integral

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

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics says veganism is adequate for all life stages.” This becomes an anchor, used to override any biological complexity you try to introduce. But what’s lost is that these statements include caveats like “well-planned” and “with appropriate supplementation,” and they don’t mean everyone will thrive. @Emerald This does not mean 99% people can be a vegan without health problems can you see this? Can you see the specific mechanism you are doing which leaps Outside science? A normal person will read that statement above and see it for what it is but a vegan will read it and think this proves 99% of the population can be a vegan without health problems! Don't tell me about anecdotes of why you think people are quitting veganism, if I'm not allowed using anecdotes neither are you. We are strictly talking about the science.

Because you're not removing iron from the diet you're moving a bunch of components from the diet all at the same time which is the whole animal source. That will take for some people up to 5-10 years to show up as a problem. Anything long-term is basically outside the scope of science. The supplements cause digestion pain And many people use Heme iron supplements to avoid that. So this doesn't generally just work. Am I supposed to cite a bunch of studies on malnourished vegan who are attempting to supplement and that doesn't work for them? Most importantly when it doesn't work in practice, The individual has to stop doing it? Which means what you do in practice is separate from what theory is saying, and this is not wrong in any way, in practice you have a strategy of how to apply science. Science which is a map that doesn't fully account for everything. Data oriented science academic types are not interested in how to apply science in practice which is a completely separate science that is not investigated. They feel bad. It didn't work in practice. Individualized nutrition. For many of them it takes years before any problems show up. And then those problems are conflated with other things. Or run studies that work with people of a large sample size for 50 years on a strict diet of supplements and alternative Foods. And compared to a study of 50 years or people strictly follow a healthy omnivore diet less reliant on supplements They've been eating animals. There's about six+ nutrients that you have to supplement if you're going to remove animals from the diet completely. Or you need to consume alternative ingredients found across the world that were not accessible all in one place for 100 million years. --- I'm not for carnivore, I'm saying that none of these studies are saying you should just remove these foods from the diet and everyone will Thrive and just start supplementing. I don't know why this leap of faith is happening? Like there's no individual differences between people? Supplementation working is all theoretical at scale And we know that supplements are not this perfect solution so obviously at scale there's going to be Mass problems and a bell curve Of people that it will work and won't

Yeah but that's not useful evidence for a vegan. "It's all self-deception".

You’re asking for science to give you evidence of why you should remove the most important nutrients of 100s of millions of years of evolution from the human diet and replace it with a supplement so of course in order to dissolution the idea that that study has anything to do with evidence you have to expand the scope. We’re talking about a paradigm and a belief system not evidence supporting facts. if the study does show evidence that Hema iron shortens lifespan, it does not say that an alternative is better for the general population If you want to replace it with fish well now you have mercury problems. If you wanna replace it to white meat then now you might have iron absorption problems people are deficient. And seeing as every individual is different, you’re gonna get 30% of people on the left side of the Bell curve that would react very badly to just removing these primordial foods from the diet and supplementing. I’m not supporting carnivore or anything like that I’m talking about the individuality of every human that is completely lost when you average out everything If 30% of people on the left side of the belt curve require Hema iron to thrive, and that is averaged out and lost in the study, what is that saying about all these studies?

I don’t know why I found that hilarious 😂 PLEASE LOVE ME —ChatGPT

@Emerald The core of the disagreements here is I'm placing people's genetics and individuality in a way so that this will not work for them regardless of how they tried to do it because it doesn't align with their bodies. So we can imagine we have 100 people of completely different backgrounds (Diversity) and let's say: 30% are perfectly compatible with veganism 40% cannot get veganism to work for them for a wide range of reasons no matter how well they perform this diet, Final percentage will have mixed results and need something more specialized And so the mindset here is that you look at each individual separately and design the correct plan for there Genetic variation, neurotype, hormonal profiles, microbiome, environmental context. Why do you think it's uncommon? Most research showing that veganism is “healthier” is not comparing: > Veganism vs. optimal omnivorous, ancestral, or personalized diets It’s comparing: > Veganism vs. the Standard American Diet (SAD) The only thing this stuff shows is that it's better than the standard American diet not that it works universally for everyone and that its "uncommon" to have problems with veganism.

@Emerald When some vegans fail despite paying careful attention to there nutritional needs and doing everything right. How does that fit into your perspective and what should they do? You consider these outliers and not representative of the 99% at scale who won't have any problems? Your perspective is your convinced that this works at scale as long as everyone does it right and even if it doesn't it's still better because the alternative is heart attacks?

Let's say this study is showing a problem with heme iron consumption University without any individuality between anyone. That does not mean you can remove this crucial nutrient from the diet and simply supplement. It's like the studies that "prove" some ingredients in red wine will make you live longer, okay but that doesn't mean you should be drinking it. You're taking something vital (iron) and then you're claiming that we should just remove this from the diet With Alternatives and supplementation so what is the study really trying to tell us, that our foods create damage, but don’t we already know this. And this is useful information, but it does not mean the right strategy now in practice is we need to remove it and supplement?

@Emerald I think You've condensed your position in a very Safe Way that doesn't really represent what you're actually thinking here. You're saying something so General that at this point you don't really believe most people should go vegan, That they should experiment and figure out what works for them If that's the case then we agree

I did. I gave you the nutrition integral theory model by Ken Wilbur which you shat on lol Explaining holistic thinking and diversity. I get the reason you view it this way is because you're epistemology is just science science science science science. I am using science, what happened was I temporarily attempted to expand your Epistemology To incorporate every tool available but you weren't interested you instead just said all I only care about is science science science! Okay great then you very clearly stated it again that all that matters is science. Let's imagine a scenario where you decided however many years ago that you wanted to raise your kids on veganism, because the science supported it, and during the process it didn't work out your children got really sick one of them made it perfectly fine the other one had permanent issues long term and you were forced to switch back and incorporate some other Foods into the diet to try to balance things out despite your best efforts. Does this epistemology mean anything to you? Yes. it would be a critical epistemic point in your life. Where's the science? The problem with what I just said is that you literally don't know that this exists. You think it's this bullshit hypothesis -> when this happens in practice. This happens in practice, practice is hard.. The map which is science is not the territory, you cannot take the science and applied in practice perfectly it doesn't work out that way The map is not the territory (I know you're rolling your eyes all you care about is that I give you some science) The point I made was there is more to making sense of the world than science science science science said so. 1) We can go on forever about the psychology of a vegan, probably will agree and disagree on various things 2) Let's say that claim is true. It also does not represent the real world were many people still need to eat meat. Because of a wide range of diversity. 3) I did above.

No again you over generalized. And are refusing to do individuality, all of the studies are generalizations and averages across the population. If a study is showing averages -> that is not individualized, can you see this? Nuts are not good for EVERYONE, A large percentage of people can't process nuts can you understand this?