Diet paradox: high fiber plant based vs no fiber carnivore

I'm interested in this seeming paradox because prominent carnivores are apparently having a good run at the disease reversal aspect of healthy diet. And in a country where 80% of the population is sick and tired, disease reversal comes first.

There's at least one exception among prominent carnivores, Paul Saladino, author of the book "The Carnivore Code: Unlocking the Secrets to Optimal Health by Returning to Our Ancestral Diet" was failing on the diet and fixed it by adding fruits to his carnivore diet.

And I'm not surprised he did this, but apparently a lot of carnivores were. I've been wondering how the prominent carnivores have been able to get away with the no fiber diet. Many follow a diet of beef, eggs, and butter only, with some salt added to prevent electrolyte deficiency, which can cause very uncomfortable symptoms, muscle cramps in particular.

I'm plant based and have also found a high fruit approach to be the difference between really good vs ok but not perfect. I tend to have two main meals, the first is fruit only with about 800-1000 calories depending on activity levels, around noonish, and primarily vegetables for my later meal. I also will frequently have fruit as I am preparing the dinner meal, so it is not unusual for me to get more than 50% of my calories in a day from fruits. 

Fruits are a high energy food source, and easy on the digestion, with no energy lag after eating, a very good thing during the work part of the day. Who wants an energy crash after eating?

Fruit is also the highest food in vitamins on a per calorie basis, with a lot of vitamin C. There have been several notable advocates of a high vitamin C approach over the years, including Linus Pauling, who was no dummy...

And I think I've found the confounder in the mix: very high levels of physical activity. There's a saying: you can be fit and healthy, but you can't be healthy and unfit. Vigorous regular movement of the body is essential for high energy full health regardless of diet.

I'm calling physical activity the confounder because from my observations the plant based approach appears to be more tolerant of a moderate activity approach, whereas the carnivore approach appears to be intolerant of moderate activity. The prominent carnivores  all seem to combine the diet with very high levels of activity.

I am not suggesting to take the lower activity approach if one desires high levels of energy, health, and happiness, regardless of diet. Happiness is included because fitness also causes good mood levels.

But I am saying if one is lower in activity it would seem the plant based approach appears to work better than the carnivore approach.

And then there is the more common omnivore approach, the everything diet, which is replete with confounders, and consequently not conducive to accurate study conclusions. 

We humans are the only primate with a dual fuel system: we can burn primarily carbs or fats for fuel. The debate is essentially which is best when 80% of calories are coming from either.

So it would be interesting to see a long term controlled study that compares both carnivores consuming 80% of calories from fat, and plant based consuming 80% of calories from carbs, each with only moderate levels of daily activity.

But we are always hearing "carbs are bad" and "fats are bad". Both of those statements prey on the general lack of nutrition education out there, and are designed to keep people confused about nutrition.

Both statements are false when we are talking about calories coming from whole foods. And if we think about it a little bit, why would we call calories coming from toxic junk either carbs or fat? These calories are just junk, end of story. When fuel is mixed with "not fuel", as in the case of processed foods, it is degraded relative to the percent of "not fuel" in the mix. 

Simple right?

And even moderate amounts of "not fuel" degrades health significantly. Health is consistent with high levels of both energy (clean whole food calories) and all the other nutrients in combination. 

Anyway, I doubt we will see that study, pharma certainly isn't going to do it, their trillions are dependent on keeping us sick and tired.  It would have to be a long term study, which is to say, expensive.

But it seems to me the anecdotal are clear enough to suffice: plant based high carb wins.