I wanted to make a point though about "improving hormones/glands" and the other type of health markers Ray Peat goes for. Using the analogy of steroids in bodybuilding, maybe sugar is like that in that there is a temporary boost to certain glands production of their hormones which makes people feel good acutely. But the use of steroids to improve muscular size/strength and overall athletic performance usually comes at a cost that is not seen until a post acute time period. Not only hasn't anyone done the experiment of long term use of sugar, caffeine, aspirin and all the other stuff Peat proposes to use for health

Peat's idea is to keep stress hormones low, keep estrogen in balance, maintain an adequate thyroid level etc.

If sugar can help do things such as lower stress hormones, improve thyroid level, it can be a useful part of a diet.

What do you believe is wrong with Peat's suggestions?

So what sort of biology is it, if it's not evolutionary biology?

physiology

In other words, what's the fundamental template underlying his thinking explaining why and how it tworks and why do humans hrive on his diet more than the raw Paleo diet?

The raw paleo diet is less effective at dealing with the issues of hormones, thyroid etc.

If biological adaptation doesn't underlie it, what does?

It's just based on physiology. Why are humans physiologically the way they are? Does it matter?

If you ask Peat why is sugar good, he'd say "because it can boost metabolism, lower stress hormones, provide cellular energy" he wouldn't say "because we've been eating it for thousands of years".

You probably could try and make a case that much of what Ray Peat suggests is more in line with our true paleo diet (more sugar, more salt, a large variety of animal products, more collagen), but I'm pretty sure this type of thinking isn't that important to Peat.

OK, thanks, KD. I'd be interested in any podcasts or links anyone has where Ray Peat talks about what foods he's replacing with these modern equivalents, or some such explanation, so I can try to "seek first to understand". Presumably wild honey and fruits are a couple.

He probably hasn't done that, as, even if certain foods aren't replacing anything from paleolithic times, if they provide health, then that's what's important.

When no one responds, that's how you know they've conceded defeat. Almost no one ever says, "Gee, you were right, you win, good job."

Or it could be the fact that I (and others) don't visit the forum daily, or that studies don't have to be personally conducted by Peat for one to say Peat has researched the topic. I'd say that people here are researching raw paleo diets, though certainly no scientific articles are being produced from the people here.

For the Peatatarians who eat oats or rice

I don't think those are Peat foods, or at least not to be eaten often.

I suspect there are multiple factors.

Possible factors

1) You are of allergic to something in the orange juice.
2) The orange juice is not strained, the pulp and fiber are giving you problems.
3) The juice mixed with the saliva in the back of your throat and made it thick.
4) Low carbing has destroyed your thyroid and your ability to digest nutritious, healthy food.

The issue with durianrider is that he looks emaciated, which makes him look terrible. He'll probably start to look older faster and faster in the years to come (like Graham did), although if he added a wider variety of food to gain some weight he'd probably look fine for someone in their mid 30s. He still has a full head of hair as well, which helps.

There was that Mann study on the atherosclerotic aspects of the Maasai

That study holds little weight, as the Maasai studied had access to flour/processed foods, and were thus not entirely traditional. The specific details of their diet weren't considered/controlled which makes any conclusions speculative. Dairy can't be pinpointed as the problem.

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Did-Masai-Have-Atherosclerosis.html

I don't notice any benefits whatsoever from pure white sugar, but I do notice some amazing benefits from raw fermented honey, though I suspect they may be largely due to the microbiota, because unfermented honey doesn't give me the same benefits. I suspect that I cannot digest well plain sugar on my own, and that the microbiota in fermented honey help me to digest the sugars. Someone who digests table sugar well might indeed experience benefits from it, but I do not appear to be one of those people. Besides, heated and refined table sugar wasn't part of our ancestors' diets, nor of any wild animal, yet many of them fared well, healthwise, so it seems likely that there are wild equivalents, such as wild honey.

From a human physiology perspective (yes, I know, this is speaking for everyone, but I do feel that there are some things that can be made as "across the board" statements, as we do share human anatomy) I think that pure white table sugar would be an extremely easy food to digest (hence its ability to quickly raise blood sugar) . My initial inclination is that the issue is something else - such as metabolism, hormones and not digestibility

In order to control the release of stress hormones, one would have to consume a significant amount of sugar. 50% of calories from sugar (preferably fruit) could be a starting point. I'm not aware what amount of sugar or honey you consume, but it won't have much effect if it's just a teaspoon here and there. It's recommended that one switch to a glucose burning metabolism, and avoid using fatty acids for fuel as much as possible.

One must note that animals that IF unintentionally eat less than those that are continuously ad lib, because  when they are allowed to eat ad lib on eating days they (usually) simply don't eat enough to make up for the fast from the previous day. I have seen Michael Rae (a prominent calorie restriction follower) give a detailed analysis of the data, concluding that IF is not beneficial, per se, and that IF benefits are derived from the unintentional caloric restriction.

My diet is different than any I've ever come across, so you could say that about any guru (and I use the term broadly to refer to any relatively prominent/popular diet proponent, it's not meant purely as a pejorative--sorry for not thinking to explain that), but Ray's diet comes closer to mine than the vast majority of them.

That's not the issue, the issue is the problems of sugar. I said that because the diet as a whole is important to gauge how sugar is reacting. Eating sugar won't simply stop excess mucus if there are other things in the diet that could be promoting it.

Again, I didn't say that. Please stop putting words into my mouth/keyboard.

If something is causing you excessive mucus, it would appear that it's not working for you.

There are reasons why someone who is following something that would be considered a Ray Peat diet could still get excessive mucus; sugar just shouldn't be the cause.

Much of my experience jibes well with Ray's recommendations and I pointed out early on that Ray's diet is not that dramatically different from raw Paleo, and could be relatively easily converted into raw Paleo with some simple changes (see my post). Just because I shared where my experience doesn't seem to fit well doesn't mean I'm claiming that his whole package of recommendations don't work for me.

I'm aware it can work on Raw Paleo. I did, afterall, register on this forum around 3 years ago, so I was able to see that a diet of fruit, meat and dairy has a very clear similarity.

If you're looking to stay raw and paleo, a high carb/lower fat raw paleo diet without mono eating is an excellent way to combine the two, imo.

Who is this majority of others? The few in this thread?

The majority of Peat followers or others following high sugar, virtual starch free diets don't report the issue. 80-10-10 followers don't seem to report the issue either. Dental issues and emaciation concerns are common, but not mucus.

Of course I lack a complete physiological explanation, that's why I said I was puzzled by it and asked questions. The growing sense I'm getting is that your responses seem to be more about defending Ray Peat's guru status than answering my questions or attempting to understand or explain my personal experience.

I'm just presenting the reasoning behind some of Ray Peat's recommendations and also alluding to how this conversation appeared to be reaching a dead end. I attempted to explain your experience when I said "Food combinations, the diet as a whole, nutrient status etc are potential issues." What more would you like? I think they are key issues.

So does drinking OJ elevates my stress hormones?

It shouldn't. Scrap the orange juice, try a different fruit.

I didn't say that. Remember, I eat raw fermented honey and benefit from it (though not from unfermented raw honey, at least not yet; maybe some day).

You implied that you believe sugar causes your mucus.

I'll rephrase and say that if you are against consuming a relatively high sugar diet , then you can't  eat inline with Ray Peat's fundamentals.

Theories about why starch causes mucus don't do a lot to explain why some starch-free foods have that effect on me, whereas other foods do not. Stress could be a factor, though it doesn't seem to explain why one food has the effect but another does not, unless the trigger food increases stress hormones, perhaps.

Food combinations, the diet as a whole, nutrient status etc are potential issues.

Ultimately, there's nothing that can really be said to someone who just insists that it doesn't work for them.

If Ray Peat is right that lean whitefish is healthier to eat than omega-3-rich wild salmon and tuna, then Instincto must not work at all for me, because I don't care much for most whitefish, especially raw, and FAR prefer salmon and tuna. My instincts tell me to eat the salmon and tuna.

Seafood rich in vitamin D could help protect against the PUFA damage (my own thought, not Peat's).

Supplementing with extracted fish oil would not be advised.

Why would starch cause mucus but not sugar?

I actually also already have pastured butter, coconut milk and water, and Great Lakes gelatin and and started recently experimenting with them with no noticeable effects. I also sometimes have a cup of coffee in the morning. Instead of OJ, cooked tubers and table sugar, which all give me some negative effects, I eat raw fermented honey, carrots, parsnips and berries. So I'm already doing something very close to a Ray Peat diet.

The simplest reason would be that simple sugars are more easily digestible than complex carbs, and will digest entirely in the small intestine.

It is also necessary to eat protein with sugar on a Ray peat diet, i.e., do not mono eat meat. Sugar should be able to be eaten alone.