I do think a varied diet can potentially be a benefit though : / and do think that variety within animals (at least including whole animals/organs if not sea or poultry etc..) probably should be the first place to turn for a craving or nutrition-skeptical carnivore.
Yes, I don't understand how some ZCers who avoid or dismiss organs reconcile that with justifying their diet by claiming that humans are natural carnivorous predators, given that the favorite food of carnivorous predators like big cats and canids is reportedly offal. A diet of only muscle meats and butter doesn't have an equivalent in any wild animal or traditional human population I've read about. Even the Masai and Inuit eat organs and other foods and even Stefansson admitted that indigenous North Americans relished marrow, the liver of "loche" (loach fish) and even moose nose:
"To hunting man, the marrow of the long bones is the greatest delicacy he knows, except perhaps boiled moose nose or the boiled liver of the loche [which Stefansson wrote is "a fresh-water fish that, although nowhere taken in large numbers, is perhaps the favorite food fish of the Eskimos of northern Canada and Alaska. It is especially prized for its large, fatty liver."]." (FOTL, pp. 27-28)
Plus, the foods in the Bellevue study so heavily promoted by ZCers included liver, kidney, brain and marrow:
"The meat used included beef, lamb, veal, pork, and chicken. The parts used were muscle, liver, kidney, brain, bone marrow, bacon, and fat. While on lecture trips V.S. occasionally ate eggs and a little butter when meat was not readily obtainable. The carbohydrate content of the diet was very small, consisting solely of the glycogen in the meat. ... A sample menu for the day, given in raw weights follows.
Breakfast: lean beef, 190 gm.; fat, 100 gm.
Dinner: liver, 200 gm.; fat, 75 gm.
Supper: lean beef, 200 gm.; marrow, 70 gm."
(From the Stefansson all-meat Bellevue Hospital study, "PROLONGED MEAT DIETS WITH A STUDY OF KIDNEY FUNCTION AND KETOSIS.*" BY WALTER S. MCCLELLAN AND EUGENE F. Du BOIS. From the Russell Sage Institute of Pathology in Association with the Second Medical (Cornell) Division of Bellevue Hospital, New York. Received for publication, February 13, 1930. Downloaded from The Journal of Biological Chemistry Website,
www.jbc.org, on July 6, 2008)
I do agree the coffee analogy does apply to many things though.
Yes, that was an excellent point by Nicole. Sometimes we don't know that we are getting negative effects from consuming a food (such as the coffee example) until we avoid it for a while and then reintroduce it, or that we are getting negative effects from not eating something until we reintroduce it (as with the vegetarians/vegans and meats).
-----
An unrelated sidebar: I modified my signature to take into account of the fact that my current diet is somewhat altered and changing and more focused now on managing longtime GI and underweight issues than on mostly-raw facultative carnivory. I had originally added the RFC label to my avatar because some folks seemed to be under the misimpression that I had some ideological bent towards ZC, perhaps because I'm the moderator of the forum with ZC in the label or because of my past experiment with ZC (which was never intended to be permanent), I don't know. I haven't been noticing that misunderstanding as much lately and the RFC label is not a very accurate descriptor based on what I'm trying to accomplish right now, so I dispensed with it.