Carl-Richard

That requires the body working as a coordinated unit.

Calorie restriction is associated with living longer.

It's in the first sentence: free of mental conflict. Read up on neurosis, psychological flexibility, factors that predict resilience.

Don't think of mental in the dualistic sense. Think of it like your bodily units are working in a coordinated fashion. Even if you have good genes and good environment but you somehow put your bodily units against each other, your body becomes a battleground. It's true that some genes and some environments, or karma, makes this more or less likely (or more or less impossible). But it's like if you're the richest country in the world with the highest average IQ but there is an insurrection and toppling of the government and collective hysteria and lawlessness, that suddenly doesn't matter as much. Maybe "richest" and "highest" are generalizations that belie a more complicated reality, but nevertheless, the master regulator, or the umbrella term for when genes and environment are leading to favorable outcomes, is the existence of harmony or conflict. The larger point is to not look at just one factor but all the factors, and the experience of mental conflict is an indicator of that (because mental conflict is a conflict of all the factors and is reflected in the physical; there is no true dualistic divide; if you're in mental conflict, there is a fight or fight response in the body, resource expenditure increases, oxidation products and age-related markers increase). If you want to be very dualistic, then you can say chronic fight or flight, chronic stress, that's the big killer. (But remember that we're talking about "stress" and not "eustress"; the former is destabilizing and chronic, the other is self-consistent and short-lasting — the body is working as a unit, and this difference can be felt, experienced, hence the mental side is a good indicator; see the CATS model).

You have discovered the gas pedal, the executive functioning. Now you should re-integrate the brakes, the limbic system (or the gas and the brakes can be flipped depending on how you interpret the metaphor). Why does watching the YouTube video feel compelling? Maybe it's something you want to do or feel like doing? What is that feeling that you just want to do it for the sake of doing it? Maybe that is not just a valuable resource but fundamentally the basis and point of your life? The trick is to not just do what you don't feel like doing but getting to the point where doing the right thing is what you feel like doing. Then the inspiration and wonder of the YouTube video is what drives your action. That requires getting a sense for what your values are like @Miguel1 mentioned.

I ask because vegans are 3-4x more likely to be single.

And as for deconstruction of your worldview, I think deconstruction can go both ways: not through just less reading, but more. That's how Thomas Kuhn did it. The horseshoe theory of deconstruction. "It'S a sTrAngE lOop". The more you read, the more perspectives you get, the more biases you become aware of, the more traps you uncover. The more layers you find, the more you realize layerlessness is absolute. But you might get lost in the layers, but that I believe is just an intermediate thing, just like the normie philosophy readers are bottom feeders, the top are the producers. The producers become the destroyers, uniting the opposites, through diversity, not through reclusivity.

@Eskilon You know it's a good topic when nobody answers 😆

I like em loose, in the bowel movements.

There is a case to be made that if you're a normal reader of philosophy, you become a kind of bottom feeder that swallows whatever somebody else has found out. But if you're a leading expert in the field, you can push the field beyond what is currently known. For example, I just heard Bernardo Kastrup say that the next step for Integrated Information Theory would be to integrate it with Markov blankets, or in other words to find ways to compute self-organizing/autopoetic fault lines of integrated information, not just spontaneous ones. That's not something a "non-conformist" person can find out, but it's nevertheless new knowledge, not conforming to earlier knowledge. When you're a "conformist" who reads other people's work, you have the problem of pushing the knowledge further. But if you're a supposed non-conformist, you have the problem of constructing entirely non-conformist knowledge from the ground up. And in a world with 8 billion people, that's in my estimation virtually impossible. You can only build so much, and odds are that someone will have the same insight as you merely by mistake, despite being steeped in a more "conformist" situation. And odds are that someone had that insight 1000 years ago and shared it with others and built upon it for 1000 years, way more than you ever could on your own in one lifetime. And if you somehow had the insight and managed to get further than those who built on it for 1000 years, odds are you just learned about them and you're just a conformist who forgot their own history. In other words, the choice is between being a leader of a massive field with tons of work behind it, or being a leader of a tiny little field that actually most likely is not your own field, you're just ironically too isolated (socially or cognitively with respect to your own past) to know.

How does veganism do on the dating market?

When I think about it, I eat a lot of plants. I calculated that only ~18% of my meal today is meat in weight. The rest is potatoes, broccoli, cauliflower, red bell pepper, onion, garlic, extra illegal olive oil, cilantro and some parmesan cheese 😂

Look at how many are into spirituality here and how little that helps 😂

We're talking about one guy here just to be clear 😂

I'm a hoarder, I can't do that 🤡

Dahel is dat

Grandfather 🫠

You have to disclose when using AI and preferably your sources in general. Using a guy who died from cancer and resisted modern medical treatment as evidence against a diet is a horrible line of argumentation. My grandfather died of colorectal cancer at 53 and he ate meat and was fit, smart and wealthy. We know meat is associated with colorectal cancer, but this does not make the case that "nobody can pull off" an omnivorous diet.

Like wut. He could have had severe genetic disposition, environmental stress or toxins.

So if you die, it means your diet is not good? Ok.

@Ramasta9 You've made the claim somewhere (correct me if I'm wrong) that frugivorous eating is more spiritually aligned. I could see how that could be the case. But then you have the immensely energetic kundalini shakti teacher Jan Esmann (RIP) who said if kundalini tells you to eat meat, then do that. Whatever kundalini needs for fuel if you want to awaken kundalini. Then he also died in his mid 60s while overweight and with probable cardiovascular issues (he seemed to have an operative scar in his chest), so sometimes spiritual practice or adeptness might be orthogonal to physicality.

I could see someone going insane after 3 minutes of meditation. Nothing ultimately stops you.

If that's what you want.

Because these are hard things to integrate and hard things to fake. It's hard to fake not being in control of your actions, of viewing yourself from a 3rd person perspective, of your body moving of its own accord. And it's hard to accept not being in control, of not making choices, of not having a life or a future you can decide or want. When there is actually no you and you've seen through identification and it's for real and not some fairytale you're telling yourself, there is no you that can want anything. There is nothing you can do, nothing that can ever be done. You can only be what is eternally present. The words "God", "Love" and "Truth" are glamour words that belie the fact of the Dark Night of the Soul. That you must die for you to be reborn as who you truly are. And that thing has no personal agenda. It does not care about your personal wishes or wants. It is not these things. It is everything. If you have not ran up against the wall of the sheer reality of annihilation of the personal self, forever, for all of eternity. No you, no actions, nothing. Then you are not yet at what is truly True, what is truly Love, what is truly God. Because you are still in the way, projecting shadows on the wall of the cave. To relentlessly go against the light, requires giving up the shadow existence, exiting the comfortable seclusion of the cave and becoming one with the Sun.

Gaining muscles by cutting your program in half and WHILE ON A CUT (lower calories)? I bring to you, Mr. Jeff Nippa: That's a convincing N = 1 empirical argument for why Mr. Mike is delusional and why rather training to failure is optimal for hypertrophy. Now, here's a convincing theoretical argument: It's about providing a clear signal. When you push yourself to failure, your body literally cannot do any more. That is a clear signal for adaptation, which leads to muscle growth. Anything else than that, e.g. "three reps in reserve", means you have to firstly add brakes, and secondly interpret where the zone of adaptation is. And this interpretation gets even more muddy as you add more volume (which is the only way you can drive adapation if not pushing yourself to failure), because the zone of adaptation constantly changes. And those changes tend to be so so small. Three reps in reserve with respect to 15 reps the one day vs 16 reps the next day is not a straightforward mental operation, if it's even possible. With three reps in reserve, what is more likely is that you will choose a level of adaptation you're comfortable at, and you'll stay there largely irrespective of how much volume you add. Because even if you do manage to nail the miniscule increase between 15 vs 16 reps, you would have to nail that for every other set as well for the rest of the exercise, and you should expect that extra effort to be evened out by the next set (because you're seeking a zone of "medium" effort, you are seeking where to pull the brakes, in a body made for minimizing effort and taking the path of least resistance). You have to use the natural tendencies to your advantage: let any and all effort go to pushing the gas pedal, let that become the path of least resistance, let there be no other alternative. Let the body speak, let the mind be silent.