Veganism: low vs high perspective.

[Emerald]

14 minutes ago, gambler said:

We should be talking about the data then. I learned that you shouldn’t rely on consensus of opinion, but rather on the consensus of data. The data needs to be irrefutable. It’s an appeal to authority to rely on the opinion of the scientific community, and if the opinion is actually incorrect, then you’d be arriving at an erroneous conclusion. So we need to look at the data and compare it to what’s being claimed and the data needs to back the claim irrefutably. 
 

What’s the irrefutable data that backs the claim that veganism is healthy for most people?

Here's a meta-analysis on food groups associated with higher and lower risks of all-cause mortality...

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28446499/

With the exception of fish, meat consumption was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality and plant consumption was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality.

Also, you can look up more yourself on Pub-Med and type in keywords and phrases like "diet and all-cause mortality" or "diet and stroke risk" or "diet and heart attack risk" etc.

Edited 12 hours ago by Emerald

[gambler]

It doesn’t seem like integral is disputing this? I think he’s in agreement but his contention is that it can be difficult to do (lots to consider, plan, take, monitor and test), people are lacking the expertise to do it right and instead are doing it inaccurately, and furthermore, it’s not for everyone.  Factors like genetics play a part. So it’s not an easy, let alone an effortless, diet to scale to the masses? 

Edited 11 hours ago by gambler

[Nivsch]

2 hours ago, gambler said:

So it’s not an easy, let alone an effortless, diet to scale to the masses? 

I get you here. Legumes and grains at least for me affect my mood negatively. I try then to stick to a 90% vegan diet but without them (except tiny amounts here and there).

Edited 9 hours ago by Nivsch

[AION]

Something so “natural”shouldn’t be so difficult to implement. I think Integral makes some amazing points. Playing with your nutrition is not child’s play. You are literally playing with fire and people should be given warnings or at least children should be protected by child protection services. It is like pimp hoe dynamics where the pimp says what needs to heard and he so called cares about her health. This is not what ChatGPT should be used for. Something so natural shouldn’t be needed to be defended so much. 

 

Edited 9 hours ago by AION

[integral]

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

Holistic means whole. If you're negating empiricism and science to uphold your views, then you're not being holistic. You're just lying to yourself and doing mental gymnastics to find a way to square the circle.

@Emerald but you're using it for confirmation bias? And I'm not negating science it is part of my strategy, but it's all considered anecdotal partial truths. The right position is to consider all of these data points as guidelines but unknowns, and then to use incomplete information to guide yourself down a path to Optimal Health. So the right strategy is through experimentation, trial and error, testing, and to think like a scientist experimenting on your own body.

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

And these are all scientifically based claims.

Being within a vegan perspective can limit one's view of other diets. It's unholistic to not study other diets. Expanding one's perspective reveals that nutrition science is often used as confirmation bias by every communities.

Every Community is using science to validate all of their beliefs.

It's the same blind spot religious people have they can't see outside their own religion.

Rationality has replaced faith. But it's just another epistemological trap. One step more developed than the other.

---

A holistic perspective here will treat each individual as unique and tailor their diet to that specific person's biology.

A grand narrative that veganism works for majority of people, Is an assumption that you're running with. Supported by faith.

Edited 2 hours ago by integral

[integral]

10 hours ago, Emerald said:

And it comes across as silly and pompous that you view your perspective as more holistic just because you view selective anecdotes from people who agree with you as more reflective of truth than controlled studies and meta-analyses that directly measure the physiological impacts of different diets on a variety of people.

Approach health decisions by integrating multiple sources of information:

Scientific research - treated as valuable but imperfect data points

Personal experiences - both your own trials and careful self-observation

Others' experiences - learning from both successes and failures

Clinical evidence - viewed alongside real-world outcomes

No single source holds absolute truth. Each offers partial insights that can inform personal health choices. Test approaches methodically, observe results carefully, and adjust based on your body's responses while avoiding others' documented mistakes.

The key is using all available information as guidance for structured self-experimentation, rather than accepting any single source as definitive.

Edited 2 hours ago by integral