“I changed my diet and got pregnant”: What’s the evidence behind these claims?

Anecdotes gain particular influence when shared through social and popular media, where emotional resonance often outweighs scientific rigour. But without careful context, they can easily be misinterpreted. In this case, the implied message is twofold: 1) that a carnivore diet can support fertility and 2) that doctors do not tell women that diet matters. Let’s look at both claims in detail.

Claim 1: A carnivore diet can support fertility

Anecdotes alone cannot answer the question “can a carnivore diet support fertility?” because they lack the necessary context to separate cause from coincidence. In this case, we have no information about the woman’s medical history, underlying conditions, or other lifestyle changes she may have made, nor any way to know what would have happened had she not changed her diet. Without that background, it’s impossible to determine whether the outcome was linked to the diet itself, another factor, or simply chance. 

Let’s examine what other evidence is used in the article to make and support this claim.

How is this claim presented in the article?

The article states that after “years avoiding meat,” the woman began eating “high-quality animal protein, eggs, butter and collagen-rich foods” and believed “the boost in nutrients and healthy fats played a key role.” She goes on to explain, “I watched a video of a doctor who recommended being on a carnivore diet to get pregnant.”

While this is presented as the turning point, the article does not name the doctor or provide any information about the existing evidence on the links between diet and fertility.

What evidence does the article provide?

The article relies on two main sources which are credited as supporting the validity of the claim:

• An unnamed doctor promoting a carnivore diet to become pregnant. 

There are several doctors who promote the carnivore diet through their social media platforms. They represent a small but very visible minority among the medical community. For someone searching online for advice on using this diet to improve fertility, it is likely that they would come across the work of Dr Robert Kiltz, so it is reasonable to assume he may be the doctor being referenced in the article. Dr Robert Kiltz is a US-based obstetrician and gynaecologist who is board-certified in reproductive endocrinology. He has also written several books, in which he advocates for a “keto-carnivore diet” for fertility. 

It is worth noting that in a recent video, Dr Kiltz questioned whether his own food choices could have led to recent, personal health issues (he mentions acute colitis), and concluded: “maybe my focus on only beef and carnivore is not going in the right direction.” Why does this matter? Because it highlights the importance of distinguishing between personal beliefs and peer-reviewed scientific research as a basis to guide dietary and health recommendations. 

• A book: The Great Plant-Based Con by journalist Jayne Buxton, which argues that plant-based diets are harmful to health. 

Again, this book is not peer-reviewed scientific work, and its conclusions contradict extensive evidence showing that well-planned plant-based diets are nutritionally adequate and associated with numerous health benefits (source).

This matters because popular media accounts can shape public understanding of what counts as “evidence.” When non-scientific materials and individual medical opinions are presented instead of peer-reviewed research, they can distort the public’s perception of scientific credibility.

The article also highlights a video by Steak and Butter Gal, a social media influencer frequently criticised by health professionals for spreading dietary misinformation and flawed reasoning which, if followed, could lead to health complications. The inclusion of this video further amplifies this one-sided narrative.

As a result, readers are left with a very skewed picture of what the science says about how diet might impact fertility – and there are a lot of studies looking precisely at those links, which the article fails to mention.

What evidence is not mentioned in the article?

The article omits decades of research examining the relationship between diet and fertility. Large-scale systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in journals such as Nutrients, Advances in Nutrition, or Biology (Basel) show that:

• Higher red and processed meat intake is linked with lower fertility rates and poorer embryo development (source, source).
  
• Diets rich in plant foods, fish, whole grains, and unsaturated fats, such as the Mediterranean diet, are associated with better fertility outcomes and improved metabolic and hormonal health (source, source, source).
  
• Including more plant-based sources of protein (such as lentils, beans and nuts) and fewer animal sources  may improve fertility (source).
  
• Soy foods and dairy have been found to support fertility when consumed as part of balanced diets, contradicting popular hypotheses (source).

Dr Layne Norton addresses similar claims in the following video:

What about specific diets?

The keto diet shares some similarities with the carnivore diet mentioned in the article (both are high in fat and very low in carbohydrates), but unlike the carnivore diet, the keto diet typically includes a wider variety of foods, such as non-starchy vegetables, nuts, and dairy. Research surrounding keto diets and fertility is very limited. According to this review, it has mainly focused on obese and overweight women with PCOS, and the studies mentioned have a very small number of participants (27 and 12, respectively). The researchers also caution against the long-term use of this diet, “because it may also lead to deficiencies in certain important components and nutrients,” particularly during pregnancy.

This is a crucial point. It shows that while diet can indeed play a role in fertility, the issue is multifactorial. It is affected by underlying conditions, overall nutritional adequacy, and medical context. Anecdotes cannot answer the question “will this work for me?”, partly because we do not know the individual’s full health profile or whether other factors, such as PCOS, played a role. This underlines the importance of seeking guidance from qualified healthcare professionals when making dietary changes.

There is very limited data on carnivore diets themselves. Because such diets eliminate entire food groups and may pose nutritional risks, it would be ethically questionable to conduct trials particularly in populations trying to conceive. 

Thus, the omission of this evidence leaves readers with the impression that a carnivore diet is a promising and potentially scientifically supported option, as it references at least one doctor who supports it. In reality, it is untested and contradicts existing data on the impact of different foods on fertility.

Bottom line

The emotional power of a personal story, combined with selective sourcing, makes the claim highly appealing.

But here’s the problem:

1. It’s not about carnivore versus vegan. That framing attracts attention and clicks but oversimplifies nutrition science, which overwhelmingly supports balanced, diverse diets made up of whole foods.
   
2. It’s an example of cherry-picking. The article only includes sources that support one side of the argument, ignoring substantial data to the contrary.
   
3. It undermines scientific literacy. Understanding scientific evidence requires knowing how it is built. Research starts with a question. When results are reproduced and plausible biological mechanisms can explain why results occur, the evidence grows stronger. 

Anecdotes, by contrast, sit at the bottom of the evidence hierarchy. They are valuable as starting points but cannot establish causation, because they don’t control for confounding factors or test biological mechanisms.

This leads us to the second implied claim and the main issue which comes from the framing of The Sun’s article: undermining trust in scientific evidence, and in health professionals.