Seeking advice: WFPB and supplements on a vegan diet

[brimstoneSalad]

Of course there is more risk of dying by car crash: there are many more cars and people drive a car much more often than they take a plane

Risk of death is assessed per mile traveled.
If you're trying to decide on the mode of transportation to get from point A to point B, a plane or train is safer than a car, period.

and it's obvious how the miliage comparison is equally unfair.

No, because that's what people actually care about. People are making the decision to take a plane or drive, and if the decision is primarily based on risk of dying on this trip, taking a plane is safer.

Taking a plane is actually 100 times safer for the same trip.

Now if you were weighing the option of driving 100 miles to a more local destination vs. flying 10,000 miles to almost exactly the other side of the planet, then the risk would be about equal.

However, it's categorically unfair to compare a local trip by car to literally going all the way to the opposite side of the Earth. And if you don't understand why we compare like to like instead of radically altering the rules of the game for each option so that our preferred outcome always wins then you don't understand the first thing about critical thinking.

The category "plane crash" surely includes the number of accidents that happen when the plane has not even left the airport, or after landing.

And car crashes include low speed fender benders and things that happen at the ends of driveways and in parking lots.
The point is that "crashes" are rarely fatal. Now if you want to redefine crash as only something catastrophic, then you may be surprised to find out that applied to CARS the same holds true and the fatality rate shoots way up at e.g. highway speeds.

But in any case, since the point was an alleged comparison with supplements, even more so I don't see why you suggest to focus on the risk of dying only, since death is only one of the possible outcomes of the possible long-term effects of messing with nutrition.

The analysis done is typically on morality. Most people are interested in what will make them live longer.
If you want to ask questions about things like arthritis pain, you'd typically find that corresponds to mortality too because people who are in pain don't stay as mobile and usually die sooner.

The only effects mortality might not reflect are very superficial ones, like skin and hair.

The risk for STD comes from unprotected sex: nothing about this is specific to the gay population.

That is also part of the risk factor...
Two couples, one heterosexual and one gay, both having unprotected sex, still have different risk factors due to the types of sex that statistically they are likely to be engaging in. Certain kinds of sexual activity, like anal, can be inherently more risky and less common among heterosexuals.

The point is that you don't understand epidemiology well enough to argue any of this. You misunderstand all of the terms and you don't know what you're talking about.

Even if the gay population is more likely to engage in unprotected sex, the fact that they are a minority in the overall population *does not* make them the primary factor for STD. It only would in a scenario in which they become the majority.

I didn't say anything like that.
Amarillyde, if you are unable or unwilling to understand English, you need to avoid these conversations.

Anything that contributes disproportionately to any social harm CAN be a matter of concern even if it's not the #1 cause.
People in white hoods lynching minorities aren't a primary cause of death either, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't oppose racism.

Are you seriously arguing that the ONLY things that are bad and the ONLY things we should oppose or argue against are those that occupy the top few causes of death?
Surely if something is a minor cause of death that can argue for not devoting so many resources to it, but if it is a contributor there's an argument there for opposing it.

You have double standards. You're being a hypocrite. It's a simple as that.

We SHOULD support gay marriage and relationships, because there's no good evidence of harm. The claims are harm are HIGHLY speculative and opposed by what limited evidence we have. The same case is true of things like modest multivitamins.

I'm not sure how you don't see how backward-thinking and bigot this sounds.

Do you not understand the concept of arguing devil's advocate to demonstrate hypocrisy?

You don't like it, and neither do I, but it IS an argument, and it's consistent with YOUR logic and reasoning to oppose vitamins.
If you oppose one, but oppose people opposing the other, you're being a hypocrite. You have no reasoning here beyond complaining that it sounds like backward thinking and "bigot". Well, so are YOUR views on vitamins. Your views are counter to science, and oppose something that helps a lot of people and for which there's no evidence of harm.

If you oppose vitamins due to speculative frameworks that go against a limited amount of evidence, you can not then criticize homophobes for doing the same against homosexuality.

Obviously any sensible person disregards a speculative framework when it goes against evidence, even limited evidence. But you're not advocating being sensible here. At least not for you. You hold other people to different standards.

The fact that sexuality is a spectrum, or that indeed some people define themselves as bisexual, *does not* mean that *every gay person has a choice not to be gay*. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that repressing homosexuality would have a decrease of homosexuality as an outcome –

I don't understand how you can be this ignorant of basic math.

If 1% have a choice and pressure causes even 1% of that 1% to choose heterosexual relationships, then that pressure has reduced the number of homosexual relationships.

maybe more repressed or concealed homosexuality, which in turns feeds the original "problem" you posited (the rate of broken marriages to which homosexuality apparently would contribute) rather than solving it.

Duh.
Are you not getting that these are all based on SPECULATION?
Yeah, obviously you can pull an opposite assertion out of your ass if you use a different framework to evaluate the outcome.

That's why speculation is worthless. YOUR speculation on the mechanics of vitamins, and homophobics' speculation on the mechanics of homosexuality. Your speculation is equally irrational.

Sorry, but I don't think you've demonstrated at all how criticising multivitamins entails criticising gay rights.

How...
How do you take that from my argument at all? Can you read?

I never said it entails criticizing gay rights. It's hard for me to imagine what poor comprehension you must have to get that.

YOUR QUALITY OF LOGIC AND STANDARD FOR EVIDENCE = THE SAME QUALITY OF LOGIC AND STANDARD FOR EVIDENCE OF FUNDIES.

You're using the same tool sets. You can surely support gay rights and oppose vitamins as much as you can ARBITRARILY choose any number of topics to support or oppose on a whim. A creationist can accept that the Earth isn't flat and a Flat Earther can personally accept evolution.

The point is that you have no means by which to dismiss or undermine the intellectual integrity of the fundamentalists AS YOU TRIED TO DO because you do precisely the same kind of intellectually dishonest nonsense supporting your pet bigotries.

You're fundamentally the same kind of irrational person, you've just chosen different things to hate.

See:

they are two totally different matters: on the one side we're dealing with something we know very little about (sociology and the effect on social morals), on the other we are dealing with something which happens under our very eyes (our health), that we can keep track of and are fully responsible for and as a consequence we have full power upon. The way in which the human conscience handles what we do is vastly independent from our understanding of it.

Every bit what you believe, just flipped around to support the OTHER arbitrary position.

Religious fundamentalists can say all the absurdities they want, my point is exactly that while it's very easy to prove how they are absurdities, the same doesn't go for nutrition, because social studies are in no way a field comparable to nutrition.

Social sciences are much softer sciences with weaker empirical data than human health.
So, you're making arguments that only weaken your case.

Religious fundamentalists are absolutely absurd, but their absurdity is still less opposed to science than yours is.

Your comparison is like saying that one can't criticise homophobic ideas if they also don't subscribe to the idea that black holes are dark matter

No, you can criticize basically ANYTHING from a position of agosticism.
The trouble is when you make a strong claim (like you do against vitamins) based on speculation and that goes AGAINST available evidence, then criticize others for making claims that are based on speculation and go against similar available evidence.

When you refuse to consider that a wholistic framework shows the limits of our current research,

That doesn't make any sense, so you're just gibbering nonsense here. A framework can only show limits through evidence, not speculation.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have limits -- obviously is does -- but your speculation doesn't reveal them. Rather, nutritional science frequently discusses its own limitations. If you'd even read a paper you'd know this.

or when you refuse to admit that we might just not know everything there is to know in the way that supplements work in the human body,

This is yet another common talking point of alt-med. That we don't know every single molecule is aside from the point that is relevant: we know the broad strokes such as correlations with mortality, and we have mechanistic and clinical evidence of benefit in cases of deficiency, things like LD50 to give us a sense of toxicology, etc.

You don't have to know how many of every color jelly bean is in the jar to know some general things about it to a high level of confidence.

you are suggesting that the current nutritional science tells us everything we need to know about it,

It tells us the important things like will it be likely to shorten our lifespans, yeah.

and that we do not need to even consider alternative approaches suggested by another type of science, that encourages to use data in a less narrow way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

However, overwhelmingly the evidence suggests that our understanding is adequate to make certain claims beyond any reasonable doubt, as experts in dietetics do.

Yes, and that's why we have pharmacology and we do use and doctors do recommend drugs when they are needed. They work, they are a good idea when there is a problem to fix.

That's the point of listening the registered dietitians when it comes to advice on supplements. None of them are recommending large doses or fad supplements. But they, and governmental bodies, support modest supplements, either as vitamins we take or that are added to fortified foods (even by law, because the science is SO overwhelming).

As I said above, discouraging people from using supplements or animal products (depending on the audience, Ginny Messina and Jack Norris speak to vegans, thus they recommend supplements; governments speak to the general population, so they recommend to include animal products in the diet) would be dangerous, because a diet that doesn't include either of them is likely to cause deficiencies or worse problems.

And yet you're promoting an anti-supplement world view. Why?

Why can't you just say "I don't know, but the evidence on mortality suggests they're not harmful and professionals often recommend them so I'll err on the side of what's most likely to be true based on the evidence and professional interpretation of it instead of my fears and just follow professional advice and stop fear mongering based on the speculation of fringe voices".

[brimstoneSalad]

@Amarillyde I hate to always be on your case like this, but it's very frustrating that you seem to keep misunderstanding my arguments and you want to argue to death on these little things that you're obviously wrong on (like that cars are actually safer than planes).

I don't understand why you can't say "Oh, sorry I was mistaken about that, I see your point on risk assessment" or whatever.
Like just ONE thing.

Calorie restricting and not eating any oil (why?) can make vitamin E harder. Sunflower seeds are a good source, but that's about it aside from oil.
Low vitamin E can explain a LOT of skin issues.
Which kind of gets to my point about looking at what you're actually deficient in.

I appreciate that @carnap recognizes the problem with speculating and that it's not hard to balance a vegan diet "on paper", and even with a calorie deficit that's true to a point -- just not very large deficits, which makes me worried about how much you're restricting.

I think it would be beneficial if you'd lead with ALL of the limitations you're putting on yourself, calorie, nuts, whatever else, because despite your claims to be an expert at balancing your diet everything indicates that you're not doing something right.

[teo123]

Now if you were weighing the option of driving 100 miles to a more local destination vs. flying 10,000 miles to almost exactly the other side of the planet, then the risk would be about equal.

Why do you think that's the case? The vast majority of airplane crashes happen either when an airplane starts flying or during the landing. Having a 100 miles flight and an 10'000 miles flight should be about as safe. The same, of course, isn't true for cars.
For cars, it's specific that most of the crashes happen in the cities, and that the crashes outside of cities are rare, but the fatality of the crashes outside of cities is a lot higher.
In around 70% of car crashes, at least one of the drivers had alcohol in their blood. So, unless you drink alcohol often, those statistics are quite a bit misleading. My guess is that, if you aren't driving drunk, driving a car is about as safe as travelling on a train is.

Social sciences are much softer sciences with weaker empirical data than human health.

Hey, listen, I think we agree that not all social sciences are the same, and not all information we have about human health is equally certain.
The "information" about how Inuits have comparatively lower rates of heart disease is a lot less certain (it's almost certainly wrong, but it was mainstream science not so long ago) than the information we have about the grammar of the Inuit languages.

[brimstoneSalad]

Why do you think that's the case? The vast majority of airplane crashes happen either when an airplane starts flying or during the landing. Having a 100 miles flight and an 10'000 miles flight should be about as safe. The same, of course, isn't true for cars.

That's a good point, although most flights with that kind of distance have several legs. You might transfer four times in a flight like that, maybe more.

But if it were a non-stop, you're right that the plane would be much safer since the risk doesn't rise as much by distance.

In around 70% of car crashes, at least one of the drivers had alcohol in their blood. So, unless you drink alcohol often, those statistics are quite a bit misleading. My guess is that, if you aren't driving drunk, driving a car is about as safe as travelling on a train is.

Even if you don't drink, you can't really control whether the other person who is crashing into you is drunk.
You'd need to break down per capita instances of drinking and driving to control for alcohol, you can't just subtract the whole 70% of the risk (although it's plausibly 60% or so of the risk).

However, even with that you might only be about equal to a ferry, not a train which is otherwise some 17 times safer than a car. If it were only 3 times as safe as a car then that would be true.

You can make driving safer by taking small roads, not drinking, eliminating distractions, driving only when very awake and when there's little traffic and going the speed limit and below, and having somebody outside your car who can GPS your position and call emergency services if you don't report in every two minutes. Even so I doubt you could ever beat the safety of a train and much less a plane (which you can also make safer based on where you sit, buckling in, wearing a helmet, etc. if you want to go there).

Social sciences are much softer sciences with weaker empirical data than human health.

Hey, listen, I think we agree that not all social sciences are the same, and not all information we have about human health is equally certain.
The "information" about how Inuits have comparatively lower rates of heart disease is a lot less certain (it's almost certainly wrong, but it was mainstream science not so long ago) than the information we have about the grammar of the Inuit languages.

Was that anything like consensus? I thought it was just a myth that wasn't based on evidence.
The only actual studies I've seen on the issue discuss decreasing cardiovascular risk of those populations with Westernization of diet.

Anyway, as to your point, yeah linguistics is probably a harder science than most sociology.

[teo123]

I thought it was just a myth that wasn't based on evidence.

Well, yes, a myth on which the myth that Omega-3 acids in diet prevent heart disease (which is used in advertisements of flax and, of course, fish oil supplements) is primarily based on.

Low cardiovascular disease rates in Eskimo populations eating traditional diets high in omega-3 fatty acids initially provoked the speculation that these fatty acids may be protective against CHD.

[Amarillyde]

@brimstoneSalad

@Amarillyde I hate to always be on your case like this, but it's very frustrating that you seem to keep misunderstanding my arguments

Yes, it is incredibly frustrating, considering that the misunderstanding goes both ways. I really don't have any more time to waste on this. I just want to say that I find it very worrying that you are allowed or feel entitled to speak to people here like you did throughout this thread and elsewhere to me, in terms of both content and form of certain (many) things you said. And it is particularly worrying considering that your voice on this forum, for what has been my experience so far, is so prominent to become deafening of everybody else's. I'm sure that's because everybody agrees with you, but nonetheless scary.

I don't understand why you can't say "Oh, sorry I was mistaken about that, I see your point on risk assessment" or whatever.
Like just ONE thing.

Believe me, I feel exactly the same. Your behaviour seems as much ridiculous to me as mine seems to you.

I think it would be beneficial if you'd lead with ALL of the limitations you're putting on yourself, calorie, nuts, whatever else, because despite your claims to be an expert at balancing your diet everything indicates that you're not doing something right.

Perhaps it would have been beneficial, but frankly you've made it impossible at this point for me to even conceive to get any help here.

[brimstoneSalad]

I don't understand why you can't say "Oh, sorry I was mistaken about that, I see your point on risk assessment" or whatever.
Like just ONE thing.

Believe me, I feel exactly the same. Your behaviour seems as much ridiculous to me as mine seems to you.

The point of you denying and even after being presented with evidence continuing to deny that airplanes are safer than cars is on the order of this historical forum conversation:
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1829

The difference is that @teo123 is a much better student... despite continuing to be frustrating on some topics (anarchism).

My becoming frustrated at you denying a basic fact that should be completely undeniable and non-controversial isn't extraordinary.
It very much seems like you're just trolling when you insist down is up and up is down in cases like this. I'd be glad to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you'd have to explain what kind of evidence you need to see reason.

I think it would be beneficial if you'd lead with ALL of the limitations you're putting on yourself, calorie, nuts, whatever else, because despite your claims to be an expert at balancing your diet everything indicates that you're not doing something right.

Perhaps it would have been beneficial, but frankly you've made it impossible at this point for me to even conceive to get any help here.

Your outright saying you don't want help diet planning at the beginning started things off that way. You didn't conceive of getting help to begin with Amarillyde, please don't make out like you were looking for help and then I was mean. I don't know why you came here. You are most welcome to stay, and still we would be more than happy to help you if you're open to it.

Don't use the tension you've created by being recalcitrant as an excuse to reject help. It is and remains on offer. Anybody is welcome to ask for help here no matter the strong arguments that have been had. We don't hold grudges like that and wouldn't turn away a sincere request.

[Amarillyde]

@brimstoneSalad

My becoming frustrated at you denying a basic fact that should be completely undeniable and non-controversial isn't extraordinary.
It very much seems like you're just trolling when you insist down is up and up is down in cases like this. I'd be glad to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you'd have to explain what kind of evidence you need to see reason.

Wrt the car/plane issue specifically, my point is that the fact that people are more scared of planes than cars is not completely random or just madness, as you initially presented it. And this is not just because of what I said, or what teo123 suggested, but also for other psychological factors around driving a car VS taking a plane; these factors influence people's perception of reality and are to be considered alongside the statistics –– dismissing people's fear as completely nonsensical is of no use.
Overall, the fact that I do not explicitly tell you when or where you might have a point is simply due to the fact that I'm more interested in keeping the conversation going and pushing boundaries, to see whether someone can say something that will make me reconsider my own ideas – which happens all the time; it does not mean that I never change my mind. It might be more frustrating, but it's also more useful to keep testing my interlocutor and ascertain how sure others are on things I am not sure about. I'm far from saying that this is an ideal way to conduct oneself, I lack all sort of social skills, I just didn't think it might show here ;P But you're definitely mistaken if you assume that I do not change my mind, or that I strongly hold on to any position (hence why it's half funny and half frustrating to see the sort of things you attribute to me, sure that you have me all figured out). I'm sorry you consider it "just trolling", it is evident to me that I keep a conversation going until I still have some area of the subject that I consider unexplored and that is bothering me. Perhaps it would be a less frustrating experience for others if I added "you're right there, but how about this?", but fundamentally I do not have the time nor the energy to sit down and write an articulated and well thought through essay every time I write a post. I go after the information I need, and I'm sorry if the way I do it is not ideal for others.

The difference is that teo123 is a much better student.

Do you ever think that perhaps you have something to learn, too, occasionally? ;P

Your outright saying you don't want help diet planning at the beginning started things off that way. You didn't conceive of getting help to begin with Amarillyde, please don't make out like you were looking for help and then I was mean. I don't know why you came here. You are most welcome to stay, and still we would be more than happy to help you if you're open to it.

Have you read the title of this thread? It is literally seeking help. The fact that I refused your help specifically with looking at my cronometer was mostly contingent on the circumstances under which that came up: you assumed I was doing something wrong, and you still are. I was very clear in my first post as much as after your offer to "help with the planning" that my limit was *psychological*, that I felt like I had done everything I could to include "all the healthy foods" in my diet as much as I could and that I simply couldn't do more at that point. I wouldn't by default refuse someone's advice about planning my days, that's something that might be of some use, maybe. But I don't understand why you keep focusing on that, while I did everything I could to make clear that my problem was psychological: I thought I could follow a vegan diet, I completely accepted that I would have to put some more care and planning in making sure to include certain foods, but I am not a machine, there are also other things in my life that influence my food choices. You can give me some advice on what to eat or what not to eat, but that really doesn't address my problem. The conversation might have gone many other different ways from that premise. Perhaps I had the same problems even before, on an omnivore diet – I just didn't know, because I wasn't tracking my nutrients; maybe I was consistently missing out on a series of things and I didn't know, for example. In any case, the fact that I refused your suggestion to comment on my food diary does not mean that "I didn't conceive of getting help". I am happy to discuss all sorts of things around it, I just don't think that getting the 'eat this not that' kind of feedback is going to be useful for me. I can create a series of perfect days in theory, it just doesn't work in practice for me, for my personal history and for the place I'm at. I just wanted to know whether this is just me, or not; whether this is vegan diet related, or not; whether this is an ED related problem, or not. I don't understand why you're so sure your way must be the best and the only one, rather than considering that perhaps you don't have the full picture. I was and am happy to discuss all sorts of things, and at no point I ruled out in my mind the possibility to bring into the conversation a discussion over the technicalities of what I eat, but the psychological problem around it has the absolute priority for me, because I know, better than anyone else, how useful an advice about food choices could be for me (useful for a week, at best). Perhaps I'm at fault, failing to explain this in the most understandable way, but I can't help but wonder whether your attitude, that seems to be of absolute refusal of the idea that, just sometimes, you might not hold 100% of the truth, might have something to do with it, too.
Finally, I'm glad to keep discussing anything, and I definitely do not hold grudges, either; but it is objectively off-putting to think that everything I post will have a very high chance to receive an answer from somebody who holds very strong and quite misguided assumptions about me, who considers others as "his students" and systematically seems to have no problems recurring to very offensive tones in a conversation. That's definitely a discouraging picture to summon to mind, when considering whether to ask for help or not.

[brimstoneSalad]

Wrt the car/plane issue specifically, my point is that the fact that people are more scared of planes than cars is not completely random or just madness, as you initially presented it. And this is not just because of what I said, or what teo123 suggested, but also for other psychological factors around driving a car VS taking a plane; these factors influence people's perception of reality and are to be considered alongside the statistics –– dismissing people's fear as completely nonsensical is of no use.

I appreciate that you're accepting the fact of the matter that planes are safer than cars. Are you rejecting the interpretation that fear of traveling by plane is irrational?

I didn't say it was random.

People's perception is that planes are more dangerous -- that was my point. And the perception is mistaken when you look at the facts -- that was my point.
People are scared of planes because the perception is that crashes are more common and more lethal than they actually are because of media coverage which is lacking for automobile accidents.

None of that is random. It's rooted in a number of very non-random biases, from that toward sensational journalism to the psychological tendency to remember and over-represent things that are more dramatic. We're far more afraid of shark attacks and lightning strikes than we should be based on the small probability of those occurrences affecting us IF we were to behave rationally.

My point was about rationality, and if you are aspiring to behave rationally, you can understand that traveling by plane is less dangerous than traveling by car and you can understand that other things like *taking vitamins* isn't dangerous. It's irrational fear that's tripping you up in either case, thus my analogy. It's where the fear is not proportional to the actual risk.

Of course just knowing that planes are safer than cars rarely cures anybody of fear of flying, but it's a good first step.

dismissing people's fear as completely nonsensical is of no use.

I get that you have some kind of anxiety or phobia around supplementation. I understand that, and I don't imagine that I can vanquish that phobia by merely dismissing it as irrational. Yes, it is irrational, but recognizing that is only the first step to overcoming a fear.

Somebody afraid of spiders, upon learning that a particular spider is non-venomous and incapable of harming him or her, can not always summon the psychological fortitude to overcome that phobia and handle the spider right away.

My concern is that up until this point I did not get the sense of you clearly admitting to that fact that it's a purely irrational fear.
If you can agree and admit that rather than trying to justify and defend the fear, then that would be a huge first step in working to overcome it.

Overall, the fact that I do not explicitly tell you when or where you might have a point is simply due to the fact that I'm more interested in keeping the conversation going and pushing boundaries, to see whether someone can say something that will make me reconsider my own ideas

As you have hopefully seen here, failing to recognize an error and give me some indication that you have changed your mind or accepted the new information only leaves me to continue to attempt to correct you.

If you could not recognize the issue with cars vs. planes, there was no hope on other similar matters which are much more nuanced than the very dramatic example of cars/planes.

If you understand now that cars are more dangerous than planes, then I can try to get you to understand how fear of planes is fundamentally irrational. That does not mean that this fear is not understandable. And that DOES NOT mean that recognizing that fact of it being a phobia instantly cures the phobia, but it is an important first step in addressing the problem.

If you can understand how those fears are irrational, and that your aversion to vitamins (my analogy) isn't based on reason or evidence but is exclusively an emotional aversion, then I can sympathize much more with your situation.

Having a phobia does not make you a bad person, and it doesn't make you fundamentally irrational as long as you can recognize the phobia. It's just something to work on over time. Recognizing the problem is the first step.
There's nothing I can say to turn off the phobia like a light switch, but if we can recognize the nature of the problem then we will have no disagreement here. The only disagreement is stemming from what I perceived to be your attempts to use bad arguments in support of that phobia, which not only harms yourself but also other people who may be triggered by that. It's essential to recognize phobias for what they are, because then we're no longer compelled to defend them. We can start to fight them once we know they're irrational, otherwise we're still stuck defending them.

If I have arachnophobia I'm not going to defend my fear of spiders based on the argument that some spiders are actually dangerous thus it's justified to fear all of them even if none of the dangerous ones even live where I do because maybe one came in with somebody's luggage. I'm going to work on recognizing that this fear is a character flaw that I need to work on overcoming. That doesn't mean that as soon as I know it's irrational that I'm going to pick up these spiders and hold them, but maybe I can get closer to them. Maybe I can pick them up with a stick some day, and maybe some day I can even touch them with a finger to make them go away instead of freaking out if I work on it. All it means is that by recognizing the truth of my aversion I run out of excuses. That's a scary thing, but it's the rational thing to do, and it's the right thing to do.

But you're definitely mistaken if you assume that I do not change my mind, or that I strongly hold on to any position (hence why it's half funny and half frustrating to see the sort of things you attribute to me, sure that you have me all figured out). I'm sorry you consider it "just trolling", it is evident to me that I keep a conversation going until I still have some area of the subject that I consider unexplored and that is bothering me. Perhaps it would be a less frustrating experience for others if I added "you're right there, but how about this?", but fundamentally I do not have the time nor the energy to sit down and write an articulated and well thought through essay every time I write a post. I go after the information I need, and I'm sorry if the way I do it is not ideal for others.

Thank you for that, I appreciate it. I'm sorry I lost my patience with you.

If there's some point you've changed your mind on in the future, please try to mention it (even briefly) because it can save a lot of frustration. That way I won't be stuck still arguing the same point that you've already changed your mind on which gets our wires crossed.

The fact that I refused your help specifically with looking at my cronometer was mostly contingent on the circumstances under which that came up: you assumed I was doing something wrong, and you still are.

The frustration there comes when you're low on something like vitamin E which is very closely linked to skin health.

You probably know that sunflower seeds are the only really rich whole plant food source (in terms of per calorie and density). Adding just a little over two tablespoons, or 25-30 grams, provides half your needs easily in around a hundred calories. You probably don't even need that much just to top things off.

Now it's no fun to eat those on their own, but salted and roasted and on a salad or something? Yum.
Sunflower butter can also go in oatmeal (just takes a little).
The seeds can also be mixed in granola if you make your own (which is pretty easy, super food granola can be a good tip for convenience).
If you're having smoothies, sunflower seeds blend up pretty well (add them early on before you add everything else and blend a little with minimal liquid to get them smooth) and you shouldn't notice the taste.

It's not just about the raw food source of the vitamin, it's also about tips for how to incorporate it more conveniently and palatably into your diet so you're not stressing about it.

It's also concerning because as well known as it is that sunflower seeds are the only really good source, there are SO many vegan sites that don't even mention them and think vegetables are good sources. Case in point:
https://vegfaqs.com/vegan-vitamin-e-food-sources/
Sunflower seeds aren't mentioned on that page at all.

Yeah, per calorie vegetables are good sources if you eat kilograms of them, but most people can't or won't do that long term.
And people like Greger only recommend "nuts" in the daily dozen without specifying despite them having wildly varying amounts of different vitamins in them and if you're missing sunflower seeds you may get in trouble. Not all nuts are equal by a long shot.

Somebody searching for information on vegan vitamin E sources could easily be misled.

The point is that you don't always know what you don't know, and maybe there is some advice that we could give that would be helpful if you'd give us a chance.