CathInfo.com

If it makes you feel better, I too enjoyed a heaping size of red meat for dinner and will replicate that again...

Regarding your opening sentence, I recommend you reread my post as by doing so you will see I never said years of ag are in error nor did I say banning flesh meat during Lent is a mistake. However, if you think eating today's version of bread poses no health risk, have at it...this isn't the same bread our Lord multiplied but I am hoping you know that already. Foul preservatives were not a thing back in the day, hence why bread is not a healthy thing to eat anymore.

Finally, my closing statement in my post recommended that one do their own research and to not take what I said as being the final word. In other words, you-do-you.

God Bless!

Glad we agree in general. The goal was to elicit a corrective reply since, as we both know, this is the sort of topic that gets oversimplified and entrenched in daily real-life application. As with the penitential purpose of Lent, there's the risk of missing the forest for the trees.

Re bread, it's one more example of how miserably deracinated the relationship to food has become, in which we've been reduced to dumb gullets and passive-aggressive nodes of market consumption. Ways to remediate: make semolina bread while exercising patience and observation, since this demanding sort of dough doesn't behave like other doughs. Make vollkornbrot, several days of watchfully tending to multiple steps from start to finish. More simply, make old-style batch bread with fresh unskimmed milk, itself an effective preservative and dough conditioner.
 
OK, forget bread for the carnivores. Instead, do some grounded research (assuming zones north of the equator) about Easter eggs and Paschal lambs, also monastic aquaculture and the medieval trade in stockfish.

Without this re-racination and refocus on Creation, Lenten rules can seem like arbitrary abstractions and just-so stories waiting to be ridiculed and dismissed by cynical modernists. Ironic that atheistic rational materialism refuses to consider the true reasons for this material we're given by Divine Providence. Their own willful loss.

HUH?

Are you saying you believe in evolution, and/or cavemen? Ancient man didn't eat any differently than he does today, except less (by that I mean, NONE) processed food. And the common man probably got a lot less meat in his diet, because it was expensive. Probably a lot more starches (bread, potatoes, vegetables).

Mankind didn't used to eat raw meat from the tip of a spear. That is godless-evolution "molecules to man" nonsense. We've had fire, cooking, and civilization from the moment we were created. Adam and Eve (and his direct descendants) knew things that would blow your mind. A lot of knowledge has been lost. *Some* has been since re-discovered.

The only "cavemen" were those who got off Noah's Ark and didn't immediately have any structures to move into. Especially as they migrated to new places all over the earth. And perhaps caves were used after other smaller-scale natural disasters. But there was no point at which mankind's highest level was "living in a cave" wearing animal skins, hunting mammoth with a spear, eating raw meat, having names like Grog, etc.

Me thinks you’re off my point; carnivore eating, in its less stricter form, allows for fish & dairy in its way of eating, primary focus is to eliminate sugar, carbs and seed oils. 
Cavemen and animal skins, raw meat, etc are not part of carnivore lifestyle, we bit far fetched as I never insinuated that in my comments.
Gee, I’m a meat eater and enjoying the health benefits as such, that was the only reason of my original post. Lest there be any doubt, and I can’t see any reason why there would be, I’m not an evolution believer…where did that even come from? Certainly not in anything I wrote…think this thread has ventured to left field and beyond.