@Leo: About the carnivore diet

[Javfly33]

On 15/09/2024 at 10:18 AM, Schizophonia said:

It doesn't have importance, because the some carnivore foods are better that any vegan food.

That doesn´t make sense... in carnivore diet the animals that you eat they actually had to eat from the plants/soil before.

Veg diet is basically eating from the source directly, instead of eating from the source second-hand. 

Edited September 16 by Javfly33

[Schizophonia]

On 15/09/2024 at 6:31 PM, Emerald said:

You would be wise to look at various studies and meta-analyses to come to any conclusions about what the healthiest diet is for human beings. And if you do, you will find that people tend to live longer when they eat more plants and less saturated fat (which is mostly in animal products).

No

https://www.dovepress.com/total-meat-intake-is-associated-with-life-expectancy-a-cross-sectional-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJGM

On 15/09/2024 at 6:31 PM, Emerald said:

But the "natural diet" is just whatever is edible and available. We could never really pick and choose up until recently. So, anything that we can eat... is natural for us to eat.

You pretend to not understand that this is about the best diet for your body.

On 15/09/2024 at 6:31 PM, Emerald said:

But that doesn't mean that everything is healthy for us to eat... which is a more important consideration when choosing a diet.

Yes. 👍

 

[Schizophonia]

6 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

That doesn´t make sense... in carnivore diet the animals that you eat they actually had to eat from the plants/soil before.

No, herbivorous animals have a metabolism to cope with plant-based diets, by accumulating certain nutrients (for example zinc).
Humans have a metabolism to cope with an omnivorous diet, and therefore have a lower capacity to accumulate zinc, because it is useless (like vitamin C for example), and metabolic processes that are unnecessary in a context end up being blunted or even eliminated.
So, if a human does not eat meat, he will be deficient in zinc for ideal health.
This does not mean that plants do not contain zinc, it means that human needs are too high, because of the way we process it.

6 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Veg diet is basically eating from the source directly, instead of eating from the source second-hand. 

I suggest you to be even more direct and eco-friendly, and feed yourself directly on algae and stones.

You can do it homie 👊

[Schizophonia]

On 15/09/2024 at 6:22 PM, Emerald said:

 

Also, the only supplement that vegans need to take is b-12, as that comes from the bacteria that animals ingest when they're eating food that's got dirt on it. And human beings don't eat plants with dirt on them, so we don't get that nutrient. But we don't need to take it daily.

Lol.

No one believes that except for some insane conspiracy theorists like Dr. Barnard or idk who else.

Animals or insects convert cobalt to b12 in some way and accumulate it, we need a lot of it to the point where it's pretty hard to reverse a deficiency and you rationalize that there will be pools of b12 on TRACES OF LAND because there will eventually be bacteria there that can metabolize cobalt.

There comes a time when you have to slow down the cannabis.

On 15/09/2024 at 6:22 PM, Emerald said:

While someone on the carnivore diet would need to supplement daily for Vitamin C, Vitamin K, Calcium, and Manganese as those nutrients are only in minimal amounts in meat and dairy. Not to mention that you'd have literally zero fiber. You'd also have zero carbs... which are the body's preferred fuel source.

I will believe you if you give me examples. 

[Javfly33]

 

58 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

No, herbivorous animals have a metabolism to cope with plant-based diets, by accumulating certain nutrients (for example zinc).
Humans have a metabolism to cope with an omnivorous diet, and therefore have a lower capacity to accumulate zinc, because it is useless (like vitamin C for example), and metabolic processes that are unnecessary in a context end up being blunted or even eliminated.
So, if a human does not eat meat, he will be deficient in zinc for ideal health.
This does not mean that plants do not contain zinc, it means that human needs are too high, because of the way we process it.

I suggest you to be even more direct and eco-friendly, and feed yourself directly on algae and stones.

You can do it homie 👊

@Schizophonia Listen to the guru homie.

Is normal you are a fan of carnivore diet because you are very invested in the macho - testosterone vibe, that´s alright. But don´t project as that being the best diet for a human. 

 

Edited September 16 by Javfly33

[Schizophonia]

48 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

 

@Schizophonia Listen to the guru homie.

Is normal you are a fan of carnivore diet because you are very invested in the macho - testosterone vibe, that´s alright. But don´t project as that being the best diet for a human. 

 

No, i'm attracted to carnivore diet because i love fatty foods and the simplicity of this diet.

Btw i'm not carnivore at all, i eat absolutely what i want while it's still relatively balanced, i'm not interested by restrictives diet. 

[Basman]

Why is exactly is a carnivore diet seemingly so good for people with health issues? Is it because it is easier to digest?

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Basman said:

Why is exactly is a carnivore diet seemingly so good for people with health issues? Is it because it is easier to digest?

Plants can cause a lot of allergies and inflammation problems. Plants contains all kinds of sugars and pesticides.

Plain chicken meat is like the least inflammatory food.

Edited September 16 by Leo Gura

[Joshe]

Tried carnivore for a month. Blood cholesterol skyrocketed. 

Serum cholesterol levels:

Pre-carnivore: 200

1 month on carnivore: 260

3 months after quitting - 190

Lots of butter and eggs though. I couldn't just do straight meat. I was ordering from Butcherbox, which was convenient. 

If I ever try it again, I would have to exclude eggs and butter because the cholesterol impact was too much.

Also, energy levels were shit and it wasn't just from carb depletion acclimation. I've done lots of keto. 

Hard truth I'm learning to accept about myself: The human organism needs satisfying foods for it to be happy. There's no way around this. I cannot trick or force myself to believe otherwise. The food has to be thoroughly enjoyed. Otherwise, there's a great negative energetic impact, which adds up, IME. 

 

[RendHeaven]

5 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

for ideal health.

big key here.

people love to point out that vegan/plant based diets cover all of your needs (other than B12 lol)

but i'm not interested in treading water with my nutrients.

I want to smash the gauge and maximize everything to as close to "ideal"

I don't want acceptable zinc - I want SO MUCH zinc that it threatens my zinc-copper balance, and I have to take excess copper.

Ruminant red meat + organs, eggs, variety of fruits, and clever spot supplementation will take you to the very very top of ideal, while furiously munching leaves and beans will keep you treading water for life (while your hormones plummet + farting the whole time)

[RendHeaven]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

Plain chicken meat is like the least inflammatory food.

Plain beef*

[Emerald]

7 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

No

https://www.dovepress.com/total-meat-intake-is-associated-with-life-expectancy-a-cross-sectional-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-IJGM

You pretend to not understand that this is about the best diet for your body.

Yes. 👍

 

Do you know who funded this study? If studies are funded by the meat and dairy industry, then there could be a conflict of interest. So, you have to be careful.

It seems to me from looking at the link that there's skewed understanding derived from this study... as it is a study of 175 countries to determine if higher meat intake is correlated to higher life-span.

But keep in mind that wealthier more developed countries would have greater access to meat... and thus might show that meat intake is correlated with longer lifespan because those in wealthier countries have a longer lifespan. 

But that doesn't mean that meat intake itself is the cause of a longer life-span. There is just a correlation because the people that live in wealthier countries live longer and have more access to things like meat... but also medicine, sanitation, food in general, etc..

To get a good sense of the actual impact of meat consumption, you'd need to control for the impact of starvation and lack of access to nutrients and resources and other environmental factors by studying people who live in the same region/circumstances with various diets but who have access to all the micro and macronutrients they need as well as a sufficient number of calories.

So, if you only studied people in one region, you could control for the right factors to test the solely for the impacts of meat consumption on health outcomes and all cause mortality without other regional factors skewing the data.

Only then you could get a clearer picture about the impact of meat consumption on the human body... without the interfering factor of starvation in less developed countries with a lack of access to luxury foods like meat... as well as lack of access to sanitation, medicine, etc. 

A more accurate conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that "Regions where people eat more meat are wealthier regions that have a higher life-span because there is access to more and better resources."

But every study and meta-analysis that I've ever looked at, shows that eating more plants and less saturated fat is correlated to less all-cause mortality.

So, Vegan and Mediterranean diets tend to be the most correlated with longevity because there are more plants and less/no red meat and dairy in both of these diets.

Here is a link to a very large meta-analysis that reflects this.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8408672/

And this meta-analysis cross-references 11, 547 studies.

Here's a quote from the meta-analysis...

"Several articles (5 of 25 [20%]) reported that the dietary patterns associated with significantly higher ACM risk (and/or shorter survival129,130,133,135,148) emphasized the following commonalities: higher intake of (1) meat and meat products such as beef, pork, sausage133; red meat and meat products130; red meat and processed meats135; fresh and processed meats and seafood148; (2) high-fat dairy products such as ice cream, cheese, and whole milk129; and/or (3) refined grains130,135 or flour-based foods such as pastries133 and/or sweets and desserts133,135,148 such as cake, cookies, chocolate, and candy129; as well as lower intake of (4) low-fat dairy products, rice and pasta, fruits, fish and other seafood, and dark green vegetables.129"

Edited Tuesday at 12:37 AM by Emerald

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Lol.

No one believes that except for some insane conspiracy theorists like Dr. Barnard or idk who else.

Animals or insects convert cobalt to b12 in some way and accumulate it, we need a lot of it to the point where it's pretty hard to reverse a deficiency and you rationalize that there will be pools of b12 on TRACES OF LAND because there will eventually be bacteria there that can metabolize cobalt.

There comes a time when you have to slow down the cannabis.

I will believe you if you give me examples. 

To get examples, type an all meat diet of 2000-2500 calories into a nutrient tracking app and you will find deficiencies in Vitamin C, Vitamin K, Calcium, Manganese, Fiber, and Carbs. And you can try it with one type of meat... or a variety of different types of meat to get these results.

I use Cronometer, but you can use a nutrient tracking app of your choice. Then, tell me what you find.

But where are your sources about the b-12 Cobalt thing?

Getting enough b-12 is super easy to do as you only need a tiny amount to get a lot more than your daily recommended intake, and quite a few plant-based diet staples tend to come fortified with it... like cereals, plant milk, nutritional yeast.

Also, other animals don't create b-12 within themselves either. They just eat plants or other animals that contain b-12. 

[RendHeaven]

31 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I use Cronometer

Cronometer has a subtle plant-based bias which may blur the truth.

For example with vitamin K, Cronometer only tracks K1 which is commonly found in plants, but it completely neglects K2 (which serves all the same functions as K1) found in animal products.

Cronometer also doesn't account for the lack of bioavailability in plant nutrients. For example it will claim that carrots fulfill your vitamin-A needs, but that assumes your body actually converts all of the beta carotene to retinol successfully (which is highly unlikely). This principle is true of almost every vitamin and mineral as well as ALA and omega-3. I don't care how much flax seeds you are eating, you should count that as 0% omega-3 DHA

Cronometer also doesn't account for phytic acid found in almost all vegetables, which binds to minerals and robs you of nutrients before your body can absorb anything. Eating brown rice with chicken actually yields LESS total nutrients than just eating chicken by itself. But Cronometer won't show that.

Worst of all, Cronometer tells you to get more omega 6 from canola oil when you hover over the info card LOL.

Your point on Manganese and Carbs is legit, which is why I would never recommend pure carnivore to anybody. I eat white rice with my beef.

Vitamin C and Calcium are easily supplemented, and fiber is overrated (I have a 0 fiber diet and I have the best gut health of my entire life, including when I was vegan/vegetarian)

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

Cronometer has a subtle plant-based bias which may blur the truth.

For example with vitamin K, Cronometer only tracks K1 which is commonly found in plants, but it completely neglects K2 (which serves all the same functions as K1) found in animal products.

Cronometer also doesn't account for the lack of bioavailability in plant nutrients. For example it will claim that carrots fulfill your vitamin-A needs, but that assumes your body actually converts all of the beta carotene to retinol successfully (which is highly unlikely). This principle is true of almost every vitamin and mineral as well as ALA and omega-3. I don't care how much flax seeds you are eating, you should count that as 0% omega-3 DHA

Cronometer also doesn't account for phytic acid found in almost all vegetables, which binds to minerals and robs you of nutrients before your body can absorb anything. Eating brown rice with chicken actually yields LESS total nutrients than just eating chicken by itself. But Cronometer won't show that.

Worst of all, Cronometer tells you to get more omega 6 from canola oil when you hover over the info card LOL.

Your point on Manganese and Carbs is legit, which is why I would never recommend pure carnivore to anybody. I eat white rice with my beef.

Vitamin C and Calcium are easily supplemented, and fiber is overrated (I have a 0 fiber diet and I have the best gut health of my entire life, including when I was vegan/vegetarian)

You can enter it into another app if you'd prefer. Then, let me know the results if you do.

But the reason why I was mentioning that the carnivore diet needs supplementing, is because Schizophonia was saying you need so many different supplements on a Vegan diet.

But I was pointing out that the Vegan diet just needs b-12... while the Carvnivore diet has multiple nutrient gaps.

[RendHeaven]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

You can enter it into another app if you'd prefer. Then, let me know the results if you do.

Unfortunately all consumer apps have the same bias.

We would need to contact private, lab-quality facilities to get an accurate reading of our nutrient intakes.

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But the reason why I was mentioning that the carnivore diet needs supplementing, is because Schizophonia was saying you need so many different supplements on a Vegan diet.

But I was pointing out that the Vegan diet just needs b-12... while the Carvnivore diet has multiple nutrient gaps.

I agree that the carnivore diet needs supplementing. Eating only meat is very silly.

I live and advocate for omnivore which is in my opinion the best of both worlds from a nutritional perspective, although I am sensitive to the moral concerns that vegans raise, having been a former vegan. (i.e. what is best from a nutritional perspective may not be the best from a moral perspective)

I'm not convinced at all that vegan diets only need b12.

Due to the bioavailability/conversion issue and the phytic acid issue that I mentioned above, I believe that to truly THRIVE as a vegan you would need literally dozens of pills (no joke).

• Creatine, Taurine, Carnosine, Anserine, Leucine, Iron, Zinc, Omega3 DHA, Vitamin D (sunlight is insufficient esp. in winter), Vitamin K2, choline, etc. I'm just glazing the surface...

... there are many underground functions in the human body served by animal flesh that even if you manage to skate by without adequately addressing all of them, your body is still not actually operating at 100%.

Think Bryan Johnson who may be the only vegan on the planet that is actually approaching 100%... and he takes about 200 pills a day lol. And even then I'm skeptical.

There is some truth to what Schizo is saying. You could live off of beef alone for decades before running into something like scurvy. Whereas there is not a single plant that allows you to live off of it alone. By going the plant route, you are "forced" to eat an enormous variety, which is somewhat telling of the life-sustaining-potential of each food.

I read that you've been vegan for 8 years, and I see that as very impressive and I hope you don't take any of this as an attack on your lifestyle or choices, it's a simple disagreement over nutritional minutia that has no bearing on you as a human (or any vegan individual). I'm rooting for your prolonged success

[Emerald]

21 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

Unfortunately all consumer apps have the same bias.

We would need to contact private, lab-quality facilities to get an accurate reading of our nutrient intakes.

I agree that the carnivore diet needs supplementing. Eating only meat is very silly.

I live and advocate for omnivore which is in my opinion the best of both worlds from a nutritional perspective, although I am sensitive to the moral concerns that vegans raise, having been a former vegan. (i.e. what is best from a nutritional perspective may not be the best from a moral perspective)

I'm not convinced at all that vegan diets only need b12.

Due to the bioavailability/conversion issue and the phytic acid issue that I mentioned above, I believe that to truly THRIVE as a vegan you would need literally dozens of pills (no joke).

• Creatine, Taurine, Carnosine, Anserine, Leucine, Iron, Zinc, Omega3 DHA, Vitamin D (sunlight is insufficient esp. in winter), Vitamin K2, choline, etc. I'm just glazing the surface...

... there are many underground functions in the human body served by animal flesh that even if you manage to skate by without adequately addressing all of them, your body is still not actually operating at 100%.

Think Bryan Johnson who may be the only vegan on the planet that is actually approaching 100%... and he takes about 200 pills a day lol. And even then I'm skeptical.

There is some truth to what Schizo is saying. You could live off of beef alone for decades before running into something like scurvy. Whereas there is not a single plant that allows you to live off of it alone. By going the plant route, you are "forced" to eat an enormous variety, which is somewhat telling of the life-sustaining-potential of each food.

I read that you've been vegan for 8 years, and I see that as very impressive and I hope you don't take any of this as an attack on your lifestyle or choices, it's a simple disagreement over nutritional minutia that has no bearing on you as a human (or any vegan individual). I'm rooting for your prolonged success

Do you have peer-reviewed sources that back up any of these claims around lack of bio-availability of nutrients in plants to the point where you must supplement all these nutrients on a Vegan diet? Or are these just things you've heard from people advocating for a keto or carnivore diet?

And do you have any reputable sources that reflect the bias in ALL the nutrition tracking apps? Or is that just a way that keto and carnivore influencers tend to explain away the nutritional gaps on these diets?

I'm asking because it sounds like these are pieces of information deliberately crafted and selected as counter-points to nullify and explain away all the scientific studies that show positive results for plant-based diets health-wise.

Also, it isn't difficult to get all the nutrients you need (except b-12) on a whole food plant-based diet... and the WHO even states that people at any phase of life can meet all of their nutrient needs on a plant-based diets as long as they supplement b-12.

And (even though you don't believe in these) I do sometimes track my nutrient intake on apps, and I can meet all my requirements in terms of macro and micro nutrients in 1500 calories if I make sure to incorporate nutrient dense foods like potatoes, beans, walnuts, broccoli, etc.. And it's super easy to do if I eat 2000 calories which is about average for a woman of my height and size.

Also, the fact that Bryan Johnson has chosen a plant based diet should indicate something about plant-based diets given his goals to extend his life-span using the most scientifically substantiated means.

I don't resonate with his goal. But there's a reason why he's not eating an omnivorous diet, and that's because it's associated with shorter life-expectancy and higher risk of all-cause mortality than plant-based diets in a variety of studies that have been cross-referenced in meta-analyses. 

But I haven't been Vegan for the past 8 years. I haven't eaten meat in 8 years. But there have been a few times that I got lazy and eroded my ethical boundaries and started eating dairy again for a couple months here and there. But I am Vegan and have been Vegan for most of the 8 years.

[RendHeaven]

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Do you have peer-reviewed sources that back up any of these claims around lack of bio-availability of nutrients in plants to the point where you must supplement all these nutrients on a Vegan diet?

This is standard knowledge and should not be controversial.

https://poe.com/s/LVYP2yXA7bDFVYmDwxHj

Even plant-based advocates and scientists must acknowledge that their plants contain inferior nutrients relative to animals.

They just bypass this hiccup by asserting that the benefits of plant based eating outweighs the negatives, and you can see the AI goes this route in its final comment (which is up for debate, and I clearly don't agree with this final conclusion, but to each their own)

26 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Or are these just things you've heard from people advocating for a keto or carnivore diet?

Basically all online diet advocates have their blind spots, vegans and carnivores alike.

The guy who has the closest paradigm to me is Paul Saladino who recommends a red meat + organs + fruit diet (Paul admittedly has a bad rep on this forum because Michael, our resident health authority, maintains a fierce skepticism towards him) but that similarity in thinking is a happy coincidence - I've learned everything I know about nutrition from in-person mentors, and at this point I would believe what I believe even if the whole internet disagreed.

31 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And do you have any reputable sources that reflect the bias in ALL the nutrition tracking apps?

You can fairly easily scout out the bias yourself without leaning on "reputable sources" (as if there's going to be a monolithic resource that exposes the whole nutrition industry - who would ever allow that source to see the light of day?), you'll have to do a bit of manual digging.

For example notice how cronometer will pretend that flax seeds will cover all of your omega-3 needs (I urge you to type in 1 tbsp flaxseeds into your daily journal and notice the green bar for omega 3s at 100%+), and then do independent research into ALA (the compound found in flaxseeds) to DHA (the compound you actually need) conversion and it will become quickly apparent that cronometer is presenting you with a deceptive, misleading picture of your actual omega 3 absorption.

from what I've encountered, all nutrition apps and sites have this problem.

38 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Or is that just a way that keto and carnivore influencers

Most influencers are not scrutinizing at this level, but if they are, I would be curious to trace their work and verify it for myself before assuming malpractice.

39 minutes ago, Emerald said:

I'm asking because it sounds like these are pieces of information deliberately crafted and selected as counter-points to nullify and explain away all the scientific studies that show positive results for plant-based diets health-wise.

Plant based diets can be healthy, and they do have tremendous benefits relative to the standard american diet (which is 90% of modern western humans).

So there is definitely merit there which I do not mean to dismiss.

My only arugment here is that dismissing meat and going all-in on plants is not necessarily the highest paradigm from a strict health perspective, and that in fact, meat/animal products are rather essential for peak performance/biohacking (admittedly peak performance is my bias).

48 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And (even though you don't believe in these) I do sometimes track my nutrient intake on apps, and I can meet all my requirements in terms of macro and micro nutrients in 1500 calories if I make sure to incorporate nutrient dense foods like potatoes, beans, walnuts, broccoli, etc.. And it's super easy to do if I eat 2000 calories which is about average for a woman of my height and size.

Out of curiosity, what's your main dietary fat source?

51 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But there's a reason why he's not eating an omnivorous diet, and that's because it's associated with shorter life-expectancy and higher risk of all-cause mortality than plant-based diets in a variety of studies that have been cross-referenced in meta-analyses. 

I believe this association is a premature epistemic jumping to conclusions. All these decades of cross-referencing and meta-analyses use a broken population as its building bricks.

This will sound obnoxious, but I don't know how else to put it - There simply aren't sufficient examples of people like me, who take every possible precaution to maximize health whilst celebrating red meat daily. My lifestyle and habits are a tiny blip in the sea of degenerate, reckless meat eaters and health conscious, self-aware vegetable eaters.

In essence, the concept of "health" is an echo chamber, so everyone either gets polarized into mindfully eating Mediterranean/plant based diet VS being a reckless beer-chugging soda drinking meat-eater with french fries, and this causes a cascading snowball effect where we find more positive outcomes associated with plant eating based on this initial assumptive-split that was made over half a century ago.

I see this demonization of (red) meat and pedestalization of vegetables as the most epic self-fulfilling prophecy of all time, and nobody realizes that anything is wrong because indeed eating plant based is SIGNIFICANTLY better than being an unconscious average person in a western developed country!

...except nobody considers the possibility of stacking every healthy habit imaginable with daily red meat consumption. No study-able cohort adopts this lifestyle at scale for years, and so plant based eating becomes an artificial consensus ceiling.

What we must study is: young men and women in their 20s who eat primarily red meat every single day, but also eat carefully curated plants and supplements; are not addicted to any substances (no caffeine no alcohol no drugs) or screens (no social media consumption, no porn); go outside and have a thriving social circle and dating life; engage in mindfulness, contemplation, self-reflection, time in nature, time in solitude, and exercise hard every single day and get 8-9 hours of perfect uninterrupted sleep every night. These people also avoid chemical cosmetics and personal care products, synthetic clothing and detergent, tap water and dish soap; they move to the country side where the air quality is less polluted, they avoid all plastics, and store and cook everything in glass or metal; they avoid as much EMF radiation and inappropriate blue light as possible; they feel absolute freedom and flow coursing through them at every moment of every day. They have 0 negative thoughts and 0 anxieties. They embrace death. They are philosophers and sages and leaders and lovers - and eventually mothers and fathers. Then study this group of people for 60 years until they're in their 80s. If we studied 10,000 such people, I promise there would be a paradigm-shattering, outrageous level of excellence and health from this community that all notions of "meat is bad" is rendered obsolete into laughingstock pseudoscience.

A scholar reading my hypothesis here might laugh at (what he perceives to be) my naivete, because according to Mr. scholar, the people I'm describing must be bound to die of heart attacks and cancer and god knows what else. But I honestly and seriously challenge that assumption, because my mind is free of echo chamber limitations. I assert that not only will these people NOT die of horrible diseases, but they will THRIVE with boundless, never seen before, unimaginable energies and gifts well into old age. I would wish for nothing more than to bet my life, roll the dice, and see the outcomes firsthand of this experiment that I am proposing.

But you see, nobody lives like this. No influencer, no follower; nobody. Everyone is IMPAIRED in some way, through habit or ideology. I just spent a paragraph describing nobody, because the very few people who share my ideals are themselves struggling to piece together all the moving parts, and frankly the bar I've painted is pretty damn high. Even I don't fully live up to the image I just described (I'm about 80% there, which is more than enough), but I set the stage in such a way so that at the end of this hypothetical experiment, there will be no doubt that either red meat is bad or not.

To make this actually rigorous, we could even have vegans living in the same community where they share all the same habits for 60 years with the exception of meat eating. Then we will have truly isolated the variable of red meat! ...haha yeah, as if. You see how impractical this whole thing is? This study will never happen; in fact this community will never exist.

Which is precisely why no health-conscious person believes in daily red meat consumption. After all, what's the difference between something being ACTUALLY bad vs something being PERCEIVED as bad? In actuality, you avoid both, and so "actual" and "perceived" is collapsed into a singular indistinguishable thing.

In some ways, the more scientific and grounded your mind is, the worse off you are in this debate, because you will prioritize safety and stick to "what we know" over pushing the ante and forging into the unknown.

It takes a truly free person (or an idiot) to say "I love health. I feel really really good eating red meat. let me do this forever, even if it kills me. Show me the truth. I AM the experiment."

And here's the kicker - even if I live a long and happy life eating red meat every day (which I will), people will still find a way to relegate my story as being a fluke, because they are so cognitively biased against meat without having spent any time disentangling from social matrix/consensus, much less trying the thing for themselves.

It's like psychedelic skeptics who say that aya ceremonies are hallucinations in the brain and you're the crazy one for seeing something that they don't and they burden you with the proof of showing THEM an official study before they accept your premise... it's totally absurd. Not only is the study physically impossible to conduct; but even if we somehow did, the scientific skeptic would still find a way to dismiss you.

To access the truth, the skeptic must cross over into the event horizon of self-annihilation, where he says "fuck it lemme eat beef every day for 3 years and see what happens" - but the smarter he is, the more he will resist hahaha. And then he will spin a story about how how discerning and wise he is for avoiding the beef, or psychedelics, or whatever shadow he dares not explore.

To anybody reading this, don't believe anything I wrote (but don't fight it either). Notice how I'm right; notice how I'm wrong; notice how you disagree with me; notice how you agree with me; notice that nobody - you, me, and scientists included - knows anything really; and notice what a vulnerable, beautiful predicament that is.

[aurum]

1 hour ago, RendHeaven said:

What we must study is: young men and women in their 20s who eat primarily red meat every single day, but also eat carefully curated plants and supplements; are not addicted to any substances (no caffeine no alcohol no drugs) or screens (no social media consumption, no porn); go outside and have a thriving social circle and dating life; engage in mindfulness, contemplation, self-reflection, time in nature, time in solitude, and exercise hard every single day and get 8-9 hours of perfect uninterrupted sleep every night. These people also avoid chemical cosmetics and personal care products, synthetic clothing and detergent, tap water and dish soap; they move to the country side where the air quality is less polluted, they avoid all plastics, and store and cook everything in glass or metal; they avoid as much EMF radiation and inappropriate blue light as possible; they feel absolute freedom and flow coursing through them at every moment of every day. They have 0 negative thoughts and 0 anxieties. They embrace death. They are philosophers and sages and leaders and lovers - and eventually mothers and fathers. Then study this group of people for 60 years until they're in their 80s. If we studied 10,000 such people, I promise there would be a paradigm-shattering, outrageous level of excellence and health from this community that all notions of "meat is bad" is rendered obsolete into laughingstock pseudoscience.

It's a fair point. But this argument kind of works against meat as well.

If you have to do all that just so meat isn't detrimental to your health, then you're probably better off just not eating meat. Because you know no one is going to do that.

You might as well say "if someone lived in a perfect health bubble, then meat wouldn't negatively impact their health". Well yeah. But they don't, they live in a world with suboptimal health conditions. So they have to eat accordingly.

And I could flip this same argument you just made, but in favor of veganism. If the vegans did everything you described, how do you know they would get significantly worse results than the meat-eating group? In which case you could just as easily be vegan, and you're really only eating meat because you want to.

Edited Tuesday at 06:31 AM by aurum

[RendHeaven]

2 hours ago, aurum said:

If the vegans did everything you described, how do you know they would get significantly worse results than the meat-eating group?

Simple: personal experience + cross referencing anecdotes between intelligent, high-functioning people who embody a vitality which you aspire to (I do NOT trust random compiled surveys of the masses)

I was vegan/vegetarian for over a year and it destroyed me (I followed recommended supplement protocols thoroughly, I am autistic about covering all bases. I slipped into vegetarianism when the veganism rapidly began to deteriorate my physical and mental state).

I later reintroduced fish, then chicken, and then finally beef (as if to say that the lives of fish don't count as much, lol... such emotional bias). But I was still under the impression that veggies were good for you, so I was steaming broccoli and spinach with every meal and chugging green smoothies and eating fistfuls of nuts LOL. Good times.

And then I was introduced to higher paradigms from my now best friend and mentor: I cut out the vegetables, the soy, the oats, the nuts, the spices, and this and that, until I literally only ate 4 foods (grass fed beef, white rice, eggs, and pomegranate juice) - and this is my precise diet to this day, and I am the happiest, strongest, sharpest, and most energized that I have ever been.

But how do I know it's not placebo? Well I can't know for sure, but the difference is actually obnoxious and you guys absolutely won't believe me and I understand.

• My chronic, debilitating bloating went away
• I stopped farting almost entirely
• All my allergies went away
• my eczema went away
• my acne went away
• I gained 20 pounds of muscle (my diet enabled me to massively spike my training volume)
• my erections are ridiculous
• my bloodwork got better
• my anxiety is completely gone
• my sleep is perfect
• caffeine literally doesn't work on me because that "buzz" is my waking baseline
• Most importantly I have 0 junk food cravings EVER. I have authentically not craved anything in years, and this is a "feat" that is impossible to fake. No amount of willpower would have overcome the craving demons I used to struggle with back when I was plant-based, but this diet allows me to de-materialize all of that drama.

Even after 3 years, I never get tired of eating these 4 foods. If anything, I crave my next meal of beef, rice, and eggs with pomegranate juice.

And so to double check that i'm not just psychologically tricking myself, I have tried going back to the plant based lifestyle as an experiment, and by god is it a dark place for me, I notice all of the benefits unraveling.

I am so sold on my 4 staple foods (and the absence of other BS) that I would rather eat the way I eat now and die at age 50 then go back to my old way of eating and live until 90. Well, the good news is I'll live long AND enjoy the foods I eat, so there's actually no conflict.

"But how do you know that's not just unique to you? What works for you might not work for others!"

Actually all of my friends are now on a rough variant of this diet, and they report identical benefits (if not more). Obviously I'm not saying everyone should only eat MY FOUR FOODS, but rather that beef should be the centerpiece of your diet, and generally you can build whatever other whole foods you want around that core.

"But aren't you conflating short term benefits with long term benefits? Maybe eating meat is good for you now, but it's going to kill you later on!"

Not at all. You're actually invoking a torrent of deception in assuming this, but then you ask ME for proof that I WONT DIE and we can either go down a mechanistic rabbit whole (which you won't accept as proof, because you have put all your faith in human outcome studies, which I have 0 faith in, and so we will end up talking past one another) or I can simply say "just watch me bro" and that will leave you deeply unsatisfied because you will feel like I'm dodging the quest you've given me to PROVE that meat is not harmful long term, but I've already written an entire essay on this point, which is that there simply is no study for this, and you asking me to prove the innocence of meat pre-assumes that meat is guilty, which I am saying was never a real conclusion. So thus we're at a stalemate where I eat meat every day and you observe me from afar skeptically. But that's OK because I'm having a blast and I promise I'll blow your mind with my vitality in old age.

2 hours ago, aurum said:

If you have to do all that just so meat isn't detrimental to your health, then you're probably better off just not eating meat.

Ok but here's the thing, i'm not concerned at all about proving bad or not bad.

I KNOW that meat is good, and that's simply the case in my world. We must not operate in the same reality.

You seem to be waiting for permission from the outside to verify the status of meat before you have confidence in its consumption.

I am perfectly happy to enjoy meat for the rest of my life, with pure faith that what I am doing is optimal for my goals.

I don't need any studies; y'all do.

2 hours ago, aurum said:

And I could flip this same argument you just made, but in favor of veganism.

You actually can't. Because if a vegan tried eating (any faithful variant of) my diet and actually stuck to it long term, they wouldn't be able to go back.

So it's not an anarchistic free-for-all where any diet can end up being optimal. There actually IS a "right answer" to the question of optimal nutrition, but the only way to uncover this answer in our current stalemate is for every skeptic to try my damn diet + lifestyle and to personally begin enjoying meat in the "perfect health bubble"

"But if what you're saying is optimal, surely the science would agree with you."

NO! It wouldn't! That's my only point here, lol.

Edited Tuesday at 08:34 AM by RendHeaven