toasty7718

Mother nature is brutal in terms of predation because the balance of the whole ecosystem hinges upon predation, with some animals eating plants and some animals eating other animals. The animals that eat plants don't have the cognitive ability to regulate their own consumption and reproduction, and thereby their carrying capacity would far exceed the balance of their environment. This eventually leads to a scarcity of resources, and then these animals prey on each other because there's not enough resources. This is the evolutionary niche that predatory animals filled. The reason why nature is so fucking brutal - it is because herbivorous animals lacked the ability to be self-sustaining. It's not a good thing, it's a necessary thing. The reptilian brain is characterized by an on / off modulation response to pain and pleasure. The mammalian brain is characterized by the ability for emotion, and for certain species of apes and dolphins, the ability for cognition. The human brain is characterized by the capacity for abstract thinking. We can look at our environment and determine the carrying capacity and change what and how we consume. We can moderate our reproduction so as to not exceed the carrying capacity, so thereby the violence isn't needed. This hinges upon our prefrontal cortex and our capacity for abstraction. However, most humans are irresponsible with this ability and still over consume resources and over breed and this is one of the reasons why humans are still violent to each other.

The ability to mute certain members & hide their posts

??? Any claim that is made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, by the way. Peter Attia MD once said nutrition is asymmetric in it’s effects on health. Getting it wrong will have far more downside as compared to upside if you get it right. It isn’t the be-all-end-all. Getting nutrition right at the exclusion of exercise still has downside. Getting exercise right yields enormous upside, as does getting it wrong yielding enormous downside, so it’s effects on health are symmetrical. The notion that there is one perfect diet that works for everybody is incorrect. Everyone has their own individual metabolism, genetics, and risk factors. There’s a lot of gray areas, too. Aside from ultra-processed foods and processed meats (which evidentially show continuous red flags), things like carbs are never really “good” or “bad.” It comes down to dose, tolerance, and demand. Some can get away with more than others. Protein depends on weight, lean body mass, age, sex, how much physical activity you get, and other factors, for example. Nutrition science is actually a really nuanced field that we don’t have absolute certainty about with what little we know. I don’t subscribe to the idea that we should eat like our ancestors for a multitude of reasons. One of which being the biological phenomenon known as “antagonistic pleiotropy.” Our evolution has favored for genes that help us survive, reproduce, and raise our offspring. After our reproductive years pass, evolution doesn’t really care if we live long. The genes that are harmful long-term aren’t weeded out because they’re already passed on. Humans have been omnivorous for most of our history on this planet, and that is precisely the reason why ancestral diets aren’t healthy for us in the long term. Our ancestors ate what was available to them and what got them to the next day, which I don’t think is a good basis for determining a decision that could yield tremendous downsides if done wrong. Just my two cents

This made me laugh in real life

It's a chrome extension called mr beastify

To school, I bring an apple, a little container of nuts/seeds, a spring mix salad with peeled carrots, pepper, and sprouted greens on top, and a thermos full of either chickpeas or lentils (that I put on top of my salad).

This community & this forum is one of the most unique corners of the internet - by far.

Found this interesting. And to think that infinity doesn’t even come close to this? That’s fucking amazing.

I think Leo is skilled with the cognitive and mental aspects of nonduality, but he doesn’t seem to have anything to say about actual embodiment. His content is so cognitive-centric that it can spin some people out.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220929203659/https://yourbrainrebalanced.com/forum/index.php?threads/my-thoughts-on-rebooting-extremely-long-post.15558/ check this out, very useful.

Leo said that he doesn’t care what order you watch his videos in, how it really depends on where you are in life and what videos are best fitted for you to watch at the moment.

Also made a huge mod for TES IV: Oblivion

@Leo Gura I actually enjoy the clips channel quite a bit. I listen to it in the mornings and it’s a great way to get my mind-space ready for the day. Two or three hour long videos are quite a commitment to sit through in their entirety for a lot of people I absolutely agree with you not pandering to stupid or lazy people. Your clips channel is just fine how it is. It just won’t cater for a much larger market, and that’s fine. @D2sage last time I checked he was on apple podcasts.

Couldn't have said it better myself. What do you mean by this? Are you asking if there's beneficial health outcomes from consuming natural foods, or something that's natural rewarding in the short-term, but detrimental in the long term? My family is in a bit of a financial situation and we've been unable to purchase all the necessary test kits (and my primary care provider doesn't seem to care when I bring this up). The first thing I plan on doing when I get a disposable income is going to a licensed naturopathic doctor and working with them on the foods I eat. I'd assume simply knowing lab results can be fruitful but the implementation of those results to everyday life is much more beneficial in terms of health outcomes - that's why I'm going to see an ND. Aside from that, my BMI is in the healthy range and I haven't consumed cholesterol in years, so I'd assume it's pretty low

Made by an MD Ph.D., very well-rounded and evidence based approach to nutrition as a whole without entrepreneurship, bias, and with a great degree of nuance and truthfulness. 1. https://www.redpenreviews.org 2. https://peterattiamd.com/ 3. https://drguess.substack.com/ 4. https://twitter.com/Drlipid?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author 5. https://m.youtube.com/@biolayne1 6. https://m.youtube.com/@DrBradStanfield 7. https://twitter.com/KevinH_PhD?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author 8. https://twitter.com/deirdre_tobias?lang=en 9. https://theproof.com/podcast/ 10. https://sigmanutrition.com/podcast-welcome/

Agreed

Absolutely. Our firsthand experience with the food we eat can be very beneficial if we have an immediate reaction to it because of an allergy, for example. But subjective experience can only take us so far. We should take advantage of the documented long-term health outcomes to gauge our own decisions. You don’t feel the plaque growing in your arteries until it’s too late. Personal experience and scientific data are complementary. There are lots of things that make us feel good in the short-term that are terrible for us in the long-term. Take smoking, for example. Someone who quits smoking may report that they are easily aggravated, restless, having trouble sleeping, and putting on weight - does that mean that their entire belief system around cigarettes should be based on the fact that these symptoms go away when they smoke? Of course not. Subjective experience only takes us so far and can have negative outcomes if you ignore evidence that points in the contrary. Completing ignoring subjective experience and only focusing on the evidence is also just as short-sighted. Try to go for a balance between the two. The modern healthcare system is designed for the management of symptoms without treating the underlying cause. This superficial approach is problematic for a multitude of reasons, but the same can be said for how many people treat diet. If you have fiber intolerance, instead of completely avoiding fibrous foods for the rest of your life you can work on healing the cause of your intolerance naturally. Point is: go straight to the root of the issue without putting band aids over it.

Absolutely. But this is also a double edged sword.

@Cireeric Maybe this will help Might as well rename this thread to the top ten Gil Carvalho videos

@UnbornTao

Video made by the same highly-respected individual. If you really loved Dr. Gregor, then you’d have no problem with him getting fact checked and being held to scientific rigor. When Gil makes these fact-checking videos, he only examines the scientific evidence and sees if it matches the evidence. He never goes after the individual. Highly recommend if you want a more clear picture. Essentially - Michael Gregor is known for cherry-picking his studies to fit the vegan agenda. On numerous instances he’s been known to read out a study and mention the “strict vegetarian” percentages and completely ignore the omnivorous percentages (which show benefit as well). He’s also known to stretch the truth and make claims without nuance, uncertainty, and correction. Dr. Gregor has said on numerous occasions that his influences are Caldwell Esselstyn and Dean Ornish, both of whom wrote studies about heart disease reversal and the role diet plays in this process. The Esselstyn report is an observational description of the patient’s outcomes, which is fine by itself - but it’s not a randomized control trial that has been repeated with control groups and randomization. It’s something that generates a hypothesis, not a conclusion. The Ornish Trial is a randomized control trial that followed 48 participants over a period of five years. The group that received treatment was put on a vegetarian diet, not a strict-vegetarian / vegan diet (even Dr. Gregor acknowledges this, saying “an overwhelmingly plant based diet”). The treatment group also exercised, was given stress-management techniques, and was told to quit smoking. How do you know any of these factors contributed to the outcome or not? Saying that the diet is the what caused xyz is like saying that quitting smoking caused xyz. The report only suggests a reduction of plaque size. An interesting finding, but Dr. Gregor over-exaggerates these claims by saying that HIS diet is the ONLY diet that’s EVER been shown to completely reverse heart disease. CORDIOPREV is a recent randomized control trial that followed 939 participants over a period of seven years and also suggested a reduction in atherosclerotic progression on a Mediterranean diet, and they only changed diet (not lifestyle). Instead, Dr. Gregor should come out and say that a diet rich in fruit, vegetables, and unprocessed plants is a great tool to help prevent and manage cardiovascular disease. That claim is scientific nuance, not a stretching of the truth to fit a certain agenda. Point is, I highly respect Dr. Gregor and believe that he has helped millions of people (myself included) get off their crappy western diets and switch to a diet that’s rich in unprocessed whole grains, legumes, nuts, seeds, fruits, and vegetables with his Daily Dozen. The comments of his videos are just so many anecdotal reports of his diet healing people and their families from their many ailments and chronic diseases. And unlike so many people in the field of nutritional quackery, Dr. Gregor actually uses evidence to back up his claims. I myself have followed his content for years now and still occasionally watch his videos if it’s something that peaks my interest, like a new study done on a WFPB diet and stage 3 kidney cancer, for example. He cherry-picks, but the cherries he picks are very ripe and fresh. His claims are backed by evidence, but he just needs a little more nuance and acknowledgement that other dietary patterns that are high in unprocessed plant foods and with or without animal products also have been shown to have benefits in the field of nutrition. I’m not a nutritionist by the way, I’m just repeating what Gil has to say about it

It seems computer science / programmers are very common here on the forum

Notion

@Jannes You mentioned how your father is scientifically minded. The first book that came to mind for me is Entheogenic Liberation: Unraveling the Enigma of Nonduality with 5-MeO-DMT Energetic Therapy by Martin W. Ball, Ph.D. Dr. Ball’s framework is that of what he calls “The Entheological Paradigm.” It is a philosophical framework that focuses on the use of entheogens, or substances that generate the experience of god within, as a means of exploring consciousness, spirituality, personal growth, and understanding and integrating these experiences into one’s own life. While it recognizes that entheogens can be powerful tools for personal growth and spiritual exploration, it also acknowledges the risks and potential dangers associated with their use. It emphasizes the importance of responsible use and proper preparation, including setting intentions, creating a safe and supportive environment, and working with experienced guides or facilitators. The entheological paradigm also acknowledges the potential for entheogens to facilitate healing and transformation on both an individual and collective level. It encourages individuals to approach these experiences with openness, curiosity, and reverence, and to integrate the insights gained into their daily lives. The Entheological Paradigm is a complete analysis of reality, of the integrated and interrelated expressions of a unitary energy being - otherwise known as God. Dr. Ball’s focus is leaned more towards 5-MeO-DMT … however, his framework with entheogens can be applied when working with any psychoactive compound. I’m so incredibly grateful I read this book early on and wasn’t washed into all the spiritual woo-woo and ego-projection that is present in the psychedelic community at large.