

Agreed. And I’m going to expand on your comment a bit.
A lot of people like to argue that you’re not getting enough vitamin C on a carnivore diet, but that’s not true. There’s some details that most people aren’t aware of.
Glucose and vitamin C have very similar molecular structures. So similar that most mammals are capable of synthesizing any vitamin C they need from glucose, which can in turn be synthesized from protein. A side effect from this similarity is that vitamin C and glucose are absorbed via the same pathways, so a diet that’s high in glucose will result in less vitamin C absorption due to crowding out those pathways.
Because of this, if you’re not consuming a lot of glucose, you don’t need to consume as much vitamin C because you’ll absorb a higher percent of it. Not only that, on a carnivore diet you’re avoiding some compounds like oxalic acid, which significantly reduces absorption of several vitamins and minerals, such as vitamin C, magnesium, potassium, etc. Oxalic acid is found in most leafy green vegetables.
Also, there’s small amounts of vitamin C (alongside every other necessary vitamin/mineral) in meat, particularly beef. Not a lot, but if you’re more efficient at absorbing it it ends up being enough.
Granted, I don’t personally recommend the carnivore diet because 1: it’s boring, 2: it’s expensive, and 3: you need to do more research than what I’ve stated here to avoid problems. But regardless, it is doable.
But if you want most of the upsides without as much hassle, I’d recommend just going keto. You get 90% of the benefits, you get more variety in your food, and you can even make it vegetarian or vegan if you want.
This is completely ignoring that there’s multiple varieties of LDL cholesterol, some of which are benign. And basic blood draws don’t differentiate them, you need more detailed blood tests.
Dietary fiber is not an essential nutrient. Not only that, when I went carnivore for 2 months, after the first week of acclimation I was more regular than I have ever been in my life.
The study referenced is an epidiological study based on surveys of people that were asked to recall what they’ve eaten for the past 30 years. This resulted in clearly erroneous data where average daily calory intake was wildly off from average human requirements.
And you’re not supposed to draw conclusions from epidemiological studies with results lower than a 100% risk increase (aka doubling risk). The result of this study was 18%.
At best, this study should have been used to propose a more focussed double-blind study on the subject. But they didn’t. The WHO should be ashamed for platforming this trash study as if it’s 6-sigma physics results
The amount of protein that you’d need to eat to make this a problem is far beyond what a normal human could eat in a day. You’d die from rabbit starvation before it’d get that far. This study is like the one rat study claiming that asperthame causes cancer, but they were giving the rats 1000x the dose a normal human would consume if you corrected for body weight.