At least once, everyone should see how their body operates with as few confounding variables as possible. Your baseline performance, feeling, mood, energy - is very valuable to know.
Elimination Diet - Remove as many variables from your total intake as possible. Ideally choose a single bioavailable food prepared very cleanly for 30 days.
This is important because lots of people don't know what they have normalized as "getting older", or "I've always had that", or "I'm just inflamed". Skin conditions, hair issues, attention, clarity, are often reported to resolve on these type of protocols.
The most famous elimination diet demonstration was with Celiac disease during WWII, wheat/bread shortages created a accidental elimination diet in Denmark and established the link between wheat protein and Celiac.
Metabolism touches every part of the body, including the brain. Metabolism is driven by diet. Food literarily affects every part of our lives.
I think people should be aware this is a very useful tool, and if there is some persistent or difficult to nail down issue - why not try it?
elimination options
Omnivore options - eggs, red meat are good options. Ground meat has higher histamine levels, so it would confound the results.
Pescatarian - fish are ok, but they are not biocomplete, but that shouldn't be a problem for 30 days. The "sardine fast" is a type of elimination diet protocol.
Plant Based - low fodmap diets probably eliminate the most variables, but I'm not very well read on the options
Fasting - DO NOT DO LONG FASTS WITHOUT MEDICAL SUPERVISION. Probably the the most extreme option, total elimination, not exactly your base line, but if something was bothering you in your food you would at least notice it. REFEEDING SYNDROME is a real thing, and needs to be planned for when ending the fast.
Regardless, be aware of confounders - cooking oils and fats can change also be triggers, so be deliberate in your choice. Spices, seasonings, rubs, "electrolyte mixes", marinades introduce more variables.
My Biases
I run the ketogenic and zero carb carnivore (Which is just a elimination diet I decided to live with) communities, I'm all in on that metabolic lifestyle. However, elimination protocols don't have to aligned with my biases to be effective. Even doing something as simple as 30 days without processed foods can be helpful to know for someone.
Judy Cho wrote a great eliminate diet protocol book The Carnivore Cure Which is just eating red meat for 30 days and mapping out symptoms, mood, feelings. Plus guidance on starting, and reintroducing foods to nail down triggers. But, there are many different protocols out there, you can find one that fits your requirements.
Context for those reading this:
Jet (the OP) adheres to and advocates a deeply unhealthy and pseudoscientific "carnivore diet".
Absolutely nobody should be taking their advice when it comes to nutritional health.
They will tell you regardless that it has health benefits because they've deluded themselves into believing. This is who you're getting health advice from if you choose to pursue this with no further reading into actual scientific/medical sources.
I don't think you understood the point of an elimination diet. It's not about what you eat but about what you stop eating.
If you stick to meat for 30 days and start feeling better, it's not necessarily because meat is good for you - it's because you stopped eating something else that your body was responding badly to. After 30 days you can start adding other foods back in one by one. If you suddenly notice a decline in how you feel, the last thing you added is the likely culprit.
It's much easier to remove everything and reintroduce them one by one than to randomly cut out certain things to see if that makes any difference.
Everything in my comment was about their carnivore diet, not about an elimination diet – the lone exception being the last sentence advising not to start an elimination diet based on their advice without reading actual scientific/medical literature, as the OP is the opposite of a credible source for nutrition. (What I should've said too is to consult a doctor or a registered dietitian; people are generally not great at personally poring over primary or even secondary medical literature to decide what to do with their health, although the latter is far preferable if you do so.)
I.e., I was not making any claims to the healthfulness of an elimination diet; I have not done enough research to have any kind of credible opinion on it, which is why I chose not to express one except to advise that people actually research first (or, as appended in this comment, ask an actual expert).
Edit: I will express that the specific diet the OP proposes of "one bioavailable food for 30 days" is absurd on its face and obviously dangerous. Low FODMAP can potentially be quite good for e.g. lower GI problems, but I know little of any others.
There has been a lot of weird MAHA adjacent bullshit getting posted here recently.
Like swimming in a creek of bullshit?
UPDATE - I see the comments are being edited to change the narrative. I don't know how you did it without the edit symbol showing up, that is a neat trick
I'm happy to have a collaborative discussion with you about the evidence you have on my personal eating pattern. If I recall correctly we have tried, but it just ended up with name calling, but I'm willing to try again.
As I remember our core schism is you find low hazard ratio epidemiology very compelling and use that to establish causal claims.
But in fairness you should disclose your nutritional bias as well, you promote a vegan eating pattern.
You're happy to platform your wholly unsupported and completely insane worldview by making it look like something worth debating.
I don't debate flat-Earthers.
I don't debate anti-vaxxers.
I don't debate "climate skeptics".
And I don't debate carnivore dieters. I've tried to correct disinformation you actively spread when I've seen it for the sake of others, and even that is reluctantly because too many people might not be familiar with the science and also endanger their own health. And I don't mean "endanger" as in a plant-based diet where you have to be mildly conscientious about your intake to gain the health benefits and not end up deficient in e.g. B12; I mean that the diet inherently has no health benefits and is strictly dangerous to human health.
Let me summarize - A philosophical vegan is unwilling to discuss why their opinions on others might be biased and incorrect?
I'm happy to talk about each paper, where we can examine the data, the applicability of the evidence, and what inferences we can apply.
Please demonstrate that. Remember carnivore is zero carbohydrate, a ketogenic metabolism; As I remember the epidemiology you have previously used also applies to omnivore eating pattern's - which 80%+ of the world follows.
So please make it clear, with actual evidence that is specific to zero carbohydrate carnivore, how it shows any more danger then omnivores?
This is now just abuse. This is my official request that you disengage. Please don't engage with me going forward.