@Leo: About the carnivore diet

[Basman]

Seems like meat vs vegan diets sparks so much debate because of people different world views that inform their diets in the first place. Its not crazy to think that different diets work for different people. Vegans in particular need to chill out.

Its pretty clear that humans are omnivores and benefit from a variety of different foods, both animal and plant based. It is just that the path of least resistance for many people is a relatively unhealthy diet of processed foods.

[Javfly33]

anti veg people will have a stroke when they realize hemp or sesame seed protein is superior and more bio-available than animal protein 🤣

But hey, humans need meat and eggs if not you die they say 😂😂

Edited Tuesday at 03:25 PM by Javfly33

[aurum]

9 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

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

Well you seem to have found a diet that works for you. Indeed, I actually eat fairly similar to you and find myself doing very well. Despite all the meat I eat, even my lipid panel shows no issues. My last doctor chalked it up to genetics, so I am skeptical of people who paint a simplistic picture of meat = bad health.

At the same time, I'm also skeptical of extrapolating my personal experience into a generalized theory of nutrition.

For instance, I have a food intolerance to eggs. If I ate a single egg I would be rolling around the floor in agony for god knows how long. And I also didn't get even 1/10 of the problems you seemed to have on a vegan diet.

So now what? How much should I assume my personal experience is generalizable, especially when you can find anecdotes with seemingly similar results for any diet?

This of course is why you need to do studies.

9 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

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)

But why do you have faith in mechanistic studies and not human outcome studies? Especially when we know mechanistic studies are notoriously bad at translating to actual results in humans? Don't you need the human studies to really say anything conclusive? 

9 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

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.

This is a hunch on your part. Which is fine, but you can't corroborate it with any kind of data.

What if humans genetically engineer a food one day that is superior to meat? Maybe it will be the other way around. 

9 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

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 how do you know you've arrived at that answer? And why should anyone take that strategy seriously when you don't have the science to back it up and they have to change their entire life?

[8Ball]

Damn. I just wanted an update from Leo. This turned into a civil war.

What the hell. Let's pour some more gasoline to the fire. Like Leo said, plant foods can lead to all sorts of issues. Not only that, but vegetables contain a lot of defense chemicals to protect itself and some plants contain hundreds of known carcinogens.

With that being said. What YOU have to think about is what's causing inflammation in your body. If you're perfectly healthy and fine then you can probably tolerate a lot of foods and you should only be concerned with eating clean and healthy. But if you have autoimmune issues, say skin problems and/or gut related issues, you should seriously start with an animal based diet and see how that shit most certainly will improve the quality of your fucking life. Then introduce plant foods and be aware of what's going on in your body.

Edited Tuesday at 06:11 PM by 8Ball

[Rigel]

3 hours ago, 8Ball said:

 But if you have autoimmune issues, say skin problems and/or gut related issues, you should seriously start with an animal based diet and see how that shit most certainly will improve the quality of your fucking life. Then introduce plant foods and be aware of what's going on in your body.

Any elimination diet can do that. Food is more complicated than plant vs meat.

It depends. People tend to want other people to adopt the same lifestyle as them cause they tend to fool themselves into thinking they know everything & what works for them will work for everyone.

[RendHeaven]

4 hours ago, aurum said:

Indeed, I actually eat fairly similar to you and find myself doing very well.

Fire. I appreciate the devil's advocate stance

4 hours ago, aurum said:

For instance, I have a food intolerance to eggs. If I ate a single egg I would be rolling around the floor in agony for god knows how long.

Right, and I can't eat anything dairy-related for the life of me (not even butter or whey). Most of my friends that I look up to drink milk.

So there are idiosyncrasies, but I guarantee there is a general trend that incorporating red meat into your daily diet and not eating exclusively plants will yield better visceral outcomes short-term; and as long as auxiliary chemicals and toxins are avoided, no long-term problems will occur either.

4 hours ago, aurum said:

So now what? How much should I assume my personal experience is generalizable, especially when you can find anecdotes with seemingly similar results for any diet?

This of course is why you need to do studies.

4 hours ago, aurum said:

Don't you need the human studies to really say anything conclusive? 

Ok but now we've circled back to the beginning and we're about to talk past each other again (simply because we have different epistemologies and expectations, which is totally cool because I think you're awesome. I'm just pointing out the incompatibility in thought-streams)

As I've said ad nauseam now, you cannot truly extrapolate ANYTHING from a study where the WHOLE POPULATION IS POISONED and drowning in bad habits.

The entirety of nutrition science right now is brilliant at telling you how to be the safest within the unconscious masses (eat primarily plants, lower saturated fat, eat plenty of fiber, etc etc etc). That's strictly and technically what you get. Safety relative to a poisoned population.

Nothing of nutrition science right now gives you any insight into ascending to super human function. I'm talking about a completely different playing field - a categorical gap that doesn't translate well when I'm trying to share text with strangers. You'll have to go gym or meditation or hiking with me and my friends to really be floored lol.

I will not trust any study to accurately describe my personal physiological ceiling until they manage to track thousands of health-maxing meat eaters at scale - and this is physically impossible as of 2024.

"So now what?"

Obvious! Either grow the curiosity and guts to experiment with yourself; or fall into line and eat mediterranean (which is not too bad - for me it gave me bloating and eczema and acne and cravings and kept my testosterone low though LOL, but I would happily recommend med over what 90% of the population is up to. CERTAINLY better than french fries and sodas)

You mentioned "you can find anecdotes with seemingly similar results for any diet" but I strongly disagree. No vegan has even 1/10th of my benefits, and there's really no way to prove that other than to go find a vegan and begin a dick measuring contest, which has bad optics and lacks compassion, so I'm not really a fan of that.

But to anybody reading this who thinks I'm full of BS and you want to directly compare stats (bloodwork, physique, concentration levels, whatever) hit me up.

5 hours ago, aurum said:

This is a hunch on your part. Which is fine, but you can't corroborate it with any kind of data.

This is correct.

And that is the necessary state of any discussion regarding optimal human nutrition. THERE IS NO DATA FOR THIS. It's the "wild west," still yet to be traversed or mapped.

I am willing to completely reconfigure my worldview if I find even 1 example of someone going on my meat diet with my bubble of healthy habits, and they actually REGRESS or derive negative benefits.

And I'm actually eager to be shown wrong (IN A TANGIBLE N=1 TRIAL) but it's basically impossible to find candidates, because it's a massive ask for someone to completely overhaul all of their habits and preferences just to test my silly hypothesis. Therefore atm it's just my ring of friends and we are in a way building our own echo chamber, but we are open to being SHOWN wrong (not "proven" wrong, but SHOWN)

5 hours ago, aurum said:

What if humans genetically engineer a food one day that is superior to meat? Maybe it will be the other way around. 

If I see this with my own eyes, I will be first in line to champion it, and then I will be spamming forum essays at meat eaters who will accuse me of not having sufficient data or over-extrapolating lolol

5 hours ago, aurum said:

But how do you know you've arrived at that answer?

I am very open to a higher paradigm. Haven't seen it yet. If I find it I will be scrap everything I know in a heartbeat and champion the better thing. But I've been loyal to my current ways for 3 years now, and the guys I've learned all of this from have been doing it for 10+ years and I see no reason to be worried for longevity.

It feels a bit like Leo's "pre rational, rational, and trans rational" stages.

Consensus nutritional science is basically the rational stage.

I believe I have discovered the trans rational, and I am attempting to share it, but then I get mocked for not playing by the rules of the rational, and I get dismissed as pre rational.

But I know I am not pre rational, because I have played the game of rational already. I've gone through the whole plant-based gauntlet. I grew up in a Japanese household eating my mother's home cooked tofu + miso soup + fish + rice + salad combo every day. I'm basically built on the Mediterranean diet and I suffered for it. I can spell out the consensus paradigm - i.e. I am able to talk about the importance of lowering ApoB and getting adequate fiber for gut microbiome and all of the meta-associations between red meat and negative health outcomes, and I float just beyond all of that because I see how limiting it is.

But from the rational/consensus stage, what I am calling the "trans rational" looks almost insulting and childish, because I am advocating for heavy red meat consumption, which is something that the pre rational might also be doing. So it looks like decadence and decay and backsliding from within the rational stage. But the rational is not meta-cognitive enough to consider that maybe meat was never the problem to begin with, but rather the CONTEXT WITHIN WHICH MEAT CONSUMPTION WAS BEING MEASURED was the problem. And so pre rational and trans rational both enjoy meat, but the context (and thus results) are wildly different. But the rational is narrowly stuck on the meat itself.

5 hours ago, aurum said:

And why should anyone take that strategy seriously when you don't have the science to back it up and they have to change their entire life?

Generally, they shouldn't.

Most people will cap out at the rational/consensus/Mediterranean stage because it is perceived safest.

To move beyond takes a (seemingly) risky leap of faith. So usually it is only people in deep suffering who will make it all the way. i.e. people who do everything correctly within the rational stage, but then they get punished for it (autoimmune diseases, etc). And out of desperation they will take that leap and end up vaguely near my diet, eating lots of red meat (think: jordan peterson - although even he is not optimal because he is missing carbs but that's another conversation)

Therefore my goal here is not to convince anybody of anything, but rather to share what I've discovered and at the very least open people's minds to further possibilities (I'm not interested in physically changing people, I'm interested in expanding the window of conversation)

[RendHeaven]

2 hours ago, Rigel said:

cause they tend to fool themselves into thinking they know everything & what works for them will work for everyone.

and really intelligent people tend to fool themselves into thinking that what works for everyone will work for them

[RendHeaven]

5 hours ago, 8Ball said:

This turned into a civil war.

*Lit intellectual banter ; )

[Emerald]

20 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

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)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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.

Despite some plants having anti-nutrients, there doesn't seem to be evidence suggesting the those who eat plant based diets are deficient in nutrients.

Though I'm open to any reputable sources and studies that suggest nutrient deficiencies. But if that were the case, I don't know if the WHO would give plant-based diets their seal of approval as they have if Vegan diets were frequently nutrient deficient.

But the meta-analysis (with over 11,000 studies considered and cross-referenced) shows that consuming meat is correlated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality compared to those who eat a plant-based diet. And that same result keeps being repeated in newer studies as well. 

And even diets that minimize animal product consumption, like the Mediterranean diet, tend to be associated with more longevity.

So, given that there's 11,000+ studies considered in this meta-analysis, I don't see how you can discount ALL of the findings of these studies out of hand.

I suppose the main thing that we disagree on is that you tend to look at more anecdotal personal evidence like how you feel to determine the health of a diet. And you trust that if meat makes you feel good now, that it is good for you. And you don't trust the current scientific research, despite how much of it there is.

But I tend to look at the studies and meta-analyses (which are conglomerations of a variety of studies) as a better litmus test for health outcomes longevity.

And if we disagree on the underlying principle that the scientific consensus is more accurate than personal anecdotes, then we simply aren't going to agree.

Also the reality is that, even if you did hypothetically find that Vegans were generally deficient in some nutrients (which there isn't evidence of to my knowledge), the plant diet is associated with fewer instances of high ldl cholesterol, heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, etc.

And heart disease is the number one cause of death in America.

But nutrient deficiency isn't a common cause of death at all as long as you're getting enough calories.

So, if you're looking for a long life... a whole food plant-based diet seems to be your best best based off of the current scientific literature.

But there's a possibility that eating lots of red meat could make you stronger in the short term (which I don't know if that's been studied or not), but might shave some years or decades off your life.

So, if that's the case... and you're here for a good time, rather than a long time... that's a decision someone could make to sacrifice the length of their life for how they feel in the short term eating red meat.

But I want to make it to 100! So, I'll stay away from the meat.

Now, in terms of your question about fat sources... when I actually focus on health and eat a Whole Food Plant Based diet, I tend to have Walnuts as my go-to for Omega-3s and Omega-6s because I only have to eat a handful to give me enough to meet my needs for both of these nutrients. But I also do flax seeds, hemp seeds, or chia seeds sometimes though those don't have a ton of Omega-6.

[aurum]

3 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

As I've said ad nauseam now, you cannot truly extrapolate ANYTHING from a study where the WHOLE POPULATION IS POISONED and drowning in bad habits.

I get your point, but how far do you take this?

If we can't extrapolate anything from human outcome studies, we might as well throw out vaccines, pharmaceuticals, physical therapy and all the other myriad forms of healthcare that is based on those.

Or do you believe there is something unique about the inefficacy of nutritional studies?

3 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Nothing of nutrition science right now gives you any insight into ascending to super human function. I'm talking about a completely different playing field - a categorical gap that doesn't translate well when I'm trying to share text with strangers. You'll have to go gym or meditation or hiking with me and my friends to really be floored lol.

"Super human function" seems like a pretty bold claim.

If you really think you're onto something, I would like to know about it. But don't mind me if I raise an eyebrow in the meantime. 

[RendHeaven]

4 hours ago, Emerald said:

And if we disagree on the underlying principle that the scientific consensus is more accurate than personal anecdotes, then we simply aren't going to agree.

@Emerald Seems so. And I completely understand and respect your position.

By the way, I re-read your first aya ceremony report from 2020 and it nearly brought me to tears.

You really are a gem.

I once received a little keychain that read: "don't underestimate the difference you made and the lives you touched"

I'd like to forward that to you : )

4 hours ago, Emerald said:

Now, in terms of your question about fat sources... when I actually focus on health and eat a Whole Food Plant Based diet, I tend to have Walnuts as my go-to for Omega-3s and Omega-6s because I only have to eat a handful to give me enough to meet my needs for both of these nutrients. But I also do flax seeds, hemp seeds, or chia seeds sometimes though those don't have a ton of Omega-6.

Sweet. I highly recommend macadamia nuts as well.

[LoseYourvelf]

We're talking real veganism, not the weak willed bullshit, some minor supplementation isn't making anyone fat/libido-less come on, how many vegans are out there thriving while u type this. The thing is it's truly possible to be that absolute fucking goat on a vegan diet and have great sex with beautiful people, you're probably just not ready to say you want to eat animals just to kill them and eat them and taste them mercilessly which most none vegans actually are in touch with

[RendHeaven]

3 hours ago, aurum said:

I get your point, but how far do you take this?

If we can't extrapolate anything from human outcome studies, we might as well throw out vaccines, pharmaceuticals, physical therapy and all the other myriad forms of healthcare that is based on those.

Or do you believe there is something unique about the inefficacy of nutritional studies?

Good contention.

the unique inefficacy of nutritional studies is the impossibility of truly isolating for the subtle effects of each individual food group in a well executed intervention.

With a pharmaceutical or a vaccine, you can track results for control group vs placebo group vs interventional group, and the results are usually acute (meaning they don't take months or years of tracking to manifest)

When we're asking if meat really gives you cancer or not, you can't control everything that someone puts in their mouth (not even for a day) much less for months and years. You can't match diets perfectly to isolate groups into "no meat" and "placebo meat" and "real meat" - all else being equal.

Also, meat is not one monolithic thing. Even "red meat" is not specific enough. For example I champion beef, but avoid pork like the plague. But this distinction is of course lost on all studies. The typical beef eater is also a pork eater, so the two get lumped together as "red meat" in the eyes of researchers (even worse, red meat is further lumped together with processed/preserved meats like bacon, ham, sausage, salami).

Rarely, you have a high quality interventional study that actually attempts to control every food variable for a long period of time. And if the study group is significantly large enough, we call this a trustworthy nutrition study and parrot the findings as dietary truth.

But even then I have low faith in such schemes. For example, I don't know the PMID but apparently there are studies showing that higher PUFA = more cardioprotective benefits. Seed oil defenders love to bring this one up. And apparently it's a high quality interventional study where all variables are accounted for with proper isolation. And yet even this study has its glaring blind spot, which is that "their low PUFA group" still has overwhelmingly high PUFA by ancestral standards! So when they claim to compare "low PUFA diets VS high PUFA diets" they are in fact comparing "high PUFA diets VS ultra high PUFA diets" and not a single person in that study has ever even seen what a low PUFA human looks like.

The rules of the game change for a low-PUFA human. And the results and ramifications are completely uncharted.

Which is why I stress the consumption of beef (rather than pork or chicken or fish). It's not just that I am mindlessly eating whatever meat feels good; I am honing a concentrated effort to reduce my PUFA as much as reasonably possible, without diminishing any auxiliary benefits (hence why I still eat eggs)

Thus nutritional studies are helpful, but they are not the end-all be-all. Understand the context in which the study is being conducted. Be discerning as to whether or not the findings apply to YOU.

In our lifetime, we will see more low-PUFA red-meat health champions come out of the woodworks. Eventually (may take decades, sadly) these people, including me, will be studied, and a whole new paradigm will blossom.

Or not. Because modern nutritional science is not interested in admitting that maybe unprocessed grass fed beef is actually divinely healthy LOL.

There's actually a massive epistemic gravitational pull to keep the status quo in lock. There are simply too many institutions benefiting from the plant-based narrative and the cultural zeitgeist of "green = health." As in - literally the color green has a consensus association that is being leveraged by health institutions and marketing efforts and identities across the globe. Imagine unraveling or usurping all of that with a fucking steak - it may never happen.

4 hours ago, aurum said:

If you really think you're onto something, I would like to know about it. But don't mind me if I raise an eyebrow in the meantime. 

The eyebrow raise is expected and healthy.

I've already spelled out my diet to a T in both this thread and other threads;

I've spelled out every major benefit in bullet points, as well as time frame, as well as auxiliary habits and goals:

On 9/17/2024 at 1:50 PM, RendHeaven said:

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.

Let me know if you have any specific questions or concerns (and same goes to anybody reading this)

[Emerald]

8 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

@Emerald

By the way, I re-read your first aya ceremony report from 2020 and it nearly brought me to tears.

You really are a gem.

I once received a little keychain that read: "don't underestimate the difference you made and the lives you touched"

I'd like to forward that to you : )

 

Thank you! I'm glad that my Ayahuasca journey report was moving to you.  

[Joshe]

On 9/17/2024 at 4:17 AM, RendHeaven said:

the craving demons

I made these demons real. I printed this bitch out on a poster and hung it in my kitchen. 

[aurum]

14 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

Good contention.

the unique inefficacy of nutritional studies is the impossibility of truly isolating for the subtle effects of each individual food group in a well executed intervention.

With a pharmaceutical or a vaccine, you can track results for control group vs placebo group vs interventional group, and the results are usually acute (meaning they don't take months or years of tracking to manifest)

When we're asking if meat really gives you cancer or not, you can't control everything that someone puts in their mouth (not even for a day) much less for months and years. You can't match diets perfectly to isolate groups into "no meat" and "placebo meat" and "real meat" - all else being equal.

Also, meat is not one monolithic thing. Even "red meat" is not specific enough. For example I champion beef, but avoid pork like the plague. But this distinction is of course lost on all studies. The typical beef eater is also a pork eater, so the two get lumped together as "red meat" in the eyes of researchers (even worse, red meat is further lumped together with processed/preserved meats like bacon, ham, sausage, salami).

Rarely, you have a high quality interventional study that actually attempts to control every food variable for a long period of time. And if the study group is significantly large enough, we call this a trustworthy nutrition study and parrot the findings as dietary truth.

But even then I have low faith in such schemes. For example, I don't know the PMID but apparently there are studies showing that higher PUFA = more cardioprotective benefits. Seed oil defenders love to bring this one up. And apparently it's a high quality interventional study where all variables are accounted for with proper isolation. And yet even this study has its glaring blind spot, which is that "their low PUFA group" still has overwhelmingly high PUFA by ancestral standards! So when they claim to compare "low PUFA diets VS high PUFA diets" they are in fact comparing "high PUFA diets VS ultra high PUFA diets" and not a single person in that study has ever even seen what a low PUFA human looks like.

The rules of the game change for a low-PUFA human. And the results and ramifications are completely uncharted.

Which is why I stress the consumption of beef (rather than pork or chicken or fish). It's not just that I am mindlessly eating whatever meat feels good; I am honing a concentrated effort to reduce my PUFA as much as reasonably possible, without diminishing any auxiliary benefits (hence why I still eat eggs)

Thus nutritional studies are helpful, but they are not the end-all be-all. Understand the context in which the study is being conducted. Be discerning as to whether or not the findings apply to YOU.

In our lifetime, we will see more low-PUFA red-meat health champions come out of the woodworks. Eventually (may take decades, sadly) these people, including me, will be studied, and a whole new paradigm will blossom.

Or not. Because modern nutritional science is not interested in admitting that maybe unprocessed grass fed beef is actually divinely healthy LOL.

There's actually a massive epistemic gravitational pull to keep the status quo in lock. There are simply too many institutions benefiting from the plant-based narrative and the cultural zeitgeist of "green = health." As in - literally the color green has a consensus association that is being leveraged by health institutions and marketing efforts and identities across the globe. Imagine unraveling or usurping all of that with a fucking steak - it may never happen.

The challenges with nutritional studies you pointed out are correct.

However, I still think it would be unwise to dismiss human outcome studies so strongly. Even those synthetic chemicals you avoid needed to be studied, which is how we know they might be dangerous. And those studies present many of the same challenges as nutritional studies, such as long-term follow-up and confounding variables.

It seems to me you are mostly just making an appeal to ancestral wisdom. For instance, high PUFA is bad not because we have any studies suggesting it's bad, but simply because it is ancestrally inconsistent. That's really the crux of your argument, and I find that dubious. Same thing goes for your concerns about EMFs and chemical products.

14 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

I've spelled out every major benefit in bullet points, as well as time frame, as well as auxiliary habits and goals:

Sounds like a Ben Greenfield paradise.

I'm sure if someone did your protocol, they would certainly live a healthy life relative to their genetic capacity. But "super human" it is not.

No ancestral-based protocol is going to get you to that point. For that, you need science and technology. Areas such as gene therapy, regenerative medicine, anti-aging and AI-precision medicine are probably the closest we will get in our lifetime. But right now, the efficacy of these treatments is very speculative and experimental. 

These areas are also filled with grifters and self-deception of all kinds.  Look at some of the controversy coming out around David Sinclair, that could be a huge blow to the anti-aging community. Or Bryan Johnson and his absurd "Don't Die" philosophy. 

 

Edited Wednesday at 10:13 PM by aurum

[Schizophonia]

12 hours ago, RendHeaven said:

 

Sweet. I highly recommend macadamia nuts as well.

Hope hazelnuts are ok, i've a dozen of kilos on my house. 

Yum 🐿️

[Schizophonia]

On 17/09/2024 at 5:24 PM, Javfly33 said:

anti veg people will have a stroke when they realize hemp or sesame seed protein is superior and more bio-available than animal protein 🤣

But hey, humans need meat and eggs if not you die they say 😂😂

It doesn't have importance because of the small amount. 

[RendHeaven]

5 hours ago, aurum said:

It seems to me you are mostly just making an appeal to ancestral wisdom. For instance, high PUFA is bad not because we have any studies suggesting it's bad, but simply because it is ancestrally inconsistent.

Ancestral argument for sure, but that's not all.

I am seeing and living a synergy between Ancestry + Mechanisms (it's spelled out in very clear layman's terms on Wikipedia that PUFA --> LA --> Oxidation --> Disease, as long as you connect the dots yourself) + personal experience with turning my life around the moment I got rid of LA + identical anecdotes from my most trusted IRL connections (e.g. @Jason Actualization went low PUFA and literally erased Eosinophilic Esophagitis, which is a crippling autoimmune condition that according to google has "no known cure," and to this day modern medicine will prescribe you lifetime pharmaceuticals to control symptoms instead of actually curing you. And no, Mediterranean diet will not save you here. but amazingly whenever he tells people about this fact, with photo proof, they still find a way to dismiss him "because the studies don't agree" and they essentially gaslight his low-PUFA feat by saying that the disease probably naturally went away without his herculean effort to lower PUFA and that he is probably misattributing the cause of his cure to his pseudoscience diet. Which is just a stunning display of devilry, pointing fingers and accusing OTHERS of deception when you yourself are not pure.)

I am not afraid to admit that I am banking on a half-baked hunch; but my argument is that rational science followers are in fact doing the exact same thing in structure with different content - with the additional wrinkle that their studies overrule everything else and give the illusion that their conclusion is final, i.e. they're not willing to change their mind until a new meta study comes out that tells them what to think

5 hours ago, aurum said:

But "super human" it is not.

"super human" relative to anything that anybody has seen or thought possible for themselves.

5 hours ago, aurum said:

For that, you need science and technology.

Yep, hence I have no issues around spot supplementation which is something that our ancestors did not have access to.

My favorite supplement of all time is Magnesium Bisglycinate, which I believe every human in 2024 should be taking!

But I see your point, you are taking "super human" very literally. I am using it to loosely signify a level that is just beyond believable attainability.

5 hours ago, aurum said:

These areas are also filled with grifters and self-deception of all kinds.  Look at some of the controversy coming out around David Sinclair, that could be a huge blow to the anti-aging community. Or Bryan Johnson and his absurd "Don't Die" philosophy. 

Unfortunately I agree. Which is why none of what I said in this thread is anchored to the work of any public influencer or celebrity health coach.

Although, as I've already said, I do trust Paul Saladino - but not because I learned everything from him and he is my authority, but rather because he seems to have discovered a very similar paradigm to me independently and in parallel, the way the west and the east both invented the wheel without consulting each other.

You can look up his work and you will quickly realize how """"superhuman"""" his vitality is for a 45 year old. He posts his bloodwork and day in a life for the public to see, and he champions low-PUFA red meat exactly as I do. You would be hard pressed to argue that he is doing anything wrong health wise, and the biggest arguments I see against him are:

1. "yeah but he's bound to get heart disease eventually!"
   • projection; bias; cope. Time will tell and you will be wrong.
2. "yeah but he sells organ supplements so he just wants your money"
   • dude he has to sell something to be able to spread his message in the world lol. what, do you expect him to work a 9 to 5 to support both him and his girl, while giving out all of his knowledge for free? be real.
3. "yeah but he cherrypicks all his studies so I don't trust him"
   • I don't engage in study battles, so maybe this one is actually valid. Although I would urge you to open your mind to the possibility that what you see as "cherrypicking" is actually "careful navigation"

@aurum I appreciate the civil discussion a lot. I'd like to know your thought process and journey to having a similar diet to me despite maintaining a higher level skepticism

Edited Wednesday at 11:49 PM by RendHeaven

[RendHeaven]

4 hours ago, Schizophonia said:

Hope hazelnuts are ok, i've a dozen of kilos on my house. 

Yum 🐿️

I mean honestly all whole foods are "OK"

My main thing is to stop eating all seed oils and to make beef the centerpiece of your diet. Everything else is variable.

I recommend macademia nuts because they are high MUFA, low PUFA, and rich in antioxidants.