integral

It takes intelligence to be a vegan. This is not a diet that you just do because it's trending, it has to be planned, you have to supplement thoroughly and you have to do monitoring. The evidence is overwhelming that if you're not supplementing you get murdered health-wise. The guidelines of the World Health Organization Do a good job emphasizing this. But on average most vegans do it the wrong way because of cultural in general creates a ignorant population were there isn't enough awareness to do veganism properly. Vegetarianism is a lot easier and requires less supplements and the Mediterranean diet and Mostly of white meat and fish that are well planned require a lot less intelligence to get right and less testing, so it's more viable for a average Joe who is too lazy to do veganism properly. I actually didn't make that point but it is true. I was more saying that regardless of the diet you'll get into a scenario where you have to modify your diet according to your individual needs and health and gut microbiome. It's more obvious for sick people with IBS but normal people also age and life is hard and dirty and in practice people have to adjust their diets. It's very rare that someone just goes their entire lifetime never adjusting their diet regardless of whatever diet they're doing. The point I was making is naturally because of diversity and how our environment is toxic and high stress and we get OLD all these issues the body naturally fails for a wide range of people, every illness known that you can think of like joint pain, bloating, erectile dysfunction, brain fog and things like that eventually build up. It's less likely for people who have a well-planned diet but even they will reach a point that they have to adjust their diets to match their individual needs. Like if you have brain fog at 45 and you don't know why and you're eating well and the testing comes back fine, what do you do? You're forced to go down a rabbit hole. Also You're never going to get a situation where problems are completely avoidable with just diet alone. You have to combine that with high quality planned sleep, high quality planned exercise and high quality planned stress-free mindset and lifestyle. And even in this ideal scenario you can still have a bunch of unforeseen problems because our environment is toxic and depending on how resilient your genetics are to it. If you're talking about vegetarians, then that isn't enough, you still have to supplement especially iron + b12 at the very least, I'm not going to go into full detail. You could frame an egg like a supplement that's essentially what vegetarians is doing so that it reduces the number of actual pills they need to take.

@Emerald 1. Extrapolation jump Cohort curves stop at “very-low” meat but are cited as proof that “zero meat + supplements is optimal. Citation ”* Willett et al., The EAT-Lancet Report (2019) – explicitly notes that the reference diet contains 14 g/day of red meat and that “data are sparse for completely vegan patterns.” <br> Günther & Holick, Nutrients (2023) review on vitamin D and bone: warn that “risk estimates derived from low-meat cohorts cannot be linearly extended to total exclusion.” <br> *Gardner, Nutrition Reviews (2021) commentary: “The evidence base supporting whole-food plant-based diets does not automatically validate a 100 % plant diet with supplemental nutrients; each nutrient gap must be tested separately.” 2. Endpoint jump Mortality/CVD datasets don’t capture non-fatal morbidities (fractures, GI issues, anaemia), so ‘longer life’ can mask impaired healthspan. Citation * Tong et al., BMC Medicine (2020) – EPIC-Oxford fracture paper: finds 30 % higher total fractures and 2.3 × hip fractures in vegans; discussion section warns that “these morbidity outcomes are not visible in mortality analyses.” <br> Shan et al., Clinical Nutrition (2022) – systematic review on vegan GI symptoms: concludes evidence is mixed and “non-fatal gastrointestinal burden remains under-studied in population cohorts.” <br> *Saunders et al., Advances in Nutrition (2013) – Academy of Nutrition & Dietetics position paper: repeatedly adds the caveat “with appropriate supplementation and monitoring” because sub-clinical deficiencies do not appear in mortality data.

@Emerald So you didn't understand what I wrote. Why did that happen? AI question: Did emerald understand what I wrote? The entire conversation that happened was I say something and you misunderstood so I made a clarification and then you blame me for straw Manning and then I make a clarification and then you misunderstood that clarification and so on...

@Emerald I've been using AI from the very beginning of this conversation, Debunking myself, looking at all the science over and over again, I'm just going to post what I've been looking at First, a clarification about the “40 %” My “40 %” was never presented as a measured statistic. It was a thought-experiment to make a bell-curve vivid: “Imagine 30 % thrive, 40 % struggle, the rest sit in the middle.” That illustration can just as well be 10 %, 25 %, or 55 %. The point was variance, not the exact number. Reason the evidence looks “flat” How it masks diversity 1 . Small vegan samples in large cohorts EPIC-Oxford, UK-Biobank, Adventist Health all have ≤ 5–7 % strict vegans. When you divide that into age, sex, ethnicity and genotype, each cell is tiny—statistical power to detect subgroup failure collapses.Any tail of non-responders is swallowed by confidence intervals. 2 . Self-selection + healthy-user bias People who stay vegan in cohorts are the successes; those who felt unwell often drop out before the next survey and re-label as “omnivores.” The database records them as omnivores with bad biomarkers, not as “failed vegans.”Attrition makes the diet look safer than it may be for all starters. 3 . End-points skew to fatal outcomes All-cause mortality & CVD events are cheap to capture from registries. Non-fatal issues—IBS flares, chronic fatigue, amenorrhoea, stress fractures—require active follow-up, so most cohorts omit them.Quality-of-life failures don’t change the death curve, so they disappear in averaged results. 4 . Lack of genotype / microbiome stratification SNPs in FADS1/2, TCN2, FUT2, MTHFR, plus gut enterotypes, strongly influence B-12 transport, ALA→DHA conversion, iron absorption, FODMAP tolerance. Most epidemiology doesn’t genotype or sequence stools.Different genetic “buckets” get lumped together, producing one blended hazard ratio. 5 . Ethical & logistical limits on RCTs You’d need a 10–20-year randomised, supplement-controlled trial with thousands of participants forced to stay vegan or omnivore. No ethics board approves that; no agency funds it.Without randomisation, we rely on observational means that flatten heterogeneity. 6 . Publication & funding bias Nutrition funding often chases “plant-forward for sustainability.” Negative or ambiguous long-term supplementation trials are less likely to be funded or published.Null or adverse subgroup findings are under-reported, so meta-analyses can’t pool them. Result The literature is excellent at telling us the direction of the average trend (↓meat, ↑whole plants → ↓CVD). It is poor at quantifying how many individuals fall off that curve once all animal foods are removed and lifelong reliance on supplements begins. Why the WHO / ADA still say “a well-planned vegan diet can be adequate” Their mandate is population guidance, not personalised precision nutrition. They use the best data available—which show average vegan biomarkers and mortality comparable (or slightly better) when supplementation is assumed. They hedge with caveats: “well-planned, appropriately supplemented, with monitoring.” Those modifiers are implicit admissions that adequacy is conditional, not automatic. What evidence would reveal the true proportion of “strugglers” Large, long RCTs randomising diverse genotypes to omnivore vs. vegan + standard supplement protocol for ≥10 years, tracking non-fatal outcomes. Precision-nutrition cohorts that tag every participant’s genome, microbiome, metabolome, then model response clusters. Attrition-capture registries documenting why people abandon strict veganism (labs, symptoms, adherence fatigue). Until then, the exact figure—whether 10 %, 25 %, or 40 %—remains unknown. My only claim is epistemic: averages hide tails, and current methods aren’t designed to measure those tails accurately. That’s why skepticism about “0 % animal foods works for 99 % of humans” is not anti-science; it’s an honest reading of what current science can and cannot show. Why it survives rebuttal A. Unwarranted extrapolation (appeal-to-extremes)Trend from high → medium → very-low meat intake is extended to the unmeasured zero-meat extreme, then propped up with a new intervention (supplements) never tested in the dataset.Every large cohort’s “lowest” meat quintile still consumed some animal food.Supplements were not standardised.→ Evidence base does not validate “0 g meat + pills” as the risk-minimum. B. Fallacy of incomplete evidence (endpoint tunnel-vision)Using all-cause or CVD mortality alone and calling the diet “health-maximising,” while ignoring non-fatal morbidity (fractures, IBS, anaemia, thyroid, cognition, etc.).EPIC-Oxford vegans: +30 % total fractures, 2.3 × hip fractures—invisible in mortality tables.Multiple case–control studies show higher GI distress in some long-term veg*ns.→ Lower death risk can coexist with higher disability risk. One-paragraph fusion “Meta-analyses show a steady drop in CVD deaths as meat intake falls. Great—but two logical jumps remain: (1) Extrapolation jump: the data stop at ‘very low’ meat, yet the conclusion leaps to ‘zero meat + lifetime supplements is best,’ even though that combo wasn’t measured. (2) Endpoint jump: the same papers track only deaths, so they miss non-fatal hits to healthspan (fractures, IBS, anaemias). Both jumps have to be cleared before anyone can claim universal superiority for a 100 % plant diet.” Covering those two jumps handles both the “direction-to-extreme” problem and the “death ≠ healthspan” problem in one sweep.

So first you're asking if someone eats an amazing structured diet that gets tested and monitored by professionals and takes supplements what are they missing? They shouldn't be missing anything of course! But is testing perfect? no. is supplementation perfect? And absorption perfect? no. is everything going to go perfectly for everyone? no. Can everyone tolerate every food perfectly? Of course not! Most people are going to develop problems especially during the course of their entire life and then you have to do problem solving and adjust things and figure things out. Most the time diet isn't even the cause of someone's problem it's chronic stress poor sleep lack of exercise and a bunch of other things, Genetic issues, gut microbiome issues, sickness triggers, whatever that then develop, The older you get the probability that you can have a health problem gets higher and higher and higher and higher. Then you're taking it the next step and you're adding veganism. The theory says there should be nothing missing In a vegan body if perfectly supplemented and that the person can Absorb all the nutrients from all of these plant Foods and supplements without any issues for there entire life. It's the same thing. My whole point was there's diversity between people and some of them won't respond well to certain foods regardless and that some people won't respond well to certain supplements regardless and this should be intuitive for everyone and we shouldn't be debating to the end of time!

Right but what he likely wants is your epistemic strategy to be laid out in a clearer way. (Even if all of actualized.org is basically it) Of course the second you lay it out there will be a rational paradigm pushback, So what's the epistemology that transcends rational thinking? What does that look like, how does one do it?

The comment that you made implies that her sharing this shows a higher level of understanding of science that the other people in this forum are not aware of. Which I disagree, knowing the most basic aspect of the science pyramid that you learn in high school does not mean you understand science at any high level. I agree that a bunch of non-dual spiritual people don’t know science… I’m in the middle of a debate so you saying that implies she has some deep understanding of science

Why are you supporting her when her position is a extremist vegan position outside the scope of what science says? If she had held any normal vegan position this conversation wouldn’t have happened. The science does not say 99% of people can be a vegan with some edge cases. Literally, it’s not happening. A “normal” evidence-based vegan stance is: “With planning, appropriate supplementation, and monitoring, vegan diets can be safe and health-promoting for many but not necessarily all people.” ^^^^ This is what her position should be and what science says More importantly, the vegan mortality rate decrease is equivalent to omnivores with a well planned diet excluding red meat. which she extremistly rejected as that there’s no evidence. And of course there is. She also extremistly stated that no other diet is proven healthy by science. No evidence anywhere. This person has no understanding of science. Then she will claim I’m straw Manning her when I’m not.

Lmfaoooooo the conversation is coming to an end shortly so there’s no need to lock it But I learned exactly how to avoid the ping-pong effect that just happened in this conversation So it wasn’t useless. I didn’t expect to enter into a scientific appeal to authority debate. I thought there was gonna be a wider discussion so what I really had to do was just narrow in on hard science and not even attempt anything else. Not that I strictly use hard science to figure out what is true in isolation, it’s just what some people force you to do in the conversation

Logical fallacy Adequate FOR SOME PEOPLE. SOME not ALL. Not 99%. it is not saying 99% adequate for all people that’s literally not what studies are saying.

lol what’s the problem? 😂

OK, thank you that was an extremely important clarification, that this entire time I could not understand why we were miscommunicating. — A lack of opposing evidence does not make something true, this is a very clear logical fallacy. More importantly, there is opposing evidence and when I showed it, you said well the WHO would not support this if it wasn’t healthy, which is another logical fallacy. For one the WHO is stage green strongly in favour of environmentalism and the second is they themselves in the guideline are not saying 99% of people can be vegan. They are literally not saying it. I’m not trying to deceive you. More importantly, there is more than just the WHO, the Mediterranean diet and various other diets all show massive decreases in cardiovascular disease that are comparative to veganism. In large scale studies.

@Emerald You have a burden of proof that you’re assuming exists There is no evidence at all that 99% of people can thrive on veganism Do you acknowledge this? No science is pointing to this.

@Emerald OK, so it’s a hypothesis that 99% of people can thrive on veganism with 1% error. clarify this

So 99% of people can do a vegan diet and this is your position which is an extreme position not supported by science. Do we agree?

No, you think 99% of people can thrive on a vegan diet and your idea of dietary diversity is that 1 percent of people might be sick so therefore they can’t be vegan This is not dietary diversity.

Vegans that think 100% of the population can be vegan and no other diet is healthy besides the vegan diet.

You’re the first vegan and person I’ve ever spoken to that rejected the idea of dietary diversity to this extreme. Very few people are this left-wing extremist on the topic of veganism. you’re holding an extreme position most vegans don’t even have and you’re calling me intellectually dishonest for suggesting diversity exists This is ridiculous.

I have accepted to exist is to survive and to be corrupt. When 100% veganism works for me, that's what I'll be eating. (technological advancements needed) The 40% is a number to explain something in an example context, This is not a statistic I'm trying to prove true. This was not a claim of any kind, I'm simply making an example for how in an average you could have 40% of people who do not work well on a diet and still get positive outcomes. If they're testing cardiovascular disease and you put everyone on a vegan diet, everyone will see improvements for cardiovascular disease, yet even if 40% are not actually compatible with veganism the average will still be positive. This is how people lie with statistics. I don't know what else to say here the conversation has to be on how a bell curve works and how on average works. So you can understand what the study actually says. Literally the science is not saying everyone can become a vegan, I am not trying to deceive you, I'm not trying to be dishonest I'm literally looking at the science and just saying what is happening. I'm not bending over back backwards corrupting myself to prove a point. You're simply looking at the data and seeing what you want to see. I'm not anti-vegan. I didn't even claim veganism was bad, I'm explaining diversity... The only reason I even attempted to show science that creates problems with veganism is to show diversity not to prove veganism is wrong. I get the impression you're taking everything I'm saying as a personal attack.

I said that in the context of explaining what an average was, the chart I provided was a visual representation of how a average works. How what the study is not saying is that the average equals 99% of people can do this diet with some outliers. It's explaining the average. Only answer this question we can't go any any further than this. It's the basic acknowledgment of what a study is. The study is showing the bell curve. Talk to me about the bell curve. @Emerald I don't know why your psychoanalyzing me about my motivations? I agree with you for the most part that most people are way too immature to do veganism, and the ones that do do it do not do it properly and so they have problems and they stop. And the lowest form of stopping for pleasure is devilry Low Consciousness orange were they haven't unlocked Personal health responsibility or external responsibilities or basic self-development yet. Now the people that actually do stick with it long enough and end up failing past the 3 year mark always report health problems as the issue. And I think a lot of them did it wrong. If it's not structured properly, doesn't have supplements and you're not getting tested then you're 100% doing it wrong and you have to stop immediately. The reason I I could say all of this is because I'm not anti-vegan. Which I said many times! I am literally trying to explain that diversity of biology exists. That this 99% thing you pulled from the Nether world does not represent what the studies are saying.

I give you no anecdotes whatsoever just science what are you talking about? Unscientific and should have no bearing on anything that we're discussing right now. human health This is literally what you were doing right now to justify your veganism. No you didn't, the science says vegan diet is better than the standard American diet Mediterranean & Whole-food Omnivore Cohorts 7-Country & Greek-EPIC combined 1960-202040-60 y>20 kHigh Med-score ↓20-30 % all-cause mortality vs low score. PREDIMED RCT (Spain) 2013 & 2021 follow-up4-5 y RCT + 6 y post-trial7447Olive-oil or nut Mediterranean diet ↓30 % major CVD events vs low-fat control; benefits persisted at 10 y. NIH-AARP Diet & Health Study (U.S.) – 1995-201116 y400 kHigh Mediterranean-score ↓17 % CVD mortality and ↓12 % cancer mortality. Wrong, I've been vegan for 2 years, I did carnivore for a year and a half, ate Mediterranean for 3 years, I even ate bagels for a whole year, +Thousands of dollars of experimentation, testing, drugs and supplements. You're the one that lacks effort and are following ideals. I explained how averages work you didn't respond. You also claim the 99% of people can do veganism, Show me that science immediately right now.

@Emerald Why isn't something like this shown in WHO summaries? Because: WHO makes population-level recommendations, not personalized ones. These are designed for broad public-health guidance not optimized for genetic, metabolic, or cultural diversity. Meta-analyses summarize group trends, which flatten out individual variation. You don’t see the bell curve you just see the average. Policy documents simplify for clarity. Nuance like this gets lost because it's harder to communicate in public health settings. We are averaging... -- I also did show you scientific evidence about malnutrition, you said you were going to look into it. But for now please only respond and acknowledge you understand averages and diversity. You have 0 data to back up 99% of the population will thrive on a vegans diet. You made that up. anecdotes? Also the science says people quite veganism because of health problems and low energy not that they were lazy or poorly planned. But I do agree that most people are poorly planning just not science. Science just shows data not interpretations.

If Hitler was saying all the things Sadhguru was saying, I would still learn

@SQAAD when you transcend a stage, you should be able to put yourself into that person shoes and fully see the world and think through their eyes. If you can’t do this, then you haven’t transcended it or outgrown it or you could have shadow elements that are blocking you like blind spots that are still at the lower stages. The problem is you are to judgemental. You cannot fully understand another’s perspective if you’re judging it. You have to be able to remove your perspective from the equation and your biases, desires, emotions and put them aside momentarily to accurately see from another person’s perspective. There’s also a bunch of other ways you can figure out how another person thinks. For example, you used to be an atheist so therefore you have a personal experience and that’s how you understand another person’s perspective. There are other tools available so far we covered 2 of them