integral

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?

Are you serious? This is what I said. 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

@Michael569 The first problem is none of them are eating healthy meat this is sick meat found in grocery stores. Contributing it to iron doesn't make any sense there's so many factors, the difference between sick meat and healthy meat that's grass-fed is completely different. You're literally just consuming stress hormone and antibiotics. If the argument is avoiding meat avoids toxins in meat then that's probably true. A lot of studies are showing processed meat creates a lot of problems. The entire conversation we're having is that you take people eating a any diet that is well planned and structured and they're going to be healthy and you take anyone eating a poorly planed diet including the vegans and they're going to be unhealthy. The study did not track whether the people who didn't die were actually healthy. The vegans could have had dementia and it's not part of the study. People who did not eat red meat also had: Diabetes Severe inflammation Nutrient deficiencies Autoimmune conditions Depression or anxiety Cognitive decline Osteoporosis Or simply lived in a chronically unwell state The study still found only a 7–10% relative risk increase in mortality for red meat. That’s a tiny signal one that could easily be statistical noise or residual lifestyle changes or Self-reporting biases. And this is for a bunch of old people! For the fact that it's still garbage meat and not part of our discussion. More importantly some of those people eating red meat didn't die and they might have avoided other diseases because of it but none of this is is part of the equation again it's averaging out everything If a person's genetics will allow them to live the longest on red meat this crucial information is just completely blurred out because you're doing this generalized study and creating generalized conclusions It lacks the individual Tailoring that a diet should have, diets should be tailored to the person. --- The whole problem here is there's no individuality and there's so many cofactors that are trying to demonize meat. The real final interpretation of all of this data is garbage food is bad. > There are some people whose genetics don't allow for veganism to work with them that doesn't matter how you get go about it, it just won't work out for them. At no point are they statistically better off avoiding meat > Do you acknowledge the above sentence?

And all 250,000 people were eating grass fed beef and a balanced, healthy non-processed food diet? If all does people were eating McDonald everyday does that say iron intake is the problem? 😂 Variables not tracked: Eat more fast food or ultra-processed meals Eat fewer vegetables and fiber Exercise less Smoke or drink more Have higher stress levels Live in more polluted environments Have worse sleep Use more medications So what you get is the averaging out of everyone’s genetics, microbiomes, and lifestyles and diversity into a single correlation. so that if 70% of people can only thrive on Hema iron you just don’t see it. If for 30% of people Heme iron avoidance made them sick. It wouldn’t show up in that study. Most people in these cohorts were just eating processed junk, yet the data is treated as if it’s some clean verdict on a specific nutrient. The result is a fractured epistemic signal, generalized, decontextualized, and misused to create sweeping rules for wildly different bodies. That’s why contextual, individualized nutrition always wins over population-level generalizations. Real TLDR: A meta-analysis found that in a population of mostly junk-food eaters, each 1 mg/day increase in heme iron (often consumed with processed meat, fast food, and poor lifestyle habits) was associated with a 7% increase in relative risk for cardiovascular disease. This tells us people eating more garbage had slightly more heart disease, not that heme iron itself causes it. The study didn’t control for quality of diet, genetics, stress, sleep, or lifestyle, it just averaged everything together and blamed the iron. —- It also only tracked cardiovascular problems, which is an obvious Blindspot, the people who avoided iron had other health problems… if it tracked every disease it would reveal that everyone is sick. So the conclusion is you eat unhealthy and you have an unhealthy lifestyle or you have bad genetics or your body isn’t properly adapted to our toxic environment outside of your control then you get sick. But instead, they blamed Iron in a myopic way.

@AION lmao I wouldn’t go as far as you went with this, in her domain of expertise where she put the most energy in she’s fairly insightful. Ironically, that would involve shadow work so any conversation on the shadow we will get the highest level of resistance possible lol It’s a matter of epistemology in the end like why does Sadhguru support Trump? most people need to see some kind of catastrophic failure in their life to realize that their epistemology was wrong instead of learning from other people’s mistakes and avoiding it

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

Out of all of your good points, you have stupid epistemology in the same way many spiritual people like sadguru support Trump. What is the viable evidence to understand Trump? Cohort scientific studies? 🙄 I just laid out integral, holistic, epistemology, and you shat on it like it was nothing.

You’re treating anything outside your preferred studies as “just anecdote,” but that reveals a misunderstanding of epistemology how we actually know things. In complex, real-world domains like nutrition, we must integrate multiple forms of evidence: empirical, experiential, observational, historical, cultural, and personal pattern recognition. That’s how real people, practitioners, and systems thinkers solve problems that reductionist science can’t fully address yet. When you dismiss all this as invalid because it doesn’t match your meta-analysis, you’re not being scientific, you’re being dogmatic. It’s like someone saying: “We’ve statistically proven heterosexuality leads to higher reproduction rates, so clearly it’s the optimal and natural orientation for everyone. We should outlaw all other forms of sexuality” Its bad logic and it’s epistemically negligent to diversity. Some people actually have to eat meat or they get sick, but you just don't account for this. What I’m arguing for is epistemic pluralism, using all the tools available, not just the ones that confirm an agenda. I'm also arguing within your epistemic domain of only relying on the scientific lens, that you are warping it to just fit your agenda. Every crime known to man was done through the epistemology you are using right now. It's devilish.

Chatgpt has begun shaping culture.

Integral Life Health Plan PDF

Guy does veganism 10 years eventually switches back.. Do not think of this as an anecdote, you have to view this as an epistemic clue to combine it all together. Take the partial truths of every perspective and bring it all together. It's not that he did it wrong... this is such a toxic mindset... Failing to see differences between people. It's ironic that vegans tend to be Pro diversity and inclusiveness but not for diet lmao