integral

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,

Now you can make a movie! Actualized cinema

If you eat eggs and you don't feel good, then There's Something Wrong. Don't discount personal experience, you have to use personal experience as part of your guidance. You have to mix what the science says intelligently with personally experiences. Think like someone who's experimenting on their body and trying to maximize health

Meta‑research (Metascience) and Epidemiologic methods critiques of science are common in these forums?

I could go through each point you made and debunk it because you didn’t represent her position at all correctly. You were wrong about every part of her position except for one or two. 1/10 Especially everything you said about morality I don’t get it. What when did she ever say that? And she also didn’t reject carnivore diet for people with special cases. Ai: True / mostly supported: 1 Mixed / partly right: 4 Largely unsupported: 3 People have areas of strengths and weaknesses. Sadhguru has terrible politics and that has nothing to do with his field of expertise, which he’s exceptional in. Most of this debate was people speaking past each other. Carefully frame your comments better in the future please. Because you’re doing personal attacks that are unnecessary.

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?

All ai generated

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

“ Somebody needs to do it” Trend People not so subtly are suggesting someone has to eliminate this obvious problem and dictator