I scanned this thread, then I went and read Gary Taubes' blog. This sentence, about reading comments, jumped out at me.
It seems to apply to this thread.

Oh now, where is the appeal to ignorance? The Bellevue experiment is not absence of evidence, it's evidence. You (HappyLC), on the other hand, argue hypothetically and expect me to acknowledge those hypothetical musings as though they were fact. What kind of logical fallacy is that then?

I must concur.

The problem, as I see it, is this: You made a claim, namely that the Bellevue experiment shows that people can live in perfect health indefinitely on an all-meat diet, and that this shows that plants are not food.

I and others disagree with this claim. Specifically, we disagree that the Bellevue experiment shows this. But you seem to think that this means that we are arguing that people cannot live in perfect health indefinitely on an all-meat diet. I won't speak for anyone else, but that's not what I have asserted. I have no idea whether people can live in perfect health indefinitely on an all-meat diet. I'm making a logical point. The Bellevue experiment didn't show what you say it shows. Maybe something else shows it, but the Bellevue experiment doesn't. I think it's important to recognize what that experiment shows, and what it doesn't show. I agree with you that it's important.

I refuse to be drawn into making the same arguments over and over, or being asked to support points that I never asserted. I've said what I have to say, and will move on.

Ubizmo

And I'll tell you what I tell many people who go on and on: It's not that I don't understand what you said, it's that I disagree. The Bellevue experiment is evidence. How you interpret it is up to you. But your interpretation does not make my interpretation any less valid. I must admit that the bit about plants not being food because of the Bellevue experiment was shaky at best. Yet when taken with other experiments, it becomes much more solid.

To reassure you, you don't have to make the same arguments over and over on my account. I understood the first time.

Martin, what you keep missing is that all the Bellevue experiment proved is that one man can stay perfectly healthy (and another man stay fairly healthy) for 12 months eating zero carb. To extrapolate anything further is just guesswork.

But I know we've told you that before.

Exactly. I'm not so sure what's so hard to understand about that. Making sweeping generalizations and extrapolation about a single experiment is what bad scientists do, and is what Gary Taubes complains about. It's bad science. Period. Maybe you can go your whole life without eating any carbs with no ill effect. And maybe you can't without suffering from some deficiency. It has simply not be proven either way. All the Bellevue experiment showed, was that it was okay for at least one year.

I will not get drawn into this. I will not get drawn into this.

Aw, heck.

You can't live on nothing but fat. Does this make fat "not food"? If a plant diet needs to be supplemented with meat (or at the very least vitamin b12, etc.) does this mean that plants are not food? Is there enough animal flesh to keep all the people on this planet alive? I'm not making a vegan argument here, just one of practicality. If people would starve to death if they didn't eat it, even if it isn't the ideal nutrition, it's food, plain and simple.

It's easy to forget that the blog author tried to make the point that the Inuit sought plants for food, not just anything for food. The debate is between an all-meat diet, or a mixed diet. She argues the Inuit ate a mixed diet. There's no doubt about that. She further argues the Inuit sought plants for nourishment. There she fails. The best should could do was show that the Inuit ate some plants for pleasure or medicine.

And what everybody else keeps missing is that the Bellevue experiment is just one piece of evidence. When all evidence is taken together, like the Ancel Keys semi-starvation experiment and the Biosphere 2 project for example, my point is well made. But I know I've said that before, haven't I.

How does the Ancel keys semi-starvation experiment and Biosphere 2 project apply here

It doesn't.

As I understand it, the Bellevue experiment was intended to answer questions about the outrageous claims of an all-meat diet at the time. Dire consequences were predicted. None came true. Now all you are arguing is subtleties. As if subtly was how deficiencies developed. They don't. A deficiency develops quickly and obviously. If it takes a long time today for a deficiency to develop, it's because of all the supplementation we do before we even buy the foods we eat, not because that's how it normally develops. Remove all that fortifying and you'll see just how serious the problem of deficiencies really was back then. At the time, there was much less fortifying of key foods than there is now. Consequently, the deficiencies that did develop did so very quickly and obviously. Accordingly, since there was no deficiency to declare in the Bellevue experiment, it is wholly reasonable to conclude that such a diet will not cause any deficiency whatsoever.

What you should have said was, all the Bellevue experiment showed was that all the obvious deficiencies of the time do not develop on such a diet.

I challenge anyone to name one deficiency that an all-meat diet can cause. Vitamin C? No. Vitamin B12? No. Protein? Pfah. Fat? Re-pfah. Calcium? Maybe, but there's other evidence that refutes that.

How does it not? The blog author tried to show that plants was food for the Inuit. The two experiments, along with the Bellevue experiment, show that plants aren't actually food for humans. Otherwise, we wouldn't have emaciation and neurosis in neither experiment, nor would we have a lack of emaciation and neurosis in the Bellevue experiment.

Before you argue that the Ancel Keys semi-starvation experiment was caloric restricted but the Bellevue experiment was not, I'll point out that the Biosphere 2 project was ad libitum with supplementation yet resulted in the same emaciation and neurosis albeit to a lesser degree than the Keys experiment. I think that kind of comparison was one thing Taubes wanted us to keep in mind?

The blog author did show that plants were food for the Inuit. Didn't even try to show that plants were the only food, but were most definitely eaten by them.

But wait.... why am I arguing with Martin? I'm leaving now, so don't bother with further drawn out nonsense replies, mate.