Carnivore diet been doing great

[Emerald]

9 hours ago, ExploringReality said:

If you're making broad claims about diet and health, then anecdotes are not enough. But if you're making a personal claim like how a diet impacted you or you notice certain patterns that you recognize can be extremely useful. Individualized responses vary and long term effects are hard or limited to study in controlled settings when it comes to diets. 

100%

That is my problem with the people on the thread who are like, "This guy in the video quit Veganism and went Carnivore and felt better. That's proof that Veganism is an unsustainable and unhealthy diet... and that a diet that includes meat and dairy is the healthiest diet for humans to eat. And if you don't recognize this video as equal evidence to the thousands of studies and met analyses, then your epistemology is flawed and you're closed minded."

[integral]

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

"This guy in the video quit Veganism and went Carnivore and felt better. That's proof that Veganism is an unsustainable and unhealthy diet... and that a diet that includes meat and dairy is the healthiest diet for humans to eat. And if you don't recognize this video as equal evidence to the thousands of studies and met analyses, then your epistemology is flawed and you're closed minded."

Are you serious? This is what I said.

Quote

Every healthy diet has the same effect! "It’s not about meat vs plants. It’s about healthy diet and lifestyle vs garbage diet and lifestyle."

Im not anti-vegan. Im anti-ideology disguised as science and I'm in favor of individualized tailored nutrition.

This entire conversation is you ignoring individuality.

Or you just decide not to read anything I actually wrote.

Part of what I wrote was showing you flaws in your own science not to prove veganism was wrong just to show that diversity exists

Edited May 19 by integral

[integral]

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

So, it isn't just like "all healthy diets are equal". The more plants and the fewer animal products you have in your diet, the more it is statistically correlated with better health outcomes in terms of longevity.

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?

Edited May 19 by integral

[Emerald]

4 hours ago, integral said:

Her epistemology is science equals truth and she doesn’t wanna hear anything else.

so I used science to show problems with veganism through malnutrition that 50% of vegans are malnourished, then I explained that supplementation doesn’t mean it can resolve these nutrition problems because it’s theoretical not practical and then I use science to explain how correlation doesn’t mean causation and then use science to explain how every diet justifies their beliefs with science.

All of this ignored.

It’s some kind of shadow conservativism.

Like the way a lot of really smart people have some of the worst politics.

And when you use the word epistemology they think you’re running around in circles trying to avoid their perfect facts.

When really you’re going Meta to resolving the differences between perspectives

The problem isn't that I'm holding to scientific dogma. The problem is that you're doing bad science!

And you're also doing a bad job at holistic thinking because you are mincing paradigms and sacrificing the scientific perspective instead of integrating it into your holistic framework.

What you are calling holistic thinking is just mental gymnastics dressed up in holistic jargon. 

First off, I need to see the ACTUAL empirical evidence if you're making the broad-sweeping claims that "50% of Vegans are malnourished" and that "supplementation doesn't resolve nutrition problems".

These claims about the overall health of a diet REQUIRE studies with large sample sizes to get real accurate data about the health of a diet, as an anecdote only ever has a sample size of one.

Like, I could go right now and find 20 videos of personal anecdotes right now about people quitting Carnivore, Keto, or the standard omnivorous diets and saying "I feel so much better now that I quit the ____ diet and decided to do ____ diet instead."

But that doesn't make it viable evidence for the health of the diet they switched to... nor does it make it viable evidence for the lack of the health of the diet they switched from.

And because you're only looking at personal anecdotes that confirm your pre-existing biases, you ignore the ones that don't. So, it's cherry-picking anecdotes. 

Like, be honest... if I provided you anecdotal videos where people talked about having better healthy outcomes from going Vegan, you'd probably ignore those videos or brush them off as "not good evidence". And that's precisely because you would only value videos that confirm your pre-existing biases.

And anecdotal evidence requires cherry picking because you simply CANNOT watch every singe diet-related personal anecdote that people have made... even if you tried to watch every "Why I left ___ diet" video on all of YouTube.

So, for me to take your "evidence" seriously, your evidence can't just be, "some dude on the internet said so." 

You're just giving me non-viable evidence and using mental gymnastics dressed up in the jargon of holistic thinking 

And you are criticizing science from below... not above.

You just don't understand the scientific method enough to understand why personal anecdotes are not proof of the health of a diet (or lack-there-of). 

So, you think you've transcended the scientific method and can chuck it in the trash in favor of whatever suits your own biases.

[Emerald]

25 minutes ago, integral said:

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?

Again... this is a strawman of my argument.

My argument is not, "Veganism is good for everyone." nor is my argument that "Everyone who eats the same diet gets the same exact results."

I already mentioned that there are some ailments that make going Vegan much more difficult, like Epilepsy and certain autoimmune issues.

And of course, if someone really does need to eat meat to survive due to food scarcity, then that's also going to be healthier than the alternative (which is starving).

So, stop arguing against claims that I'm not even making.

My claims are...

1. People who aren't Vegan often go into cognitive dissonance around their diet to hide their discomfort with their own choices from themselves.

2. Statistically, a diet that increases plant intake and minimizes the consumption of animals and animal products is associated with lower cholesterol, lower blood pressures, less chance of atherosclerosis, and a lowered chance of heart disease or stroke. 

3. Your claims that "Veganism is unhealthy and unsustainable and lead to nutrient deficiencies" requires you to provide more than anecdotal evidence to support that claim as you need studies of large sample sizes to determine the health of a diet or lack there-of.

Keep your argument to the claims that I'm actually making.

Edited May 19 by Emerald

[Princess Arabia]

It's not the eating of the meat alone that's helping, it's the getting rid of the other stuff that is. Carnivore diet does nothing on it's own but stopping the eating of junk does. Now you think it's the meat doing it.

 

[integral]

38 minutes ago, Emerald said:

These claims about the overall health of a diet REQUIRE studies with large sample sizes to get real accurate data about the health of a diet, as an anecdote only ever has a sample size of one.

I did. 

Quote

🔬 1. Nutrient Deficiency Studies in Vegans

These are the most well-documented issues in the literature — they don’t say veganism can’t work, but they show it often doesn't in practice.

✅ B12 Deficiency

Study: Herrmann et al. (2003)

Finding: 52% of vegans were B12 deficient; elevated homocysteine levels increased cardiovascular risk.

Problem: Deficiency is common unless supplemented — and even then, absorption varies.

✅ Omega-3 (EPA/DHA) Deficiency

Study: Rosell et al., EPIC-Oxford (2005)

Finding: Vegans had the lowest plasma levels of EPA/DHA compared to fish-eaters and omnivores.

Risk: Long-term low DHA linked to impaired cognition, depression, and developmental concerns in pregnancy.

✅ Iron & Zinc Status

Study: Hunt (2003)

Finding: Non-heme iron in plant foods has lower bioavailability; vegan women at higher risk of anemia.

Meta-analysis: [Haider et al. (2021)] — vegan men and women had lower iron and ferritin levels overall.

✅ Calcium & Bone Health

Study: Appleby et al., EPIC-Oxford (2007)

Finding: Vegans had a 30% higher fracture rate than omnivores — unless calcium intake was ≥525 mg/day.

Conclusion: Vegans often fail to meet calcium needs unless supplementing or eating fortified foods.

✅ Iodine Deficiency

Study: [Leung et al. (2011)]

Finding: Iodine intake in U.S. vegans was far below recommended levels unless seaweed or iodized salt was consumed.

Risk: Thyroid dysfunction, especially in women.

--AI

 

38 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You're just giving me non-viable evidence and using mental gymnastics dressed up in the jargon of holistic thinking 

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.

Quote

So, you think you've transcended the scientific method and can chuck it in the trash in favor of whatever suits your own biases.

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.

31 minutes ago, Emerald said:

1. People who aren't Vegan often go into cognitive dissonance around their diet to hide their discomfort with their own choices from themselves.

2. Statistically, a diet that increases plant intake and minimizes the consumption of animals and animal products is associated with lower cholesterol, lower blood pressures, less chance of atherosclerosis, and a lowered chance of heart disease or stroke. 

3. Your claims that "Veganism is unhealthy and unsustainable and lead to nutrient deficiencies" requires you to provide more than anecdotal evidence to support that claim as you need studies of large sample sizes to determine the health of a diet or lack there-of.

Keep your argument to the claims that I'm actually making.

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.

Edited May 19 by integral

[integral]

@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

Edited May 19 by integral

[Schizophonia]

40 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

It's not the eating of the meat alone that's helping, it's the getting rid of the other stuff that is. Carnivore diet does nothing on it's own but stopping the eating of junk does. Now you think it's the meat doing it.

 

It’s like Markus is not to close technically to conclude to carnivore is the best diet for humans, but he is too afraid for some reason so he copes with a weird and historically nonsensical high fat vegan diet.

He believes in God, talks about his manifestations and that kind of thing here and there, but his ego is still stuck on "life is shit you have to make efforts like eating bitter green plants to be healthy".

That’s why i put a bit this persona on the side, even if i still appreciate him.

 

Edited May 19 by Schizophonia

[Emerald]

45 minutes ago, integral said:

@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

What I'm saying is that the vast majority of people, who live in regions where food isn't scarce, don't need to eat meat and dairy to survive and be healthy.

Most people eat meat and dairy solely out of convenience and pleasure... at the expense of the animals' life. 

And statistically speaking, most people would enjoy a longer life-span and greater health if they switched to a plant-based diet as they would reduce their risk of heart disease and stroke (which are the number one killers). 

So, most people who are like "I eat animals for health reasons." are either genuinely mistaken or just telling themselves that to avoid the truth of their own motivations.

And attempts to invalidate Veganism as a diet through claims that "the Vegan diet is unhealthy" is one of the ways non-Vegans with Vegan values justify their choices to themselves, so as to avoid having to confront the fact that they are prioritizing their own creature comforts over animals' lives and wellbeing... which goes against their own values.

So, what I'm saying is that you can do whatever you want and eat whatever you want... but be honest with yourself and face with the REAL reason you're doing it.

Don't hide behind ideas like "I'm not Vegan because Veganism is unhealthy." or "I'm not Vegan because Vegans are too idealogical" or "I'm not Vegan because I'm trying to preserve culture." or "I'm not Vegan because the Bible is against it." or "I'm not Vegan because indigenous people still eat meat and Vegans are being mean to them."

The real reason for most people in food secure regions is, "I'm not Vegan because I get pleasure and comfort from eating animals and animal products. And even though I don't believe human pleasure is more important than animals' lives and well-being, I'm still eating animals for pleasure because I don't want to change my habits."

A little bit of self-honesty goes a long way.

--

*Also, in relation to the studies and meta-analyses that you mentioned, I would need to look into them to make sure there are no conflicts of interest there in terms of who has funded and participated in the studies and to see what the sample size is and how they do the sampling.

But setting aside that you can meet all of your nutritional needs on a Vegan diet if you pay attention to your nutritional needs...

... even if all of that is true about a high percentage of Vegans having nutrient deficiencies with regard to certain nutrients, a Vegan diet is still associated with greater longevity because of the decrease in stroke and heart disease risk and its association with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality.

So, if you're picking your poison... one of those poisons is more likely to send you to an early grave.

Tons of people are dying early from heart disease because it's the number one killer. Very few people are dying early from Iodine deficiency.

[NewKidOnTheBlock]

1 hour ago, Princess Arabia said:

Carnivore diet does nothing on it's own but stopping the eating of junk does

It makes sense why people like junk food, and the reasons are honestly logical. It's quick, convenient and tasty. We should be searching for ways to streamline production of healthy food to rival that of McDonalds or KFCs, instead of just demonizing junk food

Edited May 19 by NewKidOnTheBlock

[Schizophonia]

I challenge @Emerald in live debate in august about veganism.

Take it or leave it. 🐋

Edited May 19 by Schizophonia

[Emerald]

Just now, Schizophonia said:

I challenge @Emerald in live debate in august about veganism.

Take it or leave it. 🐋

I'm terrible at debating. And that is because debating is more about certainty of posture than it is about speaking out what's true. 

And I am just not very good at persuading through statements of truth. (Though I am pretty good at it when I ask people questions)

Like, the person I'm debating with could be arguing that the typical color of grass is purple with pink polka dots and silver stripes, and I could be saying that the most common color for grass is green... and I would still lose the debate.

So, I just don't debate because I'm not good at it, and no matter how right I am... people will see my debate performance and be like "You know, before she started debating, I used to think grass was green. But now that she's arguing that the grass is green, it sounds wrong. So, I'm going to believe the person who's saying that the grass is purple with pink polka dots and silver stripes because they are saying so with utmost certainty."

The only reason I debate on here is because it's in writing... so it's only a bunch of people shouting statements at each other. And it helps me get clearer on my own perspectives and to practice staying centered when being challenged.

[Schizophonia]

12 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm terrible at debating. And that is because debating is more about certainty of posture than it is about speaking out what's true. 

And I am just not very good at persuading through statements of truth. (Though I am pretty good at it when I ask people questions)

Like, the person I'm debating with could be arguing that the typical color of grass is purple with pink polka dots and silver stripes, and I could be saying that the most common color for grass is green... and I would still lose the debate.

So, I just don't debate because I'm not good at it, and no matter how right I am... people will see my debate performance and be like "You know, before she started debating, I used to think grass was green. But now that she's arguing that the grass is green, it sounds wrong. So, I'm going to believe the person who's saying that the grass is purple with pink polka dots and silver stripes because they are saying so with utmost certainty."

The only reason I debate on here is because it's in writing... so it's only a bunch of people shouting statements at each other. And it helps me get clearer on my own perspectives and to practice staying centered when being challenged.

I am kind and I have a funny big French accent, ask @Sugarcoat 🐋 You have the advantage of being an native English speaker.
 

All your Jungian enterprise has been for nothing if in the end you still live in shame for fear of losing an argument.

And I'm not even here for a "confrontation" in the virile sense of the term if that scares you, more of a "dialectical discussion".

[integral]

@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?

Edited May 19 by integral

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

I am kind and I have a funny big French accent, ask @Sugarcoat 🐋 You have the advantage of being an native English speaker.

All your Jungian enterprise has been for nothing if in the end you still live in shame for fear of losing an argument.

And I'm not even here for a "confrontation" in the virile sense of the term if that scares you, more of a "dialectical discussion".

I just don't like debating in the public square because I feel it is fruitless, because people are just going to go by things like body posture and certainty rather than what's actually true.

So, I don't do it. It's a whole lot of energy expenditure for nothing.

[Emerald]

25 minutes ago, integral said:

@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?

I'm not saying that there are zero instances where a Vegan diet doesn't work for an individual person.

What I am saying is that it's fairly uncommon... and that people will often use the "Vegan diet didn't work for me because of health" argument as a cover to lie to themselves about why they have quit Veganism... and to hide from themselves about the REAL reason they ACTUALLY quit Veganism.

And it's difficult to differentiate between the small number of people that actually couldn't make a Vegan diet work for them because of their physiology (like Epilepsy, autoimmune disease, difficulty digesting plant fiber, etc.)...

...and people who just didn't approach a Vegan diet the correct way (like people who go Vegan and don't eat enough calories)...

...and the people who are just experiencing a no-cebo effect relative to a Vegan diet because they are tricking themselves into giving up because they want the pleasures, convenience, and widespread social acceptance associated with not being Vegan. 

So, because it is difficult to tell the difference between people in each of these groups, it's best to be a bit skeptical when people are giving a "I quit Veganism because it didn't work for me health-wise" argument... as it's far more likely that they either didn't do it right or are lying to themselves to go back to comfort zone of their old habits.

Edited May 19 by Emerald

[integral]

@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.

45 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm not saying that there are zero instances where a Vegan diet doesn't work for an individual person.

What I am saying is that it's fairly uncommon... 

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.

Edited May 19 by integral

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, integral said:

@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

You're pulling those percentages out of thin air... and they are unreasonably high.

Like, it's fathomable to me that there would be some exceptions where some people really would struggle to switch to a plant-based diet... like people with very specific ailments that make it difficult to eat plants.

But these exceptions would be a few percentage points at most... not like 40%-70% of people.

If it were true that 40%+ of people could not go Vegan without health risks, the American Dietetic Association would not have deemed the Vegan diet as an adequate diet for meeting nutritional needs at any phase of life including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

And the World Health Organization would not have suggested more people to shift to a plant-based diet to prevent Non-Communicable Diseases (like heart disease) and to have a better impact on the environment.

These health organizations would have had to have given a warning like... "Caution, only 30% of people can healthfully go Vegan!"

The fact of the matter is that the majority of people are able to go Vegan and thrive with few exceptions.

And most people who claim they could not because of health reasons are just justifying their choices to themselves under the guise of health, when the reality it's for some other reason.

I'm not even saying that they're consciously lying. But when people make decisions that go against their own ethical compass, they have to find a justification that makes them feel okay with their choices.

And while it's uncomfortable to admit, "I'm choosing to go back to eating meat and dairy because it's easier and I find it more pleasurable and socially acceptable." it's much less uncomfortable to tell one's self the story that, "I'm choosing to go back to eating meat and dairy because I was just the type of person who can't go Vegan without compromising my health."

But it's not actually true. It's just a common trick that people play on themselves to justify their own choices.

[ExploringReality]

You guys, and girls please post what you eat, why you choose to eat it what ingredients you use and how it impacts and affects you and what are some differences that you've noticed with your body and your mind when switching to certain foods.