Carnivore diet been doing great

[integral]

1 hour ago, Emerald said:

personal anecdotes are a viable form of evidence that are on equal ground to studies and meta-analyses.

How I use anecdotes, Science and other forms of knowing is to see them as data points that are then connected to point to various possibilities and to form some kind of picture. But the truth is not certain it is an open-ended thing with shifting parts.

If a vegan bodybuilder has been doing it for 20 years, I do consider that a partial data point.

If a million people reports health problems doing anything I consider all of that partial data points.

If Warren Buffett gives business advice, I consider that a partial data point.

If someone quits the keto diet after various issues, I consider that a partial data point (not that this person is right or wrong about any of this). 

Not that these people aren't conflating things or that I'm not conflating things, their data points have partial true.

And so the strategy is to bridge everything together in a fuzzy map.

 

Out of curiosity Leo just posted anecdotes for remote viewing. It's definitely a claim even more scientifically unsubstantiated then this topic suggesting diversity.

What is your opinion on it? I do not say this to claim anecdotes are valid about this debate, I'm Shifting the conversation out of curiosity of what of anecdote means to you. The meaning of an anecdote for you.

Also this is image of a Emerald whipping StrawMen, I happen to generate it yesterday inspired by one of your comments,

Edited May 22 by integral

[Emerald]

2 hours ago, integral said:

How I use anecdotes, Science and other forms of knowing is to see them as data points that are then connected to point to various possibilities and to form some kind of picture. But the truth is not certain it is an open-ended thing with shifting parts.

If a vegan bodybuilder has been doing it for 20 years, I do consider that a partial data point.

If a million people reports health problems doing anything I consider all of that partial data points.

If Warren Buffett gives business advice, I consider that a partial data point.

If someone quits the keto diet after various issues, I consider that a partial data point (not that this person is right or wrong about any of this). 

Not that these people aren't conflating things or that I'm not conflating things, their data points have partial true.

And so the strategy is to bridge everything together in a fuzzy map.

 

Out of curiosity Leo just posted anecdotes for remote viewing. It's definitely a claim even more scientifically unsubstantiated then this topic suggesting diversity.

What is your opinion on it? I do not say this to claim anecdotes are valid about this debate, I'm Shifting the conversation out of curiosity of what of anecdote means to you. The meaning of an anecdote for you.

Also this is image of a Emerald whipping StrawMen, I happen to generate it yesterday inspired by one of your comments,

It's fine to use anecdotes as personal inspiration to inform your own decisions. 

I personally get really inspired when a person adopts a whole food plant based diet and experiences better health outcomes and bloodwork.

But that doesn't constitute proof if I were trying to make wide sweeping claims about the health of plant-based diets... like if I were to claim, "Veganism is the healthiest diet." 

To have valid proof for the overall health of diet, you really have to look at studies and meta-analyses... because you can never account for all personal anecdotes that exist on the planet.

And if you try to use personal anecdotes as evidence to claims about the health of any diet (or lack-there-of), there is a de facto cherry picking because you simply cannot view every single anecdote that exists.

And the vast majority of the time, people are naturally going to try to find anecdotes that support their own claims and ignore the ones that don't.

And even in the minority of times when someone is trying to be even-handed and pick from a wide variety of anecdotes, they still aren't going to get any valid evidence of the overall health of a diet that way because there are SOO many anecdotes that exist that weren't examined.

But with something like remote viewing, if it does exist, I don't necessarily believe that it could be studied with the scientific method since it is tied to the subjective experience of a particular person.

With things like that, I prefer to remain agnostic and open-minded.

Like, I've experienced out of body experiences, since I was 13 years old. And I've sometimes been able to go places in these experiences.

And I would imagine that remote viewing has to do with that.

So, I know that it's possible phenomenologically as an experience that people are capable of having. 

What I don't know (and don't believe I will ever know) about my out of body experiences is...

1. If I was perceiving something that exists in some objective consensus reality of its own.

OR

2. If it is an objective consensus reality.... whether or not it's the one that I typically inhabit or if it's some other dimensional aspect of this reality.

OR

3. If it's just a really real feeling experience that happens purely in my own mind.

So, I don't know. And I don't believe that I'll ever know the truth of whether remote viewing is real or not. 

But I remain open-minded because of the experiences that I've had.

Either way, I don't believe that science can study it. So, I don't expect any scientific evidence to the effect.

So, the only choice is to go off of personal anecdotes because there is no objective empirically observable evidence.

But you won't find me making any claims of truth or falsehood, because I have no evidence to verify nor falsify the possibility of remote viewing.

Also, I like the picture. I reminds me of the Wizard of Oz... with the scarecrow and the Emerald city and some Wicked Witch of the West vibes about the outfit I'm wearing.

Edited May 23 by Emerald

[something_else]

9 hours ago, Emerald said:

But that doesn't constitute proof if I were trying to make wide sweeping claims about the health of plant-based diets... like if I were to claim, "Veganism is the healthiest diet." 

IIRC in the 1980s and surrounding decades, vegans were scientifically measured to be some of the healthiest people around. However since the introduction of much more processed vegan food, that's no longer the case anymore.

[integral]

On 2025-05-21 at 7:21 PM, integral said:

@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.

1. Can you see the Extrapolation jump and Endpoint jump?
2. What the science: shows red meat causes issues, not white meat and fish which have shown good results paired with high plant intake.
3. What the science shows: supplementation is not part of the meta-analysis studies that show a trend of reduction in red meat improves CVD + all cause mortality.
4. What the science shows: non fatal health problems are not tracked in meta-analysis studies that show a trend of reduction in red meat improves CVD + all cause mortality.
5. Extrapolation jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best.”
6. Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best + supplements”
7. 2x Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “improves CVD + all cause mortality, therefore no health problems with no meat + supplements.” (ignores non-fatal health problems, adds supplements to the equation for no reason)

They do not prove or disprove vegan + supplements work for most people.

Quote

To have valid proof for the overall health of diet, you really have to look at studies and meta-analyses...

@Emerald I am doing this and I'm not bending over backwards twisting all of reality to fit my agenda in bad fate like a pigeon shitting on a chessboard. (Paraphrasing)

I think we concluded the conversation. What's happening is I'm actually looking at the science and asking you to engage with it and your repeating "this is what the WHO says".

Edited May 23 by integral

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, integral said:

1. Can you see the Extrapolation jump and Endpoint jump?
2. What the science: shows red meat causes issues, not white meat and fish which have shown good results paired with high plant intake.
3. What the science shows: supplementation is not part of the meta-analysis studies that show a trend of reduction in red meat improves CVD + all cause mortality.
4. What the science shows: non fatal health problems are not tracked in meta-analysis studies that show a trend of reduction in red meat improves CVD + all cause mortality.
5. Extrapolation jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best.”
6. Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best + supplements”
7. 2x Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “improves CVD + all cause mortality, therefore no health problems with no meat + supplements.” (ignores non-fatal health problems, adds supplements to the equation for no reason)

They do not prove or disprove vegan + supplements work for most people.

@Emerald I am doing this and I'm not bending over backwards twisting all of reality to fit my agenda in bad fate like a pigeon shitting on a chessboard. (Paraphrasing)

I think we concluded the conversation. What's happening is I'm actually looking at the science and asking you to engage with it and your repeating "this is what the WHO says".

Coming back to my 4 claims... I made no such extrapolation jump. So, you are arguing against a strawman of my position, which you keep doing.

Stick to arguing against my ACTUAL claims.

My claims are...

1. People lie to themselves to justify their choices when those choices are out of integrity with their values.
2. Anecdotes aren't scientific evidence.
3. A diet that minimizes animal product intake is associated with a lower risk of heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality.
4. There is no evidence that "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health." And if that were true, it would be represented in the evidence that exists... and the WHO and ADA would not deem well-planned Vegan diets as nutritionally adequate without. 

You have to actually argue against the points that I'm making... as opposed to assuming my point and arguing with that.

Keep in mind, I have engaged in this argument, not to make my own claims of truth... but to push back on you making wide-sweeping evidence-less claims about Vegan diets like "40% of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health" or "Vegan diets are nutrient deficient."

But you keep arguing with me as though I'm making claims about something I am not... as though I am the one that began making claims like "Vegan diets are the superior diet," which I do personally believe is true because of its association with longevity, but never claimed or argued as that would also be a wides-sweeping claim about a diet that doesn't involve real scientific statistics.

Instead the reality is that Vegan diets are associated with lower blood pressure, lower cholesterol, lowers risk of heart disease and stroke, and lower risk of all-cause mortality. And this is why I personally believe that Veganism is the superior diet.

But I would never claim "Veganism is the superior diet" because that is just an extrapolation from the evidence about heart disease and stroke.

So, in this context, I have never claimed that Veganism is the best diet or anything like that. I was just pushing back on your claims, which are evidence-less.

I was not making a health claims about Veganism beyond the fact that it is associated with greater longevity compared to animal-product-based diets... but I was pushing back on your lack of evidence as you were saying things that aren't true about Veganism.

My main point is and has always been that, "Non-Vegans who have Vegan values who eat animals for pleasure and convenience tend to go into cognitive dissonance to hide their true motives from themselves and to avoid facing with the reality that their actions don't match their values."

And unsubstantiated health claims like "Veganism is a nutrient deficient diet" is one of the defenses that non-Vegans with Vegan values tend to use to explain away their own actions to themselves to assuage that cognitive dissonance.

That's why I'm simply making counter-claims to your arguments... as I do operate from the assumption that you personally need to believe that Vegan diets are nutrient deficient to explain to yourself why you're currently eating meat and dairy when you (if you're not dealing with food scarcity) don't need to in order to survive.

But of course, that's just an assumption based on what I know about human nature.

And people who have been Vegan before tend to hold the tightest to their defenses because they have become aware of their values enough to make a big change earlier on.

[Emerald]

13 hours ago, something_else said:

IIRC in the 1980s and surrounding decades, vegans were scientifically measured to be some of the healthiest people around. However since the introduction of much more processed vegan food, that's no longer the case anymore.

Again, I'm not making any sweeping claims about Veganism other than what's represented in the current scientific literature... which associates lower risk of heart disease and stroke with plant-based diets.

But I'm sure that processed Vegan food causes health problems in the same way that processed food does in other contexts.

Either way, I'm not making health claims... just debunking health claims that have no evidence.

[integral]

@Emerald in my opinion the goal post has changed unintendedly because of miscommunication. Initially you made a strong Association that your beliefs are backed by science which is what I was addressing. Then I responded by showing what the science was saying.

When you say my beliefs are backed by science and then in the same sentence you say that you believe veganism is the healthiest diet. It's very easy to mistake this for you claiming -> science has proven veganism is the healthiest diet.

You've now clarified that veganism isn't proven or disproven by science Just that a reduction in red meat and a increased in plant Foods is the healthy scientific trend for meta-analysis studies. So you then have a personal belief that veganism is the healthiest diet based on this data.

If this is the case then we never would have had a discussion to begin with. It's been a miscommunication.

I agree with all of this and respect your position, it's completely your right to extrapolate the trend to its ends. Because there's no evidence against it or supporting it. It's essentially the epistemic hole that data can't account for as of now.

That epistemic hole also allows for my belief which is that taking the data trends to the extreme is wrong and causes problems. because of:

1. Extrapolation jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best.”
2. Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “if less is good, none must be best + supplements”
3. 2x Unsubstantiated jump: They assume “improves CVD + all cause mortality, therefore no health problems with no meat + supplements.” (ignores non-fatal health problems, adds supplements to the equation for no reason)

Because of this hole in the data I personally believe there's much more diversity and variation there.

So my position is backed by science in the exact same way your position is backed by science.

Edited May 24 by integral

[Emerald]

3 hours ago, integral said:

 

Because of this hole in the data I personally believe there's much more diversity and variation there.

So my position is backed by science in the exact same way your position is backed by science.

The difference is that you were making claims that weren't backed by evidence and stating them as the truth.

And I was pushing back on you for doing that because there is no evidence for them.

There is scientific evidence that plant-based diets are associated with lower risk of heart disease, stroke, and all-cause mortality compared to omnivorous diets. And that is why I personally believe the Vegan diet is the healthiest, because I define health in terms of longevity and the minimization of the risk of the biggest killers.

So, my extrapolation based in my personal definition of "healthy" (which is not itself a scientific claim) directly relates back to the evidence that exists.

But there is no scientific evidence that suggests that there's significant degrees of dietary diversity, such that a sizable percentage of the population can't go Vegan without compromising their health (which is your extrapolation).

That is just a guess that is based in your own ideas that you came up with in your mind. It isn't extrapolated from actual evidence... but from anecdotes and hypotheses you hold about the topic of dietary diversity.

Actual evidence that would support this claim would be like if a sizable percentage of people were shown in studies and meta-analyses to not be able to extract nutrients from plants... or there was evidence in studies and meta-analyses that supplementation with B12 didn't work in a sizable percentage of people.

But no such evidence exists.

The best evidence you gave for your claim is that a sizable percentages of Vegans were deficient in a particular nutrient in certain studies. 

But that only supports the claim that "A sizable percentage of people approach the Vegan diet improperly."

It doesn't support the claim that, "A sizable percentage of people can't go Vegan without compromising their health because of dietary diversity."

And that's why I'm pushing back and giving counter-arguments on what you've been claiming... as your extrapolations about dietary diversity preventing a large percentage of people from going Vegan aren't based in any evidence.

[integral]

16 hours ago, Emerald said:

or there was evidence in studies and meta-analyses that supplementation with B12 didn't work in a sizable percentage of people.

So what you're thinking is there would be evidence that people taking B12 would get sick -> so because there's no evidence showing people getting sick -> there is no diversity trend.

This is the problem with that logic:

1)

Most nutrition RCTs are:

• Small (<300 subjects)

• Short (<2 y)

• Focused on correcting deficiency, not on long-term health span outcomes (fractures, cognition, IBS, etc.).

Hence slow-burn problems could be missed (Which is how every vegan reports getting sick).

If a side-effect appears in 15 % of people after year 5, these studies are literally incapable of detecting it. Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.

2) 

Single-marker tunnel vision

• Elevating serum B-12 is treated as “mission accomplished,” yet the body is an ecosystem: methyl-folate balance, homocysteine, iron status, gut microbiome shifts, and hundreds of downstream reactions are left unmeasured.
• Assuming that one corrected datapoint equals full health span is the same reductionism that plagues drug trials where an LDL drop is taken as proof of overall benefit.

There are strong parallels between the logic that you're using and Pro-Pharmaceutical companies who have deceived and corrupted the epistemology of science. All of these companies are using the exact epistemic tricks to push their drugs into the general population. Masking long-term harm with "lack of evidence against it" and "single marker tunnel vision (LDL lower = good = 1 marker)".

[Schizophonia]

@Emerald @Michael569

I follow my instinct.

My body knows better than my intellect what i need, my instinct is less creative/adaptative but more grounded.

One might think that instinct can be fooled by industrial food, but actually most of the time consumption of very transformed food is essentially compulsively motivated, so by the intellect and especially self-destructive tendancies.

"Normal" people will appreciate transformed food but will essentially crave a more balanced cuisine, even have the urge here and there to eat some kinds of vegetables or meat to get some nutrients.

In my experience if i'm energetically masculine, if I carry stressful responsibilities, i crave fresh fruits, beer, vegetables and tofu/tempeh. I accept the idea that plants reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease if I want them through homeostasis in an energetic context that promotes cardiovascular disease.

At the opposite if i am in a more "yin" vibe (open and low stress, but also more passive and submissive, even sexually lol) i will crave more meat, cheese, pasta, spice and heavy foods in general.

Edited Sunday at 06:26 PM by Schizophonia

[RendHeaven]

On 5/20/2025 at 2:06 PM, ExploringReality said:

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.

Foods:

• White Rice
• Ground Beef + Sea Salt
• Salmon Sashimi
• Quail Eggs
• MCT Oil
• Pomegranate Juice

Supplements:

• Beta Carotene
• Vitamin D
• Vitamin C
• Calcium Citrate
• Chelated Magnesium
• Chelated Copper
• Kelp (Iodine)

Drink:

• Distilled Water

[Schizophonia]

8 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Foods:

• White Rice
• Ground Beef + Sea Salt
• Salmon Sashimi
• Quail Eggs
• MCT Oil
• Pomegranate Juice

Supplements:

• Beta Carotene
• Vitamin D
• Vitamin C
• Calcium Citrate
• Chelated Magnesium
• Chelated Copper
• Kelp (Iodine)

Drink:

• Distilled Water

You take copper ?

I thought you took Zinc.

 

[RendHeaven]

7 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

You take copper ?

I thought you took Zinc.

I eat so much beef I risk overloading on natural zinc. the copper is to offset that.

from a pure health standpoint, it's better to just eat organs (beef liver) for zinc-copper balance IMO, but I'm picky and I hate the taste of liver so the synthetic chelate is a compromise

[Schizophonia]

2 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

I eat so much beef I risk overloading on natural zinc. the copper is to offset that.

I see, do you have low copper symptoms ?

2 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

from a pure health standpoint, it's better to just eat organs (beef liver) for zinc-copper balance IMO, but I'm picky and I hate the taste of liver so the synthetic chelate is a compromise

You're not picky beef liver is just unbearable to eat 😸