus.org/abstracts/Abstract.aspx?AcNo=20043202980

In short, switching from a SAD diet, full of trans-fats and artificial chemicals/preservatives, to a slightly less unhealthy one, involving either cooked, grainfed meat or cooked plant-foods or whatever, will invariably result in some slight improvement in health. But unless massive changes are made re switching cooked for raw, grassfed for grainfed,health-gains will, in most cases, be too slight to be meaningful.(Unless, of course, one only has a very slight health-problem to begin with).

The way I see it's not so much a matter of a particular food being superior to another. After all, different unhealthy foods will cause entirely different problems. So, for example, intake of large amounts of cooked grainfed meat in a diet will, judging from the statistics, lead to a reduced average lifespan and age-related complications due to the toxin-load, while having a diet consist of mostly raw plant-food will, inevitably result in nutritional deficiencies of various kinds, also causing health-problems. So, better to avoid all unhealthy foods, whether animal- or plant-based.

[van]

  Tyler,  I am with you, so don't read the rest and believe I am not.  Me; raw, grassfed...   My point is that I don't think the evidence is in that eating zc  cooked grain fed meat like Charles is doing is causing him problems.  I do think he is embarking where not many have gone before and is encouraging others to do like himself with only I think about three years of anecdotal experience.  But long term,  haven't read any evidence to say otherwise.  I have read the usual studies about meat and fat and carbs and processed oils etc.....    Any ideas here.   I will say that those who have studied longevity and those cultures who peoples lived the longest don't seem to include the Inuits and the American plains Indians, who Charles usually mentions as proof enough for him that ( at least cooked meat-not grass fed ) his diet is optimal.   
     Have been around long enough to notice how a lot of people generalize to make the point that we currently hold as 'truth' whether it be about diet, religion,,, you name it....

[William]

 .   I will say that those who have studied longevity and those cultures who peoples lived the longest don't seem to include the Inuits and the American plains Indians, who Charles usually mentions as proof enough for him that ( at least cooked meat-not grass fed ) his diet is optimal. 

Pre-contact Inuit kept no records of lifespan, and post-contact Inuit ate junk food/cooked, as noted by Stefansson.

[Guittarman03]

Guys, I think we're missing the larger picture here:

Again, excess carbs (the kind you get from potatoes, bread, rice, etc) leads to insulin resistance, which causes overproduction of insulin, which causes overproduction of cholesterol, thickening of the smooth muscle cells in the arteries, depositing of more and more fat in fat cells, overworking the heart, a pancrease with decreased function, etc REGARDLESS of whether or not your meat is cooked.  So when you take away the carbs even on a cooked meat diet, you are reducing that response and regaining insulin sensitivity which WILL improve health and longevity overall.  I'm almost positive that's why calorie restricting diets (in general) have shown to lead to longer life span - you have taken away the insulin response (in addition to reducing the amt of toxins from cooked meat). 

If you go to zero or almost zero carb on a cooked meat diet, you are losing out on vitamin C (which you need on a cooked diet), potassium, and I'm sure a few other minerals/nutrients.  Thus the need for fruits and veggies if eating cooked meat.  Even if you're eating raw, many (not all) people still need some carbs to maintain health. 

Now if you go the other way and take out the cooked meat in favor of vegetarianism, you suddenly give your body a chance to rid itself of all those heat induced toxins from protein and fat.  Of course your health stats will go up and you will feel invigorated - at least for awhile. 

The problem is the body ultimately NEEDS animal protein and and fat, even if adulterated by cooking.  So vegetarians eventually decline in health.  Although years of eating cooked meat (especially if overcooked) will also lead to health problems, if I had to eat a cooked diet, I would take moderately cooked meat on the moderately low carb paleo plan over cooked vegetarianism any day.... even though as a RPer I generally make my cheats in the direction of cooked, even non-paleo carbs. 

Why the seeming oxymoron?

b/c it's a different conversation as you move towards the raw meat end of the spectrum.  You're body is now under the influence of fewer toxins, and it's operating more efficiently wrt digestion and utilization of animal food sources.  Introducing cooked meat to such a system is akin to taking poison + food ::  now your body (used to high quality octane) has to remove all this crap, which causes a a cascade of reactions to eliminate those toxins, often accompanied by unpleasant symptoms.  However, even cooked carbs still end up as just glucose.  This is not toxic (unless you're a diabetic with ketoacidosis), and is easily handled by your pancrease with insulin.

The big picture:

--High carbs, even raw paleo carbs, cause insulin resistance over the course of YEARS, not hours or days. 
--Vegetarianism, whether raw or cooked, leads to insulin resistance and nutrient deficiency
--Cooked meat leads to a toxic body, and combined with very low carb leads to nutrient deficiency; however,
--Cooked meat for non-raw paleo-eaters is essential for health.  They may want to consider eating more fruits/veggies and nuts than their raw counterparts, and even some low temp extracted oils from fatty plant sources (olives, nuts, coconut, avocado), but not vegetable and highly processed oils.  These are not ideal for raw paleo'ers.

--Cooked meat for RPers is like taking poison + food, and thus, from a chemical standpoint, it's probably healthier to have the occasional cooked carb (sans any processed/cooked fat) than cooked meat.
--Raw or cooked meat, you probably should get no more than 1/4-1/3 of your calories from carbs.

[TylerDurden]

Pre-contact Inuit kept no records of lifespan, and post-contact Inuit ate junk food/cooked, as noted by Stefansson.

Err, Stefansson also noted that the traditional-diet-eating Inuit aged far more rapidly than other peoples.

[TylerDurden]

  Tyler,  I am with you, so don't read the rest and believe I am not.  Me; raw, grassfed...   My point is that I don't think the evidence is in that eating zc  cooked grain fed meat like Charles is doing is causing him problems.  I do think he is embarking where not many have gone before and is encouraging others to do like himself with only I think about three years of anecdotal experience. 

I know, food-science is so new it's difficult to make statements re diet which are 100% guaranteed. That said, I have my doubts re Charles. As Angelo and others have pointed out re anecdotal experiences, being on zero-carb means taking much longer to recover from exercise, and with cooked grainfed meats that just makes that and other problems much  worse.

My main gripe, though, most cooked-zero-carbers have no real justification, whatsoever, in citing the Inuit as an ideal. Not only did the Inuit generally go in for lots of (Omega-3-rich) fish but they also ate plenty of raw meats/organ-meats as well as rotting meats, all rich in omega-3s being from seals/caribou etc.So the Inuit diet has nothing in common with a diet consisting of cooked grainfed supermarket meat - come to think of it, do people on the zerocarbage forum all boil their meats like the Eskimos or do they not mind frying/microwaving and the like?

As regards unheallthy diets, it's perfectly possible for people to stay healthy(if only in a relative sense) for years and years, even if their diet is lacking in some way. There are a few raw vegans for example who manage to stay/seem outwardly healthy for decades and who only exhibit symptoms like b12-deficiency at a much later stage, due to the body storing b12 traces etc. - but this doesn't discount the fact that many other people will indeed suffer from such unhealthy diets in the short- or long-term, whether consisting of  100% cooked-grainfed meat or 100% raw plants.

[William]

Err, Stefansson also noted that the traditional-diet-eating Inuit aged far more rapidly than other peoples.

My point is that by the time Stefansson got there, there were no more completely  traditional-diet-eating Inuit. They had been trading with whalers for ~100 years, during which they acquired pots which made cooking possible, and became addicted to tea.

There is however a good explanation for rapid aging, and that is that traditionally they lit their residences with seal oil lamps so that the inner wall of their snow house would be black from soot, lungs as well.
Same effect as pre-electric times when women were called the weaker sex, they really were, most likely because they spent more time indoors breathing the fumes of kerosene lanterns & such.

[TylerDurden]

My point is that by the time Stefansson got there, there were no more completely  traditional-diet-eating Inuit. They had been trading with whalers for ~100 years, during which they acquired pots which made cooking possible, and became addicted to tea.

There is however a good explanation for rapid aging, and that is that traditionally they lit their residences with seal oil lamps so that the inner wall of their snow house would be black from soot, lungs as well.
Same effect as pre-electric times when women were called the weaker sex, they really were, most likely because they spent more time indoors breathing the fumes of kerosene lanterns & such.

The Eskimos Stefansson saw not only ate cooked meat as well as raw but still followed traditional diets(at least the tribes he saw).

As regards air-pollution, well it's a theory but I'm not so sure it could cause rapid aging by itself.

[invisible]

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.

[invisible]

zero carb cooked grainfed meat diet is pretty horrible in terms of nutrients, enzymes etc compared with a raw grass fed diet, but it does bring benefits.

It works in the same way 'calorie restriction' works really, with the effects mimicking those of calorie restriction in humans. Lowering carbs and entering ketosis makes the body sense starvation causing lower insulin, lower blood sugar, lower thyroid, lower metabolism etc.

[William]

Lowering carbs and entering ketosis makes the body sense starvation causing lower insulin, lower blood sugar, lower thyroid, lower metabolism etc.

Odd, it sure doesn't feel like starvation. Pemmican satisfies so that I need eat only once a day, and I would not know ketosis if it bit me.

[TylerDurden]

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.

Perhaps he just wanted to be honest and admit that, like everything else in life, there are benefits and disadvantages to every proposition. Besides, he is so fanatically in favour of a meat-only diet in the main chapters of his books(making sweeping statements not corroborated by other anthropologists) that it does seem unlikely that he would shoot himself in the foot unless there was something to that last statement. or perhaps most eskimoes died at an early age and he tried to suggest an alternative suggestion, that the diet aged them but didn't kill them. Or maybe Stefansson was enthused with a now disproven  theory that was popular at the time( re increased metabolic rate leading to rapid aging)

Whether or not  Stefansson  is wrong or right re this point about rapid aging on zero-carb isn't really what I was emphasising. I am more concerned with the fact that Stefansson is the only authority-figure on the subject of ZC, and since Stefansson's other favourite theory, about "Blond Eskimos", has already been proven dead wrong(he was actually accused of fraud, at the time), I do think that it's a bad idea for people like William to cite Stefansson as if he were Moses on the mountain.

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.

Both statements are incorrect, I suspect. For one thing, while the Inuit have been getting modern diseases ever since Stefansson first met them, due to changing to modern diets, they also have been increasing their lifespan due to access to better medical aid etc., like any other former hunter/gatherer tribe.

Secondly, disease doesn't necessarily automatically coincide with rapid aging.  I mean people can age rapidly due to some severe shock/stressful event but not necessarily develop disease right at the same time(I'm thinking of the phenomenon of getting white hair after a frightening event). Also, the Eskimoes(on traditional diets) are known to be prone to excessive bleeding due to  a high intake of omega-3s, so they are not immune to health-issues.

[TylerDurden]

zero carb cooked grainfed meat diet is pretty horrible in terms of nutrients, enzymes etc compared with a raw grass fed diet, but it does bring benefits.

It works in the same way 'calorie restriction' works really, with the effects mimicking those of calorie restriction in humans. Lowering carbs and entering ketosis makes the body sense starvation causing lower insulin, lower blood sugar, lower thyroid, lower metabolism etc.

Well, in that case, doing intermittent fasting on a high-carb diet would have the same effect re improved health.

[invisible]

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.