Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: Aaaaaa on February 05, 2012, 12:49:26 am
-
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwesthealing/2011/07/12/ray-peat-serotonin-and-endotoxin (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/eastwesthealing/2011/07/12/ray-peat-serotonin-and-endotoxin)
What do you guys think of him? I don't like that he doesn't seem to care too much about food quality, but if you take his suggestions and use your common sense about eating only quality foods, it could make sense.
I was particularly facinated by the part where he mentions what happens when you try to "starve" yeast by eating a low-sugar diet...and how he explains that its better to fix the underlying problem, and then the yeast overgrowth will just take care of itself. I think that bit is around 37:00 or 38:00 This makes so much sense with what I've heard about low carb diets sometimes making yeast overgrowth worse, because the "yeast can adapt", but I never heard how it did it before...*shudder* pseudo-hyphae!!! :-P
I know some here are critical of him, but I've been reading a lot of his stuff lately and it does make sense...
He also has an intreging article on MS and hypothyroid/high estrogen: http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/ms.shtml (http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/ms.shtml)
Whadd'ya think raw paleo friends?? :-)
-
Well don't make us listen to all of that. How does he suggest killing the yeast, then? :)
-
This should probably be moved to hot topics, since Ray Peat doesn't quite advocate either raw or Paleo and actually criticized Paleo in this interview. He advocated sugar, as SileIndigo mentioned, and flour of sulfur for yeast infections. He said that the day before he ate the following:
rib steak
eggs
lots of milk
lots of coffee
orange juice
Coke (Coca Cola)
-
Ooo sorry...I just realized that I put it in the wrong place. Maybe Tyler can move it for me, pretty please :-)) I know he doesn't really have a favorable view of paleo, but I think that his research is a good accompaniment to it!
Cherimoya~
Well, what I'm getting from it is basically he says you need to correct the underlying problem (poor digestion, possibly caused by hypothyroid/low metabolism).
-
You could probably do a raw diet that uses some the principles but would lack significant components (like the idea of balancing muscle meats with collagen/gelatin, or of including those other foods which need to be heated or processed in other ways). Other than the obvious non-paleo forms of foods, many things can at least loosely be linked with anthropology (even the elements to the drugs) but related more in the same way AV employs all kinds of foods (and in this case, things hardly even food) as tools. So on that side of things, its not going to translate to paleo. I've heard people throw around the idea of doing a 'paleo' version that is basically just a high carb fruit based paleo diet, but that really seems to be missing the mark of what he is getting at, at least for people fixing things and not replicating how people in nature ate. I've seen it thrown around that eating meat raw is seen in the W.A.P. literature as lessing the need for colagen, so that might be one feather in the cap for raw meat eating (as long it doesn't contain raw PUFA of course!) particularly if it is consumed with alot of plant based sugars in the diet also.
Some stuff seems sound but even with a leap of faith with the foods -X...other things seem a bit off ("no such things as an essential fatty acid"). My take generally is that no one person has even the bulk of these things figured out, and most people could probably refrain from constantly jumping from one weird ass diet to another, but there are things there to explore and think about. A basic criticism is there isn't alot of back evidence that people do great on coke and asprin, but there is for meats and fats and plants for what thats worth.
Well, what I'm getting from it is basically he says you need to correct the underlying problem (poor digestion, possibly caused by hypothyroid/low metabolism).
At the same time, it seems you've hit on the one part that I would almost deffietly agree with, that no matter how pure your food sources are, that if you stil have those underlying problems you can bet your wheels are spinning (or worse) with whatever perfect intake. These things regulate the healing process, so its a non starter when they are broken without the added attention. There are a few folks that were on this forum that are way into this "diet" (if there is such a single thing) and would concure with that I imagine.
-
Yes, exactly KD! That is really what caught my attention--the fact that Dr. Peat is addressing the underlying issue, and focusing on fixing the metabolism, which in turn allows the body to heal itself and then thrive from then on, on a healthy paleo diet!
What you said about "just spinning wheels" is kind of how I've been feeling when I was just eating a (mostly) cooked "primal/paleo" diet. Like it helped me feel better, and corrected some health issues obviously, because it was a step up from what I was doing before, but it wasn't necessarily fixing the underlying issue. I feel like it might be necesarry to stray a bit from the ideal long-term paleo diet in order to heal some modern health issues.
I actually had a great email chat with Dr. Peat this afternoon (he surprisingly just kept emailing me back answers to most of my questions!) and he said that based on my description of symptoms (MS diagnosis w/ occ. symptoms of numbness/brain fog/fatigue, cold hands and feet and get chilled easily, tall/thin person, amenorrhea, many small benign ovary cysts etc) that he confirms my suspicions that I might be hypothyroid. In one of his podcasts, he mentions a test doctors used to do for hypothyroid...you kneel on a chair, with your feet dangling off, and tap your Achilles tendon with something. If you have no reflex reaction (where your big toe jumps), or one that kind of twitches and then slooooowly goes back down like a pneumatic door, you probably have an underactive thyroid. I tried it, and had no reflex at all! :-O
The one thing I was worried about was taking synthetic thyroid (that is what he suggests--Cytomel or something?--apparently its actually more pure than some of the more "natural" supplements out there which have all kinds of crap fillers and stuff), but I just really don't feel comfortable with supplements, espeically synthetic ones. I just feel like there are SO many nuances to every substance, that we cant POSSIBLY know what they all are! Luckily, he said that if can get an actual thyroid gland, taking about 1/7 gram every day (or 1/4 tsp a week) is actually the best supplement! And I think I can get thyroid from North Star Bison!!!
So, obviously I don't agree with him on something (i.e. food quality and stuff like coke and white sugar and cooking) but a lot of his research is proving to be fascinating and making a lot of sense to me (even tho its a tad over my head sometimes LOL)! And I just can't quite wrap my head around what he says about lacto-fermentation being bad...I guess he words it as it can surpress the metabolism, so maybe he'd concede its only harmful during healing the thyroid? Because lots of (healthy) cultures eat fermented stuff and it seems beneficial to them.
-
Sure, Ray Peat may provide some useful info on some things, which is why I listened to the interview. I peruse a wide variety of sources.
One experience of mine that matches Ray Peat's advice is that I seem to digest raw carrots rather well and don't notice any harm from them and enjoy them quite a bit. However, when I shred them like he recommends, I find they lose all their sweetness and become bland and even slightly bitter and unenjoyable to eat (which may be why he recommends adding olive oil, vinegar, etc. to them, to make them tastier). I researched it and found that plants release toxin when you cut them, which is maybe partly what he's after, since he recommends carrots as an antibiotic/antifungal.
Danny Roddy is a fan of Ray Peat and eats the refined cane sugar and OJ that Ray recommends. I [suggested raw honey as an alternative to processed sugar to Danny], but he didn't reply [regarding it].
Ray Peat's criticism of Paleo was that we don't know for sure what Stone Agers ate, which is a canard. Many informed Paleo dieters understand that already. That isn't the point of Paleo. The real point of Paleo is that we DO know what Stone Agers did NOT eat (such as industrially processed seed/bean oils, industrially processed sugars, and industrially processed grains), which is listed as one of the fundamental principles in the informational section attached to this Website, and we also know which foods that studies have linked to disease and which foods we have found in our own experimentation don't work well for us.
Even the more informed of those who ask "what would Grok do," do so as a starting point, not as a proof of anything. The point of raw Paleo isn't blind re-enactment, it's eliminating the stuff that no one ate until recently that has been linked to disease and using the Paleo/evolutionary blueprint to help in searching for clues for what might also work and finding out via experiment what truly works for each of us as individuals.
How old is Ray Peat? He sounds like he's in his 90's. If so, more power to him for staying so active in cyberspace and trying to help people.
-
Anything anti-raw and/or anti-palaeo MUST be placed in the Hot Topics forum. Topics that have nothing to do with diet should be placed in the Off-Topics forum, and so on and on... I realise that the reason people put such topics in the General Discussions forum is mainly because it is the most popular forum, but we started this site with the intention of allowing other kinds of discussion but, at the same time, quarantining dodgy non-rawpalaeo topics elsewhere.
As regards Ray Peat, his research is wholly bogus. I recall one study he cited to back up his so-called "theories", in which dogs were fed on processed fish-oil supplements high in PUFAs. Needless to say, the dogs suffered(or died?) but Ray Peat chose to blame the high PUFA-content rather than being honest and admitting that fish-oils are not a part of a dog's natural diet. As regards PUFAs, just like with SFAs, they are perfectly healthy as long as they are not processed or heated in any way.
-
I do much better on ray peats style of eating vs paleo or even raw paleo.... Although I still like incorporating the raw paleo aspect with ray peats style
My blood test (prolactin, testosterone, thyroid, shbg, estrogens, etc) were at there very best on ray peats, with my thyroid and body temp being best. Raw paleo diet a good effects overall but it did lower my thyroid function increasing my Reverse t3. I did worst on a very low carb diet (under 50g daily for several months) my thyroid was not good and testosterone levels dropped. Both were better than my raw vegan days though....
overall peats style + paleo style (or whatever you want to call it) seems to be working quite well and maintainable,
-
Nice to have a Peat-style dieter here that we can ask questions of. Maybe I'll get more of a response from you, Storm, than I did from Danny (Danny did acknowledge that fermented honey is a strong anti-fungal and anti-bacterial agent, which reinforces the possibility that it might be just as good or better than industrially heated and refined cane sugar or Coca Cola--maybe I'll try asking him about it again some day). Have you tried a raw Paleo or Primal version of Ray Peat's diet? In other words, with this example that Ray provided...
cooked rib steak
lightly cooked eggs
lots of milk
lots of coffee
orange juice
Coke (Coca Cola)
Why couldn't it work equally as well or better if raw Primal versions of these foods were substituted, such as:
raw rib steak
raw fertile eggs
lots of raw or raw fermented milk
lots of raw cacao
raw or raw fermented honey
good quality water
Plus, the only difference between Peat's menu and Mark Sisson's cooked Paleo-style diet that allows dairy is the Coca Cola, and Mark would probably recommend a whole orange rather than orange juice. What's so great about adding Coca Cola that makes Peat's version superior to Sisson's? Is there some other food Peat adds that's essential which Sisson misses?
-
my staples:
16oz coffee daily
6-8tbs gelatin (great lakes)
8oz orange juice
raw goat milk usally 2-3 cups
1/2 - 1 can native forest coconut milk
some type of meat usually 8oz
few raw egg yolks a day
i do have some heavily cooked yams,potatoes occassionally or even some rice or oats
-
OK, I believe that diet would fit into the basic templates of the Paleo-type diets that Mark Sisson, Kurt Harris and Paul Jaminet recommend. About the only change I can see them making is switching the OJ with a whole orange and maybe eating some more yams or rice instead of the oats. Even Loren Cordain would allow the yams and diet Coke of all things and in cheat meals he would allow anything you like. Heck, even Ray Audette sometimes eats ice cream! :D So it seems like a super-strict interpretation of Cordain-like Paleo was the problem for you, rather than the broader fundamental concepts of Paleo. I've seen people eating less strict than you who call their diets Paleo.
And the only major difference between Ray Peat's diet and cooked Paleo I've seen so far is that Peat adds industrially processed sugar and Coca Cola. I still don't see why honey, fruits and say more coffee couldn't fit the same bill and thus his diet would be fully cooked Paleo (at least in most interpretations of it), especially since Peat is apparently OK with fruits. What do heated and refined sugar cane and Coca Cola offer that including honey, fruits, coffee, tea and cacao would not?
-
that's a good question.... i hope peat would answer that eventually
-
After listening to some podcasts, I think he reccomends the white sugar VS honey because he says honey can be allergenic for some people, and white sugar is more "pure". But then he says something about very highly refined things having contaminants and toxins from the refining process, which is also bad, so I dunno exactly what kind of sugar he's talking about! Is there naturally "filtered" white sugar?? LOL... whatev... I'm certinely only going to use raw honey! ;-)
So if you're fine with raw honey, I don't think it should be a problem.
I think the coca-cola he says he drinks only if he can't get any good, ripe oranges to make juice. He said already-made OJ has some crap in it now thats not good I think. But still, I DEF don't agree with him on the coke...soda is nasty stuff!! But i don't think its like hes pushing it as a healthy every-day thing or anything. Myself, I prefer just eating whole or blended fruit.
Also, I think the very high carb part of his diet is more a short-term thing, for recovering thyroid function...IMO, the whole point is to rev up your thyroid and metabolism to normal, so you CAN eat a fairly broad range of macronutrients, in a healthy paleo diet.
And if his only criticism of paleo is we "don't know what they actually ate", like you said PaleoPhil, its actually not much of a criticism, because we don't really base it on that anyways!
Oh! and he has a couple of FASCINATING articles on multiple sclerosis, that REALLY make sense!!!!
-
here
"That whole approach [PALEO] assumes that we know what the species ate while evolving. There are a lot of fantasy theories[...] I'm inclined, and there's direct present experimental evidence that supports it better than some of the currently popular ideas [fish eating] that fruit eating is a good candidate for supporting evolution to be more human than ape-like, supporting a big brain, and the kind of digestive system we have." Ray Peat
-
I actually like the fact that Ray Peat is fighting back against some of the demonization of fruits as "fructose" and if he only drinks Coke occasionally then I don't see anything significant that he recommends so far that a cooked Paleo dieter who hasn't bought into the demonization of fruits and honey couldn't do. I'm not allergic to honey, so presumably he would be OK with me eating honey.
It seems more of a difference of emphasis than kind, with less PUFA than what most Paleo dieters would eat, though most Paleo diet proponents warn against consuming heated and refined PUFAs and excess omega 6s. There are quite a number of moderate and high carb Paleo dieters now, so I wonder if Peat has gotten the mistaken impression that Paleo has to be low carb for all?
-
Yes, I like that too, PP! :-)
One thing I am curious about--Ray Peat puts a lot of emphasis on how a good portion of protein should come from sources other than muscle meats (such as gelatin-rich things like bone broth), since those are high in cystine, tryptophan etc, and also that in traditional societies, they consumed ALL of the animal...technically making muscle meat kind of almost a neolithic food!
But then I've heard here that most feel bone broth is unnecesarry if you're eating raw meat. But raw meat doesn't automatically have more gelatin in it than cooked, does it? Isn't the gelatin in the joints and gristly bits that are actually kind of hard to get at raw? How would one get raw gelatin, or is it even possible?
I do try to have a good mix of meats---like some brisket, some heart, some other organ, some suet, some marrow. Would any of that include "gelatin"?
-
Ah HA--here it is! From Danny Roddy's "Hair like a Fox" (<---tee hee, I love that title!) blog:
"Some may reply that bone broth is optimal for those with compromised digestion. I would agree, but bone broth is annoying to make and does not contain the same spectrum of nutrients that muscle meats do. A temporary solution at best.
After some more snooping around on Stepan Stastny's Facebook page, there may be a solution. Pottinger suggested that gelatinous protein is not needed when you do not cook meat:
?"If man did not cook his food, there would be no need for hydrophillic colloid foods such as GELATIN to his dietary regime" F.M. Pottenger Jr., MD"
So, apparently gelatin is good becasue it is a "hydrophillic colloid" food, which must mean raw meat is as well I guess.
Hm...soooo...to make bone broth or not?!? I do still eat most of my meat raw or like 99.9% raw. I do love warm broth tho, and do have a couple of jars in my fridge and freezer...
I wish that Pottenger quote explained a little more of the WHY.
-
One thing I am curious about--Ray Peat puts a lot of emphasis on how a good portion of protein should come from sources other than muscle meats (such as gelatin-rich things like bone broth), since those are high in cystine, tryptophan etc, and also that in traditional societies, they consumed ALL of the animal...technically making muscle meat kind of almost a neolithic food!
Paleo people also say that traditional societies tend to place high value on organs, fats, and small bones and connective tissues. I don't know of a single credible scientist who regards muscle meat as Neolithic. If Peat claims that, then that helps explain why some call him a kook.
But then I've heard here that most feel bone broth is unnecesarry if you're eating raw meat.
I've been trying bone broths myself recently, to see it it will further improve my dental health. I see them as potential stand-ins for some of the foods rich in connective tissues, gelatin and calcium that aren't readily available or socially acceptable any more--small lizards and animals, fetal birds, fetal animals, tiny fish, insects, etc. I don't know whether bone broths will help or not. So far I haven't noticed any benefits.
But raw meat doesn't automatically have more gelatin in it than cooked, does it?
Cooking extracts the gelatin.
Isn't the gelatin in the joints and gristly bits that are actually kind of hard to get at raw? How would one get raw gelatin, or is it even possible?
My guess is via the tinier creatures, but I haven't seen anything written on it.
People also apparently had much stronger teeth and jaws in the past. Explorers were astounded by the teeth and jaw strength of the early-contact Inuit. Check this out: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/can-human-teeth-crush-raw-bone/msg15232/#msg15232 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/carnivorous-zero-carb-approach/can-human-teeth-crush-raw-bone/msg15232/#msg15232)
-
I use to always make bone broth, but lost the motitvation to continue to make. Now I just take great lakes gelatin, i absolutley love it and put it in everything.
-
Cooked Paleo writings on gelatin:
Primordial Jelly: The Magic of Gelatin
http://huntgatherlove.com/content/primordial-jelly-magic-gelatin (http://huntgatherlove.com/content/primordial-jelly-magic-gelatin)
Food Focus: Gelatin and the Paleo Diet
Food and Health, Nutrition, Paleo Diet by Brian Cormack Carr
http://paleodietnews.com/2132/food-focus-gelatin-and-the-paleo-diet/ (http://paleodietnews.com/2132/food-focus-gelatin-and-the-paleo-diet/)
"Ok, so gelatin isn’t a food exactly, but it’s definitely an unsung hero of the paleo diet. "
"[G]elatin/collagen proteins as found in skin, bone, feet and other parts constitute about half of an animal’s protein and thus gelatin would have been a large part of our evolutionary diet.
Dr. Jaminet observes a detriment to methionine past 15% of calories, does it then become prudent from a longevity bias to consume half of one’s protein as methionine-rich protein and half as gelatin for structural purposes and recovery?" http://chriskresser.com/paleo-nerd-a-thon-with-robb-wolf-mat-lalonde (http://chriskresser.com/paleo-nerd-a-thon-with-robb-wolf-mat-lalonde)
Bone Broth Revisited; and Pumpkin Soup
By Paul Jaminet
http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=4775 (http://perfecthealthdiet.com/?p=4775)
-
I just don't see any benefit for gelatin. Unless, cooking destroys so many nutrients that extra gelatin is somehow needed on a cooked-palaeodiet.
-
Thanks for the input, guys!
I'm not sure if Dr. Peat actually said muscle meat is a neolithic food...what I meant was basically eating all muscle meat is more of a modern society thing, not something traditional. Kind of worded it wrong, sorry :-{
Like you said PP, we don't typically have access to little creatures like lizards, snakes etc, that could be eaten whole.
-
Yes, most of the people of the world still highly value organs and fats and even my own mother made sure to put bones in soups and stews. The habit of avoiding these foods is actually much more recent than the dawn of the Neolithic and apparently limited to certain modern Western nations. Even these nations valued these foods until recently, which American restaurant menus of a century or so ago show. There are even TV shows by Anthony Bourdain and Andrew Zimmern where they show that much of the rest of world still values these foods.
-
I use organic raw turbinado cane sugar to make my kombucha (even though the scoby eats it - just to support that kind of processing and just in case some sugar might be left in the kombucha). A turbine that does not generate heat is used and sustainable and fair trade practices are used.
If someone doesn't want to use honey, maybe the sugar I use would be a better alternative to white sugar - which in itself has destroyed many native peoples making them into slaves and trashing the environment - and just cannot be as good for the body when it is so processed.
My friend explained to me just yesterday that now when they squeeze OJ and leave it sitting that when the flavor breaks down they are allowed to put "flavorings" back in and do not have to include them on the label. This is true for foods in general. This is creating a way for the companies to be able to slip in things like msg and other addictive and nasty things on they sly.
The only kind of OJ that really feels good to me is the OJ that I make in my Breville juicer. I cut off the skin but leave some of the white to get the bioflavanoids. It tastes totally different - like a creamsicle - and it's more like the whole food. I only have to use about one and a half oranges to get my glass of orange juice. To this I stir in an egg yolk. I can understand how that could be really good food - but I can't see at all how buying the crap they sell in regular stores could be good - let alone white sugar and coke.
I've read just a couple of things on thyroid from Ray Peat a while back - but if he is at all suggesting to people to eat white sugar and coke to help their thyroid glands - that kind of ruined the whole thing for me.
How about seaweed?!
Did you know that when they started to add iodine to salt years later hypothyroidism sky-rocketed past what it had been before adding the iodine to the salt? That was because iodine levels have to be in a very particular range.
Iodine is the ticket Sile. Investigate that. It's a big subject. But I would say that the most paleo way of getting that balance right again is by using your taste and smell to eat the right amount of a wide variety of sea vegetables.
-
Yeah, PP, I love those TV shows where those chef guys journey to different countries and eat crazy stuff...like I'm sure they expect the viewers to be like "ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww!" when they're eating brains and fermented meat and bugs, but I'm all like "Oh, YUM, I wanna try some tooooo!!" haha :-P Speaking of brains, I have my first lamb brain coming in the mail! It costs $10 for a whole one--is that a decent deal?
Dorothy~
WOW thanks for that info about processed stuff! Just one more reason I'm glad I never buy that kind of crap/food anymore!!! I can't believe the things that pass as "food" these days...:-S
I will definitely be making my own OJ with my Champion juicer. I've heard that the GreenStar ones are even better and get more juice out, but I think they're kinda pricey. I just catch the pulp that comes out with my hand and put it through a couple more times LOL!
Yeah, the one thing that bothered me was Ray Peat's lack of emphasis on food quality, but on the other hand, he doesn't specifically reccomend low-quality food either. It might be just a lack of knowledge on his part in that area of nutrition...you know how sometimes people are very either left brained or right brained? He seems SUPER focused and knowledgeable about how the body works and hormones etc, but not so much about the spiritual, nourishing, traditional aspects of food. So I use his research for the more technical side of things, you know?
That is also interesting about turbinado sugar. I wasn't sure if it was actually raw or not, but that makes sense if its processed by a turbine...duh...turbinado LOL just made that connection! ;-) I think I might actually have some in the cupboard from when I used to make kombucha (I just kept forgetting it and letting my scoby die...bad me!!!).
I totally share your view on how the way your food was produced/where it came from has an effect on your body--if the animals were happy, and other things sustainable harvested etc, by people who acutally care about what they're doing, that good karma is going to be passed on!
-
I gave away my greenstar Sile. I don't know if they are different now - but back then it was a real pain to put together, take apart and clean and the darn expensive monster cracked!
Whereas just about everyone says - oh my champion - I've had that thing forever and it just never dies. That's the champion for ya.
When I make OJ in my Breville (I know, centrifugal - but oh so easy) I get almost no waste from the oranges. I think it's the centrifugal nature of the thing that makes that OJ taste so thick and yummy. I'm not sure it would come out the same in a "better" juicer because it would remove too much of what I'm trying to leave in - that white pithy part with all the bioflavanoids that help the vitamin c to be absorbed. It makes it stay more of a whole food. In a way - it's what's "bad" about the Breville that has become so "good" for making my juice not be so sugary, thin and separated and hence not as much to my usually whole food prefering self. ;)
And about Peat - yeah - taking the best parts of all that people have to offer is very wise of you.
-
It costs $10 for a whole one--is that a decent deal?
I don't know, sorry.
He seems SUPER focused and knowledgeable about how the body works and hormones etc, but not so much about the spiritual, nourishing, traditional aspects of food. So I use his research for the more technical side of things, you know?
You might want to also check out Chris Kresser, Mat Lalonde, Robb Wolf and Stephan Guyenet for different opinions on the technical side of things.
Dorothy, good point about raw cane sugar, I don't know why Peat doesn't recommend that. Perhaps he's after just the sucrose, in a reductionist sort of way?
-
Oh yes, good suggestions! I do follow all those other people that you mentioned as well!
-
I just don't see any benefit for gelatin. Unless, cooking destroys so many nutrients that extra gelatin is somehow needed on a cooked-palaeodiet.
Perhaps it it the methods used to make gelatin from collagen(the raw precursor of gelatin) that give the health benefits. I personally noticed benefits from using bone broths(no more teeth sensitivity etc) but I use it for the magnesium and other minerals hadn't even thought about the gelatin I get along with it until i read some of Peats stuff after reading this thread.
-
For those whom like their oranges liquid and have juicer issues(or no juicer et all like me) I sometimes just blend a whole(organic) or peeled orance with some carrots and a little water and strain. Absolutely delicious! Generally I don't like high sugar juices like that but they serve me well as a (pre-)workout beverage.
-
Can someone please explain this?--raw fresh squeezed orange juice gives me bad throat mucus--more than any other food except pasteurized OJ, even pasteurized milk--but raw fresh squeezed lemon juice does not give me any mucus whatsoever (even if consumed undiluted). I used to think it was the pH of the OJ that caused the issue, but straight lemon juice is even more acidic.
My best current guess is that it's something to do with the sugariness of the OJ, but fermented honey and high quality artisanal mead do not give me this issue at all. I wonder if it's the particular mix or balance of sugars in the OJ or something else entirely? This is one of the biggest unresolved puzzlers for me, though not hugely important, as I can easily avoid OJ. I do notice that fresh-squeezed OJ causes me much less mucus than pasteurized OJ.
On the other hand, I haven't tried fresh OJ in quite a while, so maybe I should test it again.
-
I think Ray Peat has a lot of useful information to contribute. If you read articles at his website, raypeat.com, he always lists a lot of valid scientific references. He is a serious scientist. He cites studies which prove, it is not only protein that matters, but the balance of amino acids that matter.
-
Yeah, I like that he always has tons of references listed at the ends of his articles. I know some people say he "uses too many rat studies LOL" but it seems that the studies he does refrence, he looks at very critically to make sure they also apply to humans. I think in one podcast, he mentions that the reason researchers were able to "prove" estrogen was beneficial was because of something that is specific to rats (since they are nocturnal) that doesn't actually apply to humans! So its not like he's not aware of the differences between rodents and humans.
The last 6 days or so, I've been eating a mostly-raw paleo version of Ray Peat's dietary reccomendations, and have been feeling fabulous! Lots of energy and very positive mindset. I've been using bison thyroid (raw, of course haha!) for my thyroid supplement, and I have a couple of other hormone supplements he reccomends coming in the mail, so we'll see how that goes. My temps are still in the 96's and 97's, so no improvement there yet. So, we'll see...:-)
The one thing I'd like to hear him address is the health of island populations that seem to eat a lot of the omega-3 rich fish, seeing as he's so critical of the unsaturated fatty acids. Maybe I'll have to ask him that...
-
Ray Peat is an endocrinologist, specializing in female hormones. He is the right person to contact for thyroid issues.
-
I don't believe he has any complaints about eating fish. He does have a fine article questioning fish oil supplementation - saying it is an experiment being performed on the general population.
-
Can someone please explain this?--raw fresh squeezed orange juice gives me bad throat mucus....
No explanations, I guess. How about has anyone else noticed this, especially with pasteurized OJ?
Why couldn't it work equally as well or better if raw Primal versions of these foods were substituted
The last 6 days or so, I've been eating a mostly-raw paleo version of Ray Peat's dietary reccomendations....
Thanks for letting us know that you're putting it to the test, SileIndigo. Please let us know how it goes. What have you been eating so far?
With some minor tweaking, Storm's sample daily diet could easily be converted to something probably acceptable to most cooked-Paleo diet gurus:
16oz coffee
6-8tbs gelatin (great lakes)
1 fresh whole orange
pastured or raw pastured butter
1/2 - 1 can native forest coconut milk
some type of meat usually 8oz
a few raw egg yolks
some heavily cooked yams, potatoes occasionally, or even some rice
And with some more serious tweaking it can be made raw Primal/Paleo:
16oz+ water or sun/air-dried tea
marrow
1 fresh whole orange or other fruit/berries
raw butter or marrow/suet/brains
fresh coconut water or flesh
some type of raw meat usually 8oz
a few raw egg yolks
raw carrots or parsnips
Fatty fish appears to be the biggest disagreement between Peat and Paleo gurus. Here's how someone summarized Peat's view on fatty fish:
"Fatty fish like salmon and herring should be avoided because their fat content is mostly unsaturated; as a general rule, cold blooded animals like fish tend to produce unsaturated fats while warm blooded animals like cows and pigs tend to produce saturated and monounsaturated fats. Cod and sole are good fish, since they have the marine minerals (especially selenium), but low fat content. Tuna is good as protein, but the fat it contains is highly polyunsaturated; eating once a week, especially with homemade coconut mayo should be safe.of course" http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=419742 (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=419742)
Based on that commenter and other sources, the main differences between Peat and cooked Paleo appear to be these:
> avoidance of fatty fish like salmon and herring (and fish oil) and preference for lean fish and shellfish
> more positive talk than usual about industrially processed sugar, Coca Cola, tortilla chips fried in coconut oil, popcorn popped on the stove in coconut oil and then salted & buttered, and "occasional" grains like masa harina, oats, and white or brown rice.
> more emphasis on milk (preferably raw) and potatoes and yams than MOST (not all) cooked and raw Paleo/Primal/Traditional diet gurus (and these foods have been growing in popularity in Paleo circles)
> recommends food combining of carbs with proteins
If the above info is correct, the general sense I get is Paleo lite: a less restrictive form of cooked Paleo, except that it also restricts fatty fish. It should appeal to anyone who doesn't want to give up the foods that Ray Peat adds to strict interpretations of cooked Paleo diets, especially milk, sugar, Coca Cola, OJ, coffee and fried tubers and tortilla chips, and doesn't mind giving up fatty fish, which would probably include most Americans.
-
The one thing I'd like to hear him address is the health of island populations that seem to eat a lot of the omega-3 rich fish, seeing as he's so critical of the unsaturated fatty acids. Maybe I'll have to ask him that...
So you'd ask a lab scientist why something he says is bad happens to work in the real world? That sounds like a waste of time to me. If eating fish didn't work then the Eskimos, Samoans, Japanese, etc., would be having health problems from it. They don't, though. Also, none of those groups mentions avoiding fatty fish. In fact, all the groups Dr. Price studied PRIZED animal fats, including fatty fish.
So, yeah, I'd say 10 minutes of actual field work on traditional food practices is worth about 1000 years of lab science.
Or, to put it another way, if you read and understand Dr. Price's book, you know lots more useful knowledge about nutrition than 99.9% of health professionals.
Add in what we teach here about raw foods, and you've got a good start toward actually being in the driver's seat regarding your own health. We certainly don't know EVERYTHING about nutrition here...but we probably know more than any other group you'll ever find.
Are you familiar with Dr. Price's book?
-
So you'd ask a lab scientist why something he says is bad happens to work in the real world? That sounds like a waste of time to me. If eating fish didn't work then the Eskimos, Samoans, Japanese, etc., would be having health problems from it. They don't, though. Also, none of those groups mentions avoiding fatty fish. In fact, all the groups Dr. Price studied PRIZED animal fats, including fatty fish.
Well, I just mean I'd be curious to hear what he has to say about that; I'm not questioning the fact that those cultures all obviously thrived on eating lots of fatty fish.
I have read Dr. Price's book, and actually own it--I should really re-read it; I haven't for awhile! Traditional foods diets are where I originally started, when I got interested in researching healing through diet about 4-5 years ago.
It just seems to me that sometimes modern people with messed up health need more than just a healthy traditional diet to totally heal, which is why I am interested in Dr. Peat's work. For instance, some of the people that Dr. Price studied ate grains as a good portion of their diets and were still healthy, but that obviously won't work for a lot of people nowadays. Dr. Peat's research is very interesting to me because based on what I have learned from him, I am almost 100% sure I'm hypothyroid, and that that is the underlying cause of my MS diagnosis.
Also, his dietary suggestions, with a raw=paleo slant added, are very very close to what I ended up leaning towards instinctively on my own...sweet fruits, raw dairy, raw honey, raw meat/organs, saturated fats, bone broth. And supplementing thyroid hormone by eating raw bison thyroid makes me feel A LOT better!
-
The very fact that those hunter-gatherer tribes ate grains is a clear indication that they weren't all that healthy to begin with. This is one of the many reasons why Price is considered to be just a lame advocate of the Myth of the Noble Savage.
As regards Ray Peat, since he uses highly dubious animal studies mainly, such as that one study involving dogs being fed on fish-oils, he can't be trusted. I mean if that study had involved raw, whole wildcaught fish as a 100 percent of a dog's diet, then it would have had some credibility perhaps, not otherwise.
-
Agreed with TylerDurden, and further regarding the carrot salad -- I couldn't find any study supporting his claims, only one on rabbits which kinda goes against what he's saying.
-
Although no one is perfect, I think Ray Peat's suggestions are gold. Essentially he suggests we eat high sugar and high protein, meaning a lot of fruit and a lot of animal products (i.e. paleo foods). I do better on this than I do on a zero carb diet that the Inuit eat. I've never been able to duplicate the Inuit results even when apparently eating the same type of diet. I actually started a Ray Peat diet before I had ever heard of Ray Peat - what I did was just replace all my additional fat with fruit, which is still paleo. Peat's data and research seems to check out with my own experience on very low carb diets so I tend to feel it is legitimate.
-
Also, his dietary suggestions, with a raw=paleo slant added, are very very close to what I ended up leaning towards instinctively on my own...sweet fruits, raw dairy, raw honey, raw meat/organs, saturated fats, bone broth. And supplementing thyroid hormone by eating raw bison thyroid makes me feel A LOT better!
Yes, and all the traditional tribes prized the thyroid and adrenals.
My point is that guys like Ray Peat are a dime a dozen. People who are smart enough to see that real-world results with entire populations of people have the most validity of any evidence are much more rare.
-
Phil - about you and the orange juice:
First question - was the orange juice fresh from organic oranges?
Second question - do you get the same reaction from eating an orange?
Third question - have you ever tried blending an orange with just the yellow peel taken off?
That white stuff on the orange has lots of things in it that are necessary to digesting/using the juice properly. I do much better on my breville juiced oranges that leave a lot of the white pith in it. Also, when juicing that way the juice of one orange fills my cup so I'm not getting too much fruit at once which is so easy to do with juicing.
You also have been quite sensitive to carbs for a long time haven't you? Aren't you just starting to be able to eat more carbs? Sounds like another experiment might be in order. My "whole juice" oj is a real treat and makes me feel very good. It would be nice if you had that option.
Also, lemons are simply not as sweet as an orange, so it makes sense that a lemon or lime would have a different reaction. The acidity in the lemon or like is going to be much greater. I love sucking on a lemon or lime after eating a lot (for me) of fat - seems to help a good deal with the digestion of the fat.
-
I'd like to interject that there are no publications in the whole of the scientific world that have a Dr. Ray Peat as an author, not even as a junior author (ie an undergrad or grad student/post doc that did the grunt work in a lab). In other words there is no record in the literature of him ever doing an experiment on anything.
I am intrigued by some of his statements and haven't really checked him out enough to have a solid opinion but reading on his website about how "cellular transporters" like the ones for calcium ions are nonsense or invented by biologists to try and explain away something they can't explain seems a bit specious to me. A lot of drugs work on these concepts. I'm not advocating drugs but some drugs do have a physiological effect using these channels, or disabling them. He cites some things in his writings on his site but also says many many things without reference.
-
Phil - about you and the orange juice:
First question - was the orange juice fresh from organic oranges?
I think I mentioned already that not-fresh OJ gives me more mucus than fresh, but I still get some from fresh squeezed too, at least I did the last time I tried it.
Second question - do you get the same reaction from eating an orange?
A little, not as much, as I recall.
Third question - have you ever tried blending an orange with just the yellow peel taken off?
Do you mean the outer peel? No, I never tried that.
You also have been quite sensitive to carbs for a long time haven't you?
Yes, as long as I can remember back in my youth I had the same symptoms, though they got worse over time. Because OJ always gave me mucus I assumed it was normal, until I was spitting in the sink one day after a particularly strong flow of mucus from OJ and a friend said that was weird. OJ gives me more mucus than any other food, even pasteurized milk, which a lot of people report mucus from and from which I do get some mucus. The OJ symptoms have improved some since going Paleo and then raw Paleo.
Aren't you just starting to be able to eat more carbs?
It's been some months now. So far the carbs I handle best are raw fermented honey, blackberries, blueberries, raspberries and fresh figs. Not so much strawberries for some odd reason, even organic and even though they are lower in sugar, though I am tolerating them better than in the past and they were never a big problem as long as I don't overdo it. My mother gets rashes from too much strawberries and said maybe it's because strawberries are more acidic, like the OJ, yet I don't have a problem with lemons. Quite a puzzle.
Also, lemons are simply not as sweet as an orange, so it makes sense that a lemon or lime would have a different reaction.
That's what I figured, but then it was surprising when I tolerated moderate amounts of raw fermented honey well (though I do need to limit my intake, but less so than in the past). I think the microbiota in the honey may help me digest it.
-
Phil, what's a rough breakdown of your daily diet?
-
These are probably my current most common foods, in varying amounts, most of them raw, with more fish, carbs and cheese on the weekends and mostly beef and fat during the week:
100% Grassfed beef
Fertile chicken eggs, duck eggs, unfertile free-range eggs
Suet, grassfed
Marrow, grassfed
Lard, from local free-range pigs
Wild yellowfin tuna or salmon, sushi grade
Liver, GF beef
Carrots
Parsnips
Blackberries
Lemons
Real Pickles brand Sauerkraut w/ carroway seeds
Really Raw fermented honey
Raw aged sheep's cheese
Bone broths
-
Do you get a reaction from tomato juice?
If the juice is not fresh you could be having a reaction to additives. Orange juice producers can add all sorts of things to the juice legally now and not have to put it on the label.
Doctors will make people get rid of acid foods when they have mucous for reasons that don't make much sense to me. If you don't have a reaction to tomato juice, then I highly doubt it has anything to do with the acidity. Doctors don't make you give up lemon juice but do make you give up oranges and tomatoes.
My guess would be that it probably has to do with the extracted sugar content for you. Oranges are just one of those symbiotic food substances that can't be torn apart and be expected to be handled by the body well. The white pith has the bioflavanoids and you are meant to get some of that white pith when you eat a whole orange in order to absorbe nutrients in the juice properly. Oranges juiced normally feel completely different to me than the oranges that I juice in my breville juicer where I get a lot of that white pith. The pith also slows down the absorption of the sugars. Honey is a complex food. Oranges that are more whole are also more complex.
The experiment that I would do on myself if I had your issue would be to make the same amount of juice from orange, lemon and tomato and dilute it just the same amount if you have to dilute the lemon juice and see how these three affect you now that your tolerance for carbs and sugars has changed. You would have to make the juice yourself to know that there are no additives and that they are organic. Rarely would someone get as much lemon juice in one sitting as one would get orange juice - so that's why you would have to measure. If with freshly made juice of all three you only have a reaction to the OJ only, then I would try juicing oranges with the pith (I use a sharp knife to take off only the outer orange rind) or eating the whole orange attempting to leave on more pith and see how that affects you. If you don't get a problem with the pith included, the problem is that the fruit didn't include all the parts that you are supposed to eat. I love doing those kinds of experiments. l)
-
"All natural" spaghetti/tomato sauce gives me reflux and upset stomach. I don't remember if it gives me any mucus or not, but I do know it doesn't give me as much as OJ. I don't like tomato juice, so I don't know. I think the sugar in the OJ is one likely factor, plus maybe the acid, plus the less fresh, the more problem, though even fresh-squeezed OJ from an orange gives me some mucus.
-
I think it would be difficult to tell if something is giving problems when eating such a large variety of food. If you're looking to test if orange juice/fruit is causing problems, you probably would have to consume a notable amount of it. Starch could cause mucus, but sugar causing mucus doesn't make much sense. Perhaps orange juice specifically is giving you an issue, but sugar or fruit in general is not something that should be causing mucus. It could be a reaction with a different food - meat and solid fruits tend to work better than juices and meat. Have you considered trying to follow a Ray Peat type of diet to experiment? That is, if you have any issues at the moment, everything could be going perfectly for you, I don't know :)
-
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.
-
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.
Your re-introduced coffee in your diet after years of raw?? Brave! This stuff is addictive you know... I just cut it out completely and have a hard time keeping it out and I only drank 1 occasionally 2 cups a day.
-
Drinking green/black tea for the purpose Ray Peat drinks so much coffee (reduce iron absorption) is at least twice as effective.
But tea/coffee only block non-heme iron (found mainly in plants as far as I know), so it doesn't do much on our diet of largely animal food, nor on Ray Peat's diet which is similar. He's drinking liters of coffee thinking it will save him from iron overload or something..
-
Seems like in meats 60% of the iron is non-heme, so maybe tea/coffee do have some iron blocking effect after all.
-
Thanks, that reminds me that I'm back to drinking tea again too. I take breaks from tea and coffee and watch for any signs of withdrawal, to make sure I don't overload or build up plant toxins or any such thing. I don't drink a lot anyway. My main tea/coffee beverage is actually spruce tips tea either lightly heated or just allowed to soak in water. Yummy stuff. The tea itself is dried, of course, and therefore possibly heated, but I'm not currently a purist anyway.
-
Thanks, that reminds me that I'm back to drinking tea again too. I take breaks from tea and coffee and watch for any signs of withdrawal, to make sure I don't overload or build up plant toxins or any such thing. I don't drink a lot anyway. My main tea/coffee beverage is actually spruce tips tea either lightly heated or just allowed to soak in water. Yummy stuff. The tea itself is dried, of course, and therefore possibly heated, but I'm not currently a purist anyway.
I do the same with coffee and tea, and they don't seem to affect me negatively like the used to, and I never get addicted. :-)
-
I reviewed my health diary notes to see what foods appeared to trigger excess mucus in me (as always, YMMV), and see what I had found re: orange juice, given that Ray Peat is such a proponent of it, which makes it somewhat relevant here.
Here are my notes from years ago, with a few minor updates. This was accumulated over quite some time, so there's probably more detail here than most would be interested in, but here it is, for any who are interested.
Foods and stimuli that cause (me) mucus, sinus congestion, runny nose and sinus drip and/or stomach upset
(BEFORE GLUTEN-FREE DIET YEARS AGO)
Strong reaction:
Orange juice (regular acid; low-acid OJ was much less of a problem)—throat mucus, acid stomach
Lemonade--throat mucus
Raw onions--acid stomach, heartburn
Fish oil tablets and gels—indigestion, gas (fish-flavored belches)
Cold weather—runny nose and sinus congestion, throat mucus, face mask helps
Beer, especially Sam Adams Boston Lager (high in acidic hops): acid stomach, reflux, heartburn, gas, flatulation, hangover headache from just a couple beers (whereas some other beers don't seem to have this effect with even more beers consumed)
0 – 3% fat milk (pasteurized cow's)--throat mucus
Ice cream--throat mucus, especially colder
Tomato sauce: acid stomach, stomach gas, reflux
Welshire Farms Hot & Spicy Tom-Toms Turkey Snack Stick (spices & lactic acid starter culture): burning stomach
Vegetarian "everything" pizza: stomach gas, belching, nausea, flatulation, and diarrhea
Red and green bell peppers (raw or lightly cooked)—stomach gas, especially green peppers
Cruciferous vegetables like cabbage and cauliflower—difficult to digest, stomach gas and belching
Caffeine—excess resulted in increased frequency of bloody noses and aggravation of stress, irritability, insomnia, anxiety and panic
Colas and root beer—throat mucus, anxiety
Milk-based yogurt (pasteurized cow's)--throat mucus
Cheese (pasteurized cow's)—throat mucus
Moderate reaction:
5% unsaturated fat soy milk--throat mucus
O.S. Cranberry juice from concentrate—throat mucus
Soy yogurt--throat mucus
3% "low fat" soy milk--throat mucus
0% "nonfat" soy milk--throat mucus
Mild reaction:
Cold beverages, including water--throat mucus (cold water causes throat mucus, hot water does not)
Pear juice--throat mucus
Grape juice--throat mucus
Cape Cod Cranberry juice (apple, grape, cranberry and lemon juice concentrates)--throat mucus
Recharge Tropical Thirst Quencher (concentrated white grape juice, hibiscus tea, orange extract, sea salt)—very mild throat mucus reaction
Cornmeal mush and fried cornmeal mush—runny nose
Power Bar: Banana (grape and pear juice concentrate, milk protein isolate)—throat mucus
Fruit sorbet—throat mucus (likely due to the coldness, maybe somewhat due to the fruit acid)
Foods that did NOT seem to cause throat mucus, sinus congestion, runny nose and sinus drip and/or stomach upset, or seemed beneficial
Apples—feel less malaise and nausea and more energy after eating; they seem to help bowels a bit
Low-acid fruits
Lean meats
Fish
Non-dense and low-acid vegetables
Soluble fiber
[and later on I found that raw meats, animal fats, and organs were very beneficial and raw fermented honey was quite beneficial in moderation, even though honey is generally highly acidic, though too much on an empty stomach does cause a burning sensation in my stomach]
It looks like acidity and coldness were two big factors for me in triggering mucus and other issues. Given that I'm handling lemon juice much better, I'm curious how well I'd handle OJ now and whether it would taste any better to me now, but I'm not sure I want to tempt myself, given the problems it caused me in the past.
I can drink ice cold water now without any throat or sinus mucus and cold weather triggers little or no mucus/congestion as long as I keep the raw animal fat intake high and the carb intake low (especially easily digestible carbs).
One of the interesting things about my health diary was that it pointed me away from modern foods and to Paleo foods other than acidic and sugary fruits/juices even before I learned the basic evolutionary nutrition hypothesis.
BTW, I should also note that all orange juice except fresh squeezed tended to give me a bad aftertaste that made it more and more unappealing to me, especially once I found much tastier foods that I also fared far better on. Fresh-squeezed OJ didn't have as bad an aftertaste.
-
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.
-
But if carbs are part of the cause of the mucus, then wouldn't carbs that are more easily and therefore quickly digested cause a stronger mucus reaction?
-
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.
-
But if carbs are part of the cause of the mucus, then wouldn't carbs that are more easily and therefore quickly digested cause a stronger mucus reaction?
carbs aren't part of the cause of the mucus, poor digestion and inflammatory stress hormones are.
-
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.
-
carbs aren't part of the cause of the mucus, poor digestion and inflammatory stress hormones are.
Remember, I've been talking about MY mucus reaction here, not yours. Your assumptions don't necessarily match my experience.
-
Remember, I've been talking about MY mucus reaction here, not yours. Your assumptions don't necessarily match my experience.
I was mainly just explaining Ray Peat's views more so than my own.
The Ray Peat viewpoint that "carbs aren't part of the cause of the mucus, poor digestion and inflammatory stress hormones are" is, as far as I'm aware, referring to human physiology and not just isolated cases of individuals where YYMV etc. It's not just an assumption; sugar’s effect on stress hormones has been studied. Mucus, excess sebum, oil are side effects of elevated stress hormones. Those with mucus problems on a Ray Peat diet could be a result of dairy consumption, lacking minerals, not enough fruit.
If someone is finding that simple sugar/ripe fruits are causing mucus or oiliness, I'm inclined to think the problem lies elsewhere in the diet, and it's not sugar that needs to be removed, but something else (unless you have a deeper explanation as to why you believe the simple carbs are an issue?).
If you're convinced that sugar is inherently detrimental (which, understandably, many people are), nothing can really be done to make your views compatible with Peat's fundamentals.
-
Mucus, excess sebum, oil are side effects of elevated stress hormones.
Thanks for the idea. So does drinking OJ elevate my stress hormones?
If you're convinced that sugar is inherently detrimental....
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 appear to be speaking mostly about something much different than what I am. It sounds like you're mainly talking about theories about what works for everyone, whereas I have tried to be careful to speak only about my own personal experience. None of what I've said was meant to necessarily apply to anyone else. 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.
-
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.
-
You implied that you believe sugar causes your mucus.
If you get to know me you'll learn that I'm pretty literal. I rarely mean to imply anything more than what I actually say. Please note that I was even careful to put an "if" at the front of my question regarding carbs: if carbs are part of the cause of the mucus, then
I think easily-digested bursts of sugar without the context of microbiota that help me consume it could indeed be a factor, but IF it is, I've established pretty clearly that it isn't the only one. I'm not condemning all sugar-containing foods for everyone or anything like that. I'm not into dogma, just puzzling out my personal experience and asking questions and reporting how my experience correlates with the assumptions made.
In reviewing my notes, two factors that I had identified before still stand out pretty strongly--acidity and coldness. Regular acid OJ gives me more mucus than low-acid OJ and ice-cold water used to give me throat mucus (though not any more), whereas room-temperature to hot water did not. High bursts of easily digestible sugar, such as in a variety of fruit juices, including even fresh-squeezed, could also be a factor, though seemingly less so than in the past and they are often accompanied by acidity and/or coldness, so it's hard to tell for sure. Perhaps it's a combination of all three factors--acid, cold, and bursts of easily-digestible sugar, and maybe stress exacerbates it, thus potentially adding a fourth factor.
Ultimately, there's nothing that can really be said to someone who just insists that it doesn't work for them.
Luckily I haven't done that, or at least didn't intend to give that impression. I probably eat more like Ray Peat than most members of this forum, much of which I've pointed out in this very thread. When personal experience varies slightly from what the guru says and this causes this sort of reaction, it gives the impression that we're slipping toward dogma territory here, which is common whenever diet gurus enter the topic of discussion. Heck, Tyler has been way more contrary about Ray than I have, even going to the point of seeming to ridicule Ray at times.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the different viewpoint. It's why I ask questions about issues with carby foods at this forum with plenty of carb-lovers and share the positive info I find on carby foods at a forum full of low carbers. I'm not interested in yes-men just "amen"ing what I say. People who have different experiences and thoughts tend to give me more insights and put my own guesses through the toughest tests.
And if I'm looking for info on what the best fruits are and the best way to eat them, say, I take a very different approach and go to the forums where they are beloved to learn. So for fruits I go to the fruit experts, including a fruit-heavy raw vegan forum. From them I learned something I had pondered as a possibility--the best way to eat at least some fruits seems to be overripe and slightly fermented, with the bacteria perhaps aiding in the digestion. This also fits well with my experience regarding fermented honey.
-
Luckily I haven't done that. I probably eat more like Ray Peat than most members of this forum, much of which I've pointed out in this very thread.
From my impression, your diet seems to be rather different to that of a Ray Peat diet.
When personal experience varies slightly from what the guru says and this causes this sort of reaction, it gives the impression that we're slipping toward dogma territory here, which is common whenever diet gurus enter the topic of discussion.
That's fair, however, when someone is claiming that it doesn't work for them and their anecdotal evidence is different from the majority of others, and they are lacking a sound physiological explanation for why it's not working, it's only natural that I suspect various other issues.
Ray Peat is also not necessarily a diet guru. Through his research he has highlighted what he believes to be causes of health issues in the human body. That's his starting point. Foods can then be used to control these conditions within the body (stress hormones, thyroid output, estrogen etc). It's a very undogmatic approach, even if, like Tyler, you disagree with some of his conclusions.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the different viewpoint. It's why I ask questions about issues with carby foods at this forum with plenty of carb-lovers and share the positive info I find on carby foods at a forum full of low carbers. I'm not interested in yes-men just "amen"ing what I say. People who have different experiences and thoughts tend to give me more insights and put my own guesses through the toughest tests.
And if I'm looking for info on what the best fruits are and the best way to eat them, say, I take a very different approach and go to the forums where they are beloved to learn. So for fruits I go to the fruit experts, including a fruit-heavy raw vegan forum. From them I learned something I had pondered as a possibility--the best way to eat at least some fruits seems to be overripe and slightly fermented.
That makes a lot of sense, but it's critical to remember that the context of a food in the diet as a whole is important.
-
From my impression, your diet seems to be rather different to that of a Ray Peat diet.
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. If what I'm saying irritates you, then you wouldn't like the other couple diet forums and most of the blogs I peruse at all, because their diets differ much more from Ray's than mine differs from Ray's. I'm also friendly with Danny Roddy, who's a fan of Ray Peat (and even bought Danny's ebook that contains Peatatarian tips), so I even have an indirect connection to Ray.
That's fair, however, when someone is claiming that it doesn't work for them
Again, I didn't say that. Please stop putting words into my mouth/keyboard. 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 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/ray-peat-podcast-interesting!/msg84885/#msg84885)). 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.
As I pointed out in my second post, "Ray Peat may provide some useful info on some things, which is why I listened to the interview. I peruse a wide variety of sources." In addition to Danny Roddy's stuff, I've also read small bits of Ray's own writings, sometimes shared by others like Danny.
and their anecdotal evidence is different from the majority of others,
Who is this majority of others? The few in this thread? At any rate, it's irrelevant, because I never claimed that my experience was common. If it was common I probably would already know the answers and wouldn't have to ask the questions.
and they are lacking a sound physiological explanation for why it's not working
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.
-
Tyler, I think I'm getting a better and better sense of why you generally aren't fond of guru discussion and generally seem to go to great lengths to try to discourage guru worship here. I still wouldn't go as far as you do in criticizing diet leaders like Ray Peat and their followers, and I already had some inkling of what you meant, but I think I can empathize with you more on it in the time since we discussed it last (and I'm not singling out this thread or any one person; I've noticed this general tendency across multiple threads and within most forums). I can imagine you've had to deal with quite a bit of it in your more lengthy presence at and moderation of this forum.
On a related note, I've also been noticing more and more dogmatic-type talk in Gary Taubes' verbal and written communications, though I don't think he does it intentionally or even fully, consciously realizes it.
On the other hand, I still learn stuff from threads like this one, so it's not like there isn't any value. Isn't it at least interesting how easy it is to convert Ray's diet into a raw Paleo diet and how Ray is one of the few voices speaking out in favor of sugary raw Paleo foods like sweet fruits?
On another related note, one thing I liked about Lex Rooker's posts early on was that he came across as an anti-guru, with think-for-yourself sort of language.
-
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 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/ray-peat-podcast-interesting!/msg84885/#msg84885)). 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.
-
Ray Peat's idiotic condemnation of PUFAs makes him about as anti-rawpalaeo as one can get. We rawpalaeos are mostly, after all, in favour of PUFA-rich raw seafood/grassfed meats etc. The trouble with Ray Peat is that he ignores the fact that raw, unrefined PUFAs are perfectly healthy.
As regards gurus, I find that they all have major flaws due to hubris. There is an annoying tendency among most dieters to worship a particular guru in a monotheistic way. The trouble is that no guru can possibly be 100% perfect since perfection does not exist in Nature. So it makes far more sense to depend on a 100+ other scientists, gurus etc. and just depend on those ideas of theirs which fit in with one's experience, and ignore the rest. No wonder I dislike being labelled as a guru.
-
Ray Peat's idiotic condemnation of PUFAs makes him about as anti-rawpalaeo as one can get. We rawpalaeos are mostly, after all, in favour of PUFA-rich raw seafood/grassfed meats etc. The trouble with Ray Peat is that he ignores the fact that raw, unrefined PUFAs are perfectly healthy.
With regards to Raw fish, some could infer that the fat is dangerous because polyunsaturated fats, without the presence of saturated fats for protection (which is why beef is fine), go rancid at human body temperature - thus even if they are raw they could still be problematic.
However, raw fish as a whlole food could have components within it that protect the body from possible damage. Fatty fish is a particularly good source of vitamin D which perhaps is in the fish for a reason.
More studies would definitely be needed to make a conclusive decision, the above are just ideas. Raw food diets are unlikely to be really studied extensively to get this information though (although perhaps there has been some research on raw PUFA that I haven't seen), so Peat isn't necessarily ignoring the fact that they are healthy (if they are).
To say that raw fish is completely healthy because the inuit ate raw fish and were healthy, or that raw unprocessed food is always healthy isn't the way Peat operates, and in my opinion Peat's way is less dogmatic. However, we can get a lot of insight from both an inside out and outside in way of thinking, especially because the quality of scientific research into diet and human health is relatively poor.
-
Peat is one man. The Inuit are an entire ethnicity.
And yeah, I'm pretty anti-guru. They're all wrong about SOMEthing. I can tell you WHAT they're wrong about, too, usually.
The difference between the mods here and gurus is that we don't get paid. We found this knowledge through hard work, just like the better gurus, but we have absolutely no interest in anything other than simply getting it right.
We, therefore, have the ability to change our opinions more easily than someone who has already written books, papers, etc., and perhaps fears looking foolish (and losing followers and money) if they are caught changing their opinions.
So feel free to be aware of the gurus. Recognize, however, that this is probably the single best place on the internet for nutrition information, because we are more than willing to criticize absolutely anybody, including each other. Gurus have blind spots. We, as a group, have few, because we constantly force each other to prove things well with facts, or give up on preaching a particular opinion.
We have no mercy. It hurts, but it's a gooood hurt.
-
Peat is one man. The Inuit are an entire ethnicity.
I don't buy that either. After all, there are African tribes which happily eat cassava, a very low-nutrient food which needs to have its cyanide-content removed before it can be eaten. So, a unit of lots of humans can still be dead wrong.
As regards Ray Peat, he exaggerates and focuses solely on heavily refined PUFAs. For example, so-called "raw" olive oil appears to be created as a result of a lot of heat-generating pressure, and he also refers to studies on fish-oils to back up his anti-PUFA claims while studiously ignoring multiple other studies which show definite health-benefits for eating seafood. I'm sure that raw olives are perfectly healthy to eat. I never had a problem with those, only with raw olive-oil.
-
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. If what I'm saying irritates you, then you wouldn't like the other couple diet forums and most of the blogs I peruse at all, because their diets differ much more from Ray's than mine differs from Ray's. I'm also friendly with Danny Roddy, who's a fan of Ray Peat (and even bought Danny's ebook that contains Peatatarian tips), so I even have an indirect connection to Ray.
Again, I didn't say that. Please stop putting words into my mouth/keyboard. 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 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/ray-peat-podcast-interesting!/msg84885/#msg84885)). 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.
As I pointed out in my second post, "Ray Peat may provide some useful info on some things, which is why I listened to the interview. I peruse a wide variety of sources." In addition to Danny Roddy's stuff, I've also read small bits of Ray's own writings, sometimes shared by others like Danny.
Who is this majority of others? The few in this thread? At any rate, it's irrelevant, because I never claimed that my experience was common. If it was common I probably would already know the answers and wouldn't have to ask the questions.
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.
So who is PP?
4000 post's
-
Sorry in advance for the lengthiness of this post, but it seems like there may be some doubt regarding my experience, and I also found plenty of evidence that suggests that mucus/phlegm from OJ is not as uncommon as I thought, so I'm sharing it.
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.
If something is causing you excessive mucus, it would appear that it's not working for you.
Do you mean that you think that eating sugar will stop excess mucus? By sugar do you mean the refined table sugar, Coca Cola and OJ that Ray Peat recommends? What are all the foods that you think do promote mucus? You mentioned starch, so presumably starchy tubers would be one type of food that would promote mucus, correct?
80-10-10 followers don't seem to report the issue either.
Not many, true, and please remember that I never claimed that my experience was common, though at least one did 811er did report the mucus/phegm issue in a forum I peruse now and then:
Mucus flem
Posted by Hamish Quinney on October 7, 2009 at 5:33am
http://www.giveittomeraw.com/profiles/blogs/mucus-flem (http://www.giveittomeraw.com/profiles/blogs/mucus-flem)
Hi there, I have been getting mucus flem for a long time now along with other stuff, since I have been on 811 all the other stuff has gone and im truly grateful, will this mucus flem go in time or maybe I need some other good foods for it.
I do eat about 20 bananas a day, I love them, but if I have to introduce something else I can knock some bananas out.
Any suggestions?
Favorite Raw Food or Recipe?
paw paw and banana smoothie yum
As have other former and current plant-heavy dieters. These posts by one of the nicer fellows at the GITMR forum stuck in my mind, because they matched my own experience:
Reply by DOA, MFD [Tsurugi] on August 21, 2011 at 11:04pm
http://www.giveittomeraw.com/xn/detail/1407416:Comment:1758786 (http://www.giveittomeraw.com/xn/detail/1407416:Comment:1758786)
-How does mucus = paleo?? I eat fruits and get mucus. Mucus is caused by a lot of things, bacterial, allergenic, viral, intolerance, or otherwise. Mucus increases / decreases are not exclusive to any overgeneralized dietary umbrella.
Reply by DOA, MFD on September 6, 2011 at 8:21pm
http://www.giveittomeraw.com/xn/detail/1407416:Comment:1782081 (http://www.giveittomeraw.com/xn/detail/1407416:Comment:1782081)
Lots of fruits and veggies give me problems. Like one glass of orange juice and I get insane mucus n sinus pressure. More than if I drank a Coca-Cola or an energy drink.
[I think he posted this one too:]
Anyone Get Mucus from Orange Juice?? - Give it to me Raw
www.giveittomeraw.com/xn/detail/1407416:Comment:1569325 (http://www.giveittomeraw.com/xn/detail/1407416:Comment:1569325)
Mar 5, 2011 – I know for a fact I do from commercial orange juice and apple juice. Tonight I had a whole raw orange after sushi and I got immediate mucus
And here's some others that were easy to find with a little Google searching:
Mucus Forming Foods
Mark R
http://www.giveittomeraw.com/forum/topics/mucus-forming-foods-1 (http://www.giveittomeraw.com/forum/topics/mucus-forming-foods-1)
Which foods are mucus forming and which are not? I'm trying to keep my sinuses and nasal passages fairly mucus free and am tweaking my diet accordingly.
Dates ruined my day.???
Posted by sugar nutrition on September 20, 2010 at 3:17pm in Meet & Greet
http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/dates-ruined-my-day?commentId=2684079%3AComment%3A724064 (http://www.30bananasaday.com/forum/topics/dates-ruined-my-day?commentId=2684079%3AComment%3A724064)
I ate 10-15 zahidi dates yesterday and it seemed to clog my intestines the same way i imagine cooked food would if I were to eat some now. Also my nose was clogged shut. I got a really bad mucus problem already but at least 10-30 percent of the air that should pass through can leak/sneak its way in and out.
Reply by sugar nutrition on September 21, 2010 at 6:30pm
...The apple bananas here are locally grown and I would think theyd be the least chemically touched because farm to store is like a 1 hr or less drive.... Ate 5 today and the lymph nodes under the two corners of my jaw were swollen rock hard and even sore to the touch, loads of thick yellow mucus too- from locally grown apple bananas! ....
Mucous
Posted by GrapeNut [a raw vegan who eats "lots of grapes, bananas, oranges, celery,spinach"] on February 7, 2012 at 3:50am in Beginners in a fruitarian/raw vegan lifestyle
http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/beginnersinafruitarianrawveganlifestyle/forum/topics/mucous?commentId=2684079%3AComment%3A2232294&groupId=2684079%3AGroup%3A369472 (http://www.30bananasaday.com/group/beginnersinafruitarianrawveganlifestyle/forum/topics/mucous?commentId=2684079%3AComment%3A2232294&groupId=2684079%3AGroup%3A369472)
Ive been doing High fruit for about 3-4 days. I got case of dates and ate about 20 of them yesterday. I love them. This morning I made a smoothie of dates romaine and oranges. NowI have terrible gas and mucous coming out the other end. Ive had detox before but this is pretty extreme.
Reply by GrapeNut on February 7, 2012 at 3:56am
I usually get serious sinus problems. I'm guessing my body doesn't have a need for it anymore.
Reply by Jessica Brown on February 7, 2012 at 3:57am
Acid and sweet fruit are not a good combination there are some exceptions but dates and oranges are one of the worse as far an upset stomach goes. Also i have found when i have that many dates without them being blended with water it makes me feel like i just had a cooked food meal.
{{Warnings
Oranges are citrus fruits with high acidic content. The citrus acid in orange juice can be irritating to your sore throat and may exacerbate your discomfort. Also, orange juice thickens the mucus in your body. Thickened mucus is more difficult to expel from your body, which is required for you to get better. Heavy mucus in your throat can also result in laryngitis, according to Harvard Medical School. In addition to a sore throat, laryngitis interferes with your ability to swallow and speak clearly. Other symptoms include coughing and post-nasal drip. (Is Orange Juice Good for a Sore Throat? Jan 5, 2011 | By Barbara Aufiero,
Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/350123-is-orange-juice-good-for-a-sore-throat/#ixzz1o3hvFNsE (http://www.livestrong.com/article/350123-is-orange-juice-good-for-a-sore-throat/#ixzz1o3hvFNsE))}}
How come when you drink orange juice, you generate some mucus in your mouth afterwards?
Everytime i drink orange juice, i just want to hawk a loogie like 10 seconds later
how come?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091221233426AAbkEhd (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091221233426AAbkEhd)
Leanna89
its probably the sugars reacting with the acid in your mouth. either that, or the pulp.
Why do drinks like orange juice and coffee produce phlegm/mucous?
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090621235935AAQjBeX (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090621235935AAQjBeX)
UNDERSTANDING AND TREATING SORE THROATS, Michael A. Klaper, M.D., http://www.vegsource.com/klaper/qa01.htm (http://www.vegsource.com/klaper/qa01.htm)
Do not burn your inflamed throat membranes with ACID LIQUIDS! Avoid orange juice, citrus fruits, pineapple, cola drinks or any liquid which is acidic in nature until your throat is pain-free.
Orange Juice and Phlegm, Jade Tree Wellness Center Inc., http://www.jadetreewellness.com/var/4365/193141-Orange%20Juice%20Pros%20and%20Cons.pdf (http://www.jadetreewellness.com/var/4365/193141-Orange%20Juice%20Pros%20and%20Cons.pdf)
In Chinese medical terms, orange juice tends to create “phlegm.” When we talk about phlegm, we don’t just mean mucous, but also energetic types of phlegm. Still, it is not that difficult to see this. Many people will tend to notice a feeling of phlegm or stickiness in the back of the throat after drinking orange juice. Ordinarily, the health benefits of orange juice far outweigh the small amount of phlegm that it tends to produce.
Orange juice & mucus? by seven_souls 7 year 2,442 Ask Barefoot
http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=190889 (http://curezone.com/forums/am.asp?i=190889)
I apologise if this has been asked before. When researching the orange juice fast I noted a lot of sources saying that oranges are mucus producing.
Respiratory Therapist/snotty nose/phlegm all my life
http://en.allexperts.com/q/Respiratory-Therapist-3303/snotty-nose-phlegm-life.htm (http://en.allexperts.com/q/Respiratory-Therapist-3303/snotty-nose-phlegm-life.htm)
I am almost forty and I have had excess mucous all my life. Nothing has made any difference, although I've never known anything else so it is just normal to me. It gets worse whenever I drink a sweet drink. Dark red grape juice, red wine, beer, any soft drink, even pure orange juice or fresh carrot juice all have an IMMEDIATE effect. Within the first few gulps my body will start to produce phlegm at the back of my throat.
Obviously, I try to avoid those things, but it makes life pretty boring. I thought "it must be the sugar" however a sweet desert doesn't seem to have any effect.
So who is PP?
Please refer to discussion points in my signature, especially 2 and 3. Your comment motivated be to tweak them to try to make them clearer, but here are the originals, to show I have long thought this:
Discussion aids:
1) I do what works best for me, informed by science, personal experience, traditional knowledge and other tools, not pure emulation or "noble savage" notions.
2) YMMV. Don't imitate me--find what works for you. To each their own.
3) When I report positive or negative health results, it doesn't mean I think they apply to anyone else. I’m not prescribing.
4) It may improve discussion if you speak for you and I speak for me and neither of us tries to speak for the other.
It's interesting how if someone reports less than splending results from just one of Ray Peat's tips, it must be due to stress or other factors and can't possibly have anything to do with the food Ray recommended, but when Storm experiences benefits after changing to a more Peat-style diet from raw Paleo, no one challenges the notion that it must be because the more Peat-style diet is superior to true raw Paleo, at least for Storm. It seems like a double standard. I think it's this sort of thing that Tyler is referring to when he warns against guru worship. It's probably not intentional guru worship, but I can see how Tyler might get that impression.
As I mentioned before, I'm currently experimenting with some of the non-raw-Paleo things that Ray Peat happens to recommend, though not because I worship him as a guru or anything like that. I decided to try them independently of Ray Peat and there were plausible reasons to try them even without his recommendations. Also, just ignoring everything Ray Peat says just because he's a "guru" wouldn't make a lot of sense to me either.
-
You can easily remove orange juice from the diet and try other fruit. I would avoid any type of dried fruit.
Do you mean that you think that eating sugar will stop excess mucus? By sugar do you mean the refined table sugar, Coca Cola and OJ that Ray Peat recommends?
If a particular fruit or sugary product is causing a poor reaction regarding mucus, it is likely that it is not the sugar, but something else in the product. A dry mouth is a complication that occurs to some people when eating sugar, perhaps as a result of nutrient deficiency. A dry mouth with thick saliva could be mistaken as mucus.
The idea isn't necessarily that eating sugar controls mucus, but that controlling stress hormones and improving thyroid function will stop excess mucus. Eating sugar is a way to achieve those goals. Even simple pure white sugar should be able to be effective in the short term, but would lead to nutrient deficiencies if overused.
-
You can easily remove orange juice from the diet and try other fruit.
A very reasonable suggestion.
I would avoid any type of dried fruit.
Yes, I found that out the hard way. I was addicted to dried fruits for a while, and they did a number on me.
If a particular fruit or sugary product is causing a poor reaction regarding mucus, it is likely that it is not the sugar, but something else in the product.
Any idea what?
A dry mouth is a complication that occurs to some people when eating sugar, perhaps as a result of nutrient deficiency.
I do think that there's one or more malfunctions in my system that are not enabling me to digest carbs well. Any idea on what the nutrient deficiency is? I have identified some likely candidates (zinc and potassium and maybe magnesium), and take supplements (horrors!) to keep the levels up when I consume carbs. People tell me that carby foods like potassium-rich bananas cannot possibly contribute to deficiencies in minerals like zinc and potassium and accuse me of lying and so forth, but I tell you honestly that I experience it. I don't know how to convince people of this. It's very frustrating. I even make sure to eat only bananas that are nicely rotted, in accordance with the advice of Danny Roddy, DurianRider and other fruit eaters, but I still get foot cramps and other symptoms from them (though I suspect less than if I ate the fruits while unripe). Curses!
A dry mouth with thick saliva could be mistaken as mucus.
I know of no way to prove it to you, but I can assure you that I do get throat and nasal mucus/phlegm when I eat certain foods (though much less than I used to, thank goodness). I used to have to stand over a sink and spit for 5 minutes or so after drinking OJ (why I insisted on drinking OJ now makes no sense to me--I guess it was in part because I enjoyed it and more because I wanted to fit in, and in part because I didn't really think things through, I just acted). For whatever reason, almost no one will believe me on this, but I'm not lying. Honesty is one of my most treasured virtues. I would rather die than be very dishonest (aside from joking around).
The idea isn't necessarily that eating sugar controls mucus, but that controlling stress hormones and improving thyroid function will stop excess mucus. Eating sugar is a way to achieve those goals. Even simple pure white sugar should be able to be effective in the short term, but would lead to nutrient deficiencies if overused.
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.
Thanks so much for your input! It is highly treasured.
-
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.
-
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.
Sounds great in theory, but anybody who's done low-carb or zero-carb, and also tried very high-carb, can tell you that it's way easier to get stressed out about things while eating a high-carb diet. When you're burning fat for fuel, you tend to be much more even-tempered.
-
Phil, if you're interested, I'd like to see the results of an experiment where you try
1. a teaspoonful of white table sugar
2. some fresh-squeezed high-Brix OJ
3. some fresh-squeezed LOW-Brix OJ
4. some fresh-squeezed OJ with plenty of the the white pith blended into it
I suspect we'd have a much better idea of what's going on after trying each of these several times, by themselves, on different days.
My first guess is that you're just having a reaction to some natural compound in the orange, not the sugar. However, I could be very wrong. Assuming that, I doubt the high-Brix OJ would make much of a difference, but I think it would be an interesting experiment.
-
Sounds great in theory, but anybody who's done low-carb or zero-carb, and also tried very high-carb, can tell you that it's way easier to get stressed out about things while eating a high-carb diet. When you're burning fat for fuel, you tend to be much more even-tempered.
Peat, myself, Danny Roddy, his blog followers, and a lot of ex low carbers tend to disagree, but there are of course different view points. Danny has looked at a lot of blood work as well. Rather than going by how even-tempered someone feels, testing cortisol and other hormone levels etc is a much more sound and precise way to measure and gauge the effects of a diet on stress responses. People can often unintentionally mislead themselves; I did.
-
Peat, myself, Danny Roddy, his blog followers, and a lot of ex low carbers tend to disagree, but there are of course different view points. Danny has looked at a lot of blood work as well. Rather than going by how even-tempered someone feels, testing cortisol and other hormone levels etc is a much more sound and precise way to measure and gauge the effects of a diet on stress responses. People can often unintentionally mislead themselves; I did.
I seriously doubt that someone who feels much calmer on a particular diet has MORE stress hormones on that diet. However, you're right, it deserves testing.
-
I have an interesting and encouraging development to report. When I checked my notes and saw that lemon juice in the past triggered plenty of mucus, whereas it doesn't today, I decided to test orange juice for the first time in quite a while and it generated very little mucus (and it wasn't even fresh-squeezed!) --some nasal mucus, yes, but much less than it has in many years (though when I went out for some of my frequent running and playing in the outdoors, I did get more mucus than usual, as the combination of OJ plus slightly brisk weather plus exertion was apparently enough to generate significant mucus). Within a year or so of doing raw Paleo I have experienced a dramatic drop in mucus secretion from drinking OJ. Hoorah!
So please don't recommend OJ to all. I can report from experience that it did not do me well in the past, including my early Paleo and raw Paleo days, but it can be a useful indicator of where one is at on the spectrum of healing. Based on my experience, the stress/damage that OJ apparently can do to sensitive systems may not be a good idea, at least not until the person has been allowed to heal for a while.
And let me take this opportunity to thank the people of this forum for making it possible and helping me to achieve this fabulous progress!
-
Good, Phil. Of course, we still don't know if it was the sugar or not.
-
I suspect there are multiple factors.
-
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.
-
1) You are of allergic to something in the orange juice.
That's possible, yes.
2) The orange juice is not strained, the pulp and fiber are giving you problems.
I've gotten mucus from both high pulp and no pulp OJ.
3) The juice mixed with the saliva in the back of your throat and made it thick.
This hypothesis doesn't explain why I get some mucus (and used to get a lot more), while other people get none
4) Low carbing has destroyed your thyroid and your ability to digest nutritious, healthy food.
the mucus effect occurred decades before I ever tried low carb. I don't ever remember not getting mucus from OJ, though it worsened in later years, so gradually that I didn't notice it until someone pointed it out to me.
-
I seriously doubt that someone who feels much calmer on a particular diet has MORE stress hormones on that diet. However, you're right, it d eserves testing.
My experience was that I was very stressed out on diets extremely high in plant foods(95%+) and that I felt a LOT calmer on low-carb diets. That said, after I did raw, zero-carb for more than 2 weeks, I started getting far more stressed out.
-
People can often unintentionally mislead themselves; I did.
You make a good point. People get so wrapped around that something is healthy even if its not working they continue to do it. They do it because it becomes who they are, the usually feel great after a few months than get worse overtime and don't even see it. They are so hooked in the community and what they have been preaching. I see this all time on vegan diet, very carb diets, raw diets, etc
-
For the Peatatarians who eat oats or rice, another alternative to cooking them is to soak and ferment them.
-
Ray Peat is also not necessarily a diet guru. Through his research he has highlighted what he believes to be causes of health issues in the human body. That's his starting point.
What research? Everyone ignored my post before that there are no scientific articles in the world with his name on them, even as a junior author (ie student).
-
Could someone please show me one?
-
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."
-
Peat also has no known age. He apparently finished his phd in 1972 making him at least mid 60s though he sounds like he's in his early 100's. I'm not sure anyone could identify him if he were in a lineup of fellow centenarians.
-
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.
-
Peat also has no known age. He apparently finished his phd in 1972 making him at least mid 60s though he sounds like he's in his early 100's. I'm not sure anyone could identify him if he were in a lineup of fellow centenarians.
He's apparently in his 80's.
-
From what I gather, I'm pretty sure he's considered by his followers to be fringe + holding advanced degrees and scrutiny, and not put on a pedestal of a highly respected published scientist within academic circles. Kurt Harris mentioned something recently about them both being on PubMed.
but yeah Sisson, Kesser, AV, Minger, and Guyenet, totally discount those unpublished assholes too. Particulary since, what......99.9% of the medical/scientific establishment is poo-pooed by 99.9 % of raw foodists that leaves very litle breathing room for acceptable material done in an independent lab with zero agenda to consider.. oh well, at least we can assume if we leave out dairy and grains this will surely solve all health problems if we believe hard enough.
Also that Art De Vany guy, who is way outside of his area of expertise to have anything remotely of value to share... :'(
-
KD is b*llsh*tting, here. There are many, many tens of thousands of studies done by people who have no interest in raw diets which fully support our points as regards the harm done by cooked-food diets, dairy and grains. The 99.9% figure cited by KD is therefore just nonsense, pure and simple.
-
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.
Raw Kyle didn't question whether Peat has "researched the topic," he said the following:
I'd like to interject that there are no publications in the whole of the scientific world that have a Dr. Ray Peat as an author, not even as a junior author (ie an undergrad or grad student/post doc that did the grunt work in a lab). In other words there is no record in the literature of him ever doing an experiment on anything.
There has still been no direct response to what Kyle actually said--in other words, no mention of whether Peat has ever done an experiment or authored an article in scientific (presumably peer-reviewed) literature, which leaves the impression that Kyle was right.
It doesn't mean that Ray Peat can't be a useful source like Denise Minger or Chris Kresser who haven't published their own research (Stephan Guyenet actually has published a review paper http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/early/2012/01/06/jc.2011-2525.abstract, (http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/early/2012/01/06/jc.2011-2525.abstract,) though he hasn't published any experiment results), it only means what Kyle actually said. Kyle's question seems a fair one within a larger context.
Another fair question would be who here has fared better on a Peat-like diet than raw Paleo other than Storm? My own current diet is rather similar in some ways to Ray Peat's, so I'm open to the possibility of positive reports.
"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 was referring to Peat fans like Storm who report including occasional oats or rice in their diet I didn't say they eat them often--quite the contrary, I quoted Storm's report (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/ray-peat-podcast-interesting (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/ray-peat-podcast-interesting)!/msg84462/#msg84462) of eating "some heavily cooked yams, potatoes occasionally, or even some rice" (Storm also mentioned "or oats," which I accidentally left off the quote) at http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/ray-peat-podcast-interesting (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/hot-topics/ray-peat-podcast-interesting)!/msg84885/#msg84885
Here are some more reports of Peat OKing inclusion of occasional rice, oats or corn in one's diet (if you have evidence to the contrary, feel free to share it):
"Did you ever listen to East West Healing podcasts? He's not against potatoes and rice, but says they can feed bacteria and that they have to be cooked for at least 40 minutes." - Bruno (a Ray Peat fan), http://paleohacks.com/questions/110600/what-are-ray-peats-views-on-wheat#ixzz1rbjazOZd (http://paleohacks.com/questions/110600/what-are-ray-peats-views-on-wheat#ixzz1rbjazOZd)
While Peat is fond of the potato for it's high quality protein, and doesn't seem to mind corn-tortillas or rice cooked in lye on occasion, he considers sugar, in the form of fruit, to be far superior." - Danny Roddy, self-described "Peatatarian" http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012/1/16/the-lens-of-a-peat-a-tarian-part-i-the-perfect-health-diet.html (http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012/1/16/the-lens-of-a-peat-a-tarian-part-i-the-perfect-health-diet.html)
livesimply
Senior Member
Posts: 4,240
Plan: my own
Stats: 169/166/130
BF:
Progress: 8%
Location: East Coast
Ray Peat Eating Guidelines
Okay, so here are the Peat guidelines as best as I have figured out with much help (thank you Lynn, Cathy, Diet F**ked Blog, Matt Stone, Kurt Harris of PaNu, and of course Ray Peat):
.... Tubers – Potato, yams; occasionally well-cooked grains in the order of best to least desirable: masa harina, white rice or oats, brown rice. The phytic acid in the oats block absorption of much of the calcium; cooking the oats much longer than usual might improve its nutritional value. Canned plain pumpkin if eaten with some fat is okay, but carrots are less starchy for similar effects.
http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=419742 (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=419742)
-
Well of course I was BSing because people are totally hypocritical on this stuff. A few people want scientific evidence, but they want only the scientific evidence that backs up the claims they already believe. Most others - as you can readily see even on this forum of generally smarter raw foodists - can't wait to embrace anything that is not mainstream as the new holy grail and the fix to all their problems because yeah..they had already so carefully followed science to a T. Then dismissing how perhaps it might be better to maintain first the common sense stuff like having to have a functioning metabolism and hormones as a pre-requisite to health before thinking just 'removing stuff' heals you.
Unfortunately in the 'science' game you can find more articles to support hardcore veganism or at least not eating red meat, eating broccoli etc.. than any really making claims that lean meats and fruits contain all our needs. In fact there are 21 million 'citations' which is who knows how many articles on PubMed. This includes 8701 articles on coffee and an article called bust size and hitchhiking: a field study.
youre telling me you find more than .1 % of them to be accurate and reliable information on how the human body works, heals itself, which foods have the most useful antioxidants etc... despite the fact that one after the other says something entirely differnt? Surely we can pick a random 1000th of the articles there and they will support the majority of claims here.
With Peat or others, as soon as people have science based information that goes against their beliefs..or 'how I made up how nature works' these ideas are considered unacceptable and it could be completed by Harvard or any reputable agency. Don't see anyone here denying that.
Other than that, just perusing the thread, most of the relevant points to this seem mentioned already. Pretty sure Peat is against grains and believes there obviously was a 'paleo' diet that was doable (even the inuits to some degree), just not as important or ideal as manipulating his thyroid hormones, oxidative metabolism, and 'real' paleo stuff like eating whole animal proteins and emphasizing minerals like calcium and zinc etc...
Just a different wacky way to look at things.
as a hint, maybe a good way to critique it is through the reliability of the experiments themselves he cites, but do not see how doing his own experiments within an academic environment would carry any more weight if the ideas were just as contrary. Don't think people are being honest if they say it would make any lick of a difference.
-
Well, true, Ray Peat's cited studies are all pretty dodgy, such as the one in which dogs were fed nothing but processed fish-oil supplements until they died in order to supposedly "prove" that PUFAs were deadly. However, most of the studies involved in mainstream science, even if they don't per se, provide direct evidence that cooking is harmful, do provide such data indirectly - the few that remain include things like pro-coffee studies and similiar drivel which has flawed methodology, anyway, and is clearly funded by various corporations for immoral ends.
To give a classic example, all the myriad of studies confirming that plant foods are better to eat than animal foods do indeed prove our POV. For example, all such studies focus on the harm done by COOKED animal foods, never comparing plant foods to raw animal foods. Plus, it is already well-known that cooking plant foods creates far fewer heat-created toxins than cooking animal foods, plus most such studies recommend only heating the plant foods very lightly(eg/- steaming) - all of those things support our stance.
-
Ok, well I agree here somewhat. A good way to go about it is to see which common denominators are with this stuff and play the most angles. Having general awareness without expecting some kind of consensus or validation through the scientific literature, but also not playing the other approach of being able to dismiss every claim of researched problems of cooked bacon grease or low protein diets as big phrama/agra conspiracies.
Then again, theres always going to be lots of other arguments on specifics of all studies, from the obvious in how they are conducted, to equating types of processing with others or none, food quality, things eaten in context i.e. diets with other horrendous crap, then all the 'traditional peoples' shtick.
Still makes more sense to me to be aware of which things actually work to get the best results, rather than present how things should work in either a scientific or 'natural' model, and therefore take options off the table, which is what most people want to do. 'Science' or just general observation and critical thinking usually prevents this to some degree, so these things generally have to go out the window, at least when viewing raw or even paleo communities as a whole. Whether all Rays markers of pulse and such really matter I do not know, but if people present optimal approaches they should have better than average turnouts holistically, not just temporarily fix one or two ailments. In addition to all the non-conventional alt-health stuff which is probably ripe for criticism - like all fringe types - theres a simple point made though. That its very easy to leave out of many of the important specifics that were actually there in nature, or make assumptions that these factors are static or even most relevant, which are still at this point speculations.
-
Well of course I was BSing because people are totally hypocritical on this stuff. A few people want scientific evidence, but they want only the scientific evidence that backs up the claims they already believe. Most others - as you can readily see even on this forum of generally smarter raw foodists - can't wait to embrace anything that is not mainstream as the new holy grail and the fix to all their problems because yeah..they had already so carefully followed science to a T. Then dismissing how perhaps it might be better to maintain first the common sense stuff like having to have a functioning metabolism and hormones as a pre-requisite to health before thinking just 'removing stuff' heals you.
I think I know what you mean, KD. There is quite a range of attitudes, from dismissing anything different than what one is already doing or what the mainstream advocates, to quickly embracing a new fad without researching it first to see whether there appears to be any real merit to it, and dismissing any info that contradicts it.
Also, sometimes removing stuff turns out to be just the thing that heals someone, rather than necessarily some guru's notions about what heals metabolisms. FWIW, That has tended to be the case for me, even though I was quite reluctant to give up foods like grains and dairy, which probably contributed to years of needless suffering, because I gave too much credence to mainstream science and medicine's dismissal of approaches that remove or limit foods.
Like many here report, I've tried quite a range of recommendations over the years and came to raw Paleo somewhat reluctantly, after trying nearly everything else, though I think I was helped by the fact that I have much less fear of germs and gross things in general than the average American. Still, I was pleasantly surprised with the benefits of raw Paleo that I experienced, which go far beyond health benefits.
In general, it seems that no two scientists or gurus or dieters agree on everything, so I tend to go with whatever works for me, and I take into account warnings about potential long-term side effects of any dietary approach and watch for the reported early symptoms, as well as other people's reported experiences, scientific research, and all credible information. I neither embrace nor reject anything without cause, at least not intentionally.
Other than that, just perusing the thread, most of the relevant points to this seem mentioned already. Pretty sure Peat is against grains ....
Generally yes, though according to the reports I shared above, he does allow for some consumption of certain grains, presumably depending on one's tolerance of them. Even most prominent raw, Paleo, and Primal advocates like Paul Sisson, Kevin Gianni, Minger, Cordain, Sisson, Wolff, Kresser, Jaminet, etc., etc. tend to say that it's OK to eat a certain amount of off-plan foods.
Just a different wacky way to look at things.
Thanks for sharing your interesting perspective.
Still makes more sense to me to be aware of which things actually work to get the best results, rather than present how things should work in either a scientific or 'natural' model, and therefore take options off the table....
Right, and which things actually work for each individual, as everyone is not the same.
if people present optimal approaches they should have better than average turnouts holistically, not just temporarily fix one or two ailments.
Right. After some early dramatic success with cooked Paleo, feeling much better than I had felt in many years, I was briefly tempted to shout to the world about it but quickly came to my senses, luckily. :D
-
good ;) j/k
the reasons for being blunt is simply that most people that come to these types of sites usually don't need more egging on to be more fringe or to go more extreme on taking out this and that, but that usually what they get. 1/3 of the posts here these days seem to be about Masons or something as is. Anyway, I don't discount those kinds of restrictions or radicalism as unimportant and likely can be helpful or necessary. Many things are extreme and also not necessarily wrong for it in my book. As an example, RP seems pretty extreme and just as ripe for neurosis and obsessiveness as any raw diet. Or following something like AV might be less extreme than paleo in some ways and way more extreme and obsessive in others. I personally don't get the anti-guru thing, never paid a guru and been fed just as much or more nonsense from people with nothing to gain. I think its sad when gurus or their followers clearly aren't living up to their own perfectionism and will still profess it as the only truth, but some just have interesting info or stuff that just makes sense or works measurably, no big deal.
---
I think anyone who claims raw or paleo isn't important or even inaccurate/bad - like peat essentialy does - obviously is going to get a great deal of flack here. I just don't think any kind of credentials would change that, probably would make it even more suspect, was basically what I had to say.
OK to eat a certain amount of off-plan foods.
Speaking not from my personal take, but the way I undersand it..its not so much on-diet off diet, but 'who gives a @&*&' if its not effecting the things he sees as important like minimizing pufa, tryptophan, keeping hormone levels optimal etc... If his or others notions of what heals metabolisms is wrong, thats more minor in a sense than the general point that these things and others deserve consideration when weighing the effectiveness of 'diets' or other overarching philosophies.
-
Does anyone know if Ray Peat is suggesting that the health of H. sapiens that evolved over millions of years is only optimized if we consume (high heated) coffee, (high heated and refined) table sugar or honey (presumably heating honey is also OK) and fresh juice from a fruit foreign to Africa and Europe (OJ) or Coca Cola (produced using sulfites and ammonia and usually including high heated and refined corn syrup and phosphoric acid), or are all those foods optional in his dietary approach? Does he have any biological explanation for why these foods are so beneficial? Are they all fill-ins for past foods that are no longer readily available?
-
I'm guessing its fill-ins to a large degree. Thats why I made the AV comparison. Obviously people living on a beach in Papua New Guinea 5000 years ago is completely different, and didn't need to do much of this or that to be become healthier. Even if we were arguing transitioning from their cooking or whatnot in comparison to a modern person in current environment. Lack of minerals in foods or no longer having the ability to obtain them from change in our physiology or domesticity which limits or skews intake. In terms of 'paleo' It assumes a paradigm of eating smaller whole animals (or cooking/crushing large ones with big jaws), low-pufa seafoods, bugs, bones and organs, and ripe fruits as being essential components, so staying within that or replacing those with other sources is more essential than diets that just restrict to fruit, meat and vegetable.
Having now smaller jaws, change in out environment and gut environment etc.. make getting certain things more challenging particularly with one meal of fruit..one meal of muscle meat or whatever. Just missing a huge spectrum of stuff either in vitamins and minerals and excess of unbalanced unnatural composition of diet or just plain lack of food, for energy/overall functioning of his systems or such.
Alot also seems to be like a mix of those 2, reconsidering what is appropriate and optimizing based on present circumstances. I think most of those things you listed are indeed considered sub-par to actual ripe fruits or honey. But citing certain fruits, or transit or storage of fruits, or just the fiber he claims cause more problems than those chemicals or whatever, and wouldn't in nature with pure guts/ proper internal stuff/totally ripe etc...
so probably optional, but its also about pushing calories, whole proteins and saturated fats + eating so regularly etc..which was why I wrote the first thing I did here. You could potentially skew things on perhaps either a raw or paleo diet, but when you start doing the breakdowns it becomes like...eating constantly with 2 eggshells daily, tons of honey, and pristine tree ripened low-PUFA fruits and exclusively whole sea creatures and coconuts or something if one wanted to do without boiling down or refining stuff or including dairy. Maybe entire ground up raw cows... anyway, it ultimately seems more important to follow those things already listed ^ than consider the other crap I guess.
-
I'm guessing its fill-ins to a large degree.
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.
-
I really don't know if any of these things are even accurate, but looking at a variety of things fairly, some make sense. I guess you do got to figure that alot of it is coming more from the science - lets fix things with more things - model, which is pretty much the antithesis of many (not all) raw and paleo models as is. I'm not clearly not the type to dismiss it on those terms...
I think with the sugar thing, there seems to be a definite clause in the material that lots of sugar minus nutrients = really bad for health, but at a certain point, empty sugars arn't the devil they are made out to be. Say when perhaps they are refined of their anti-nutrients or otherwise problematic crap..like even some paleoish-folks believe with white rice vs whole (gut irritating) grains that contain more anti-nutrients. That is, one can eat these things to some degree only if the diet is otherwise flush with nutrition and is balanced in other ways. This also in a sense, explains the mystery why people can run intro trouble on all kinds of esoteric diets that more moderate SWD diets or traditional high carb diets, or athletes that also eat protein etc... don't, to me anyway. In my view people that eat the most seeming crap by most natural models usually don't seem to be the sickest of people one knows, compared to diets that clearly lack basic stuff, like eating tofu and noodles and veggies with no proteins or no animal based foods period. Of course many of those standard approaches would be just as criticized by Peat himself, but more for their huge amounts of pufa..lack of whole protein etc..than toxic cooked foods or whatever.
Anyway as per having a base of nutrition, and then added energy I don't think thats too dissimilar with the logic in high fat diets. I mean...if your diet has lots of quality protein and then is 'supplemented' with lots of pure animal fat for energy..and a variety of organs and plant foods for nutrients, at a certain point..how many more nutrients are needed from that extra 1/4 kilo of fat, and how much is just basically functioning as calories? Of course fat is natural, and whole/unprocessed and so forth, but I see that pretty similarly.
-
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.
-
I really don't know if any of these things are even accurate, but looking at a variety of things fairly, some make sense. I guess you do got to figure that alot of it is coming more from the science - lets fix things with more things - model, which is pretty much the antithesis of many (not all) raw and paleo models as is.
Quite right. The opposite model is removing things and simplifying, which Nassim Taleb supports with his "via negativa" model http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150379534483375&id=13012333374. (http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10150379534483375&id=13012333374.) Of course, like anything, that can go too far, a problem that Matt Stone and others focus on.
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.
OK, and I find it interesting that my experiments have produced somewhat similar results about what works for me vs. what Ray Peat suggests (with some differences), but what are the principles behind this? In other words, in Ray Peat's view, why does it work (at least for some folks)? For example, does Ray Peat acknowledge the role that evolutionary biology plays in human health and how does he see it playing out in his recommendations?
-
OK, and I find it interesting that my experiments have produced somewhat similar results about what works for me vs. what Ray Peat suggests (with some differences), but what are the principles behind this? In other words, in Ray Peat's view, why does it work (at least for some folks)? For example, does Ray Peat acknowledge the role that evolutionary biology plays in human health and how does he see it playing out in his recommendations?
Ray Peat believes there is a certain state our body needs to be in to be healthy. This state depends on things such as thyroid output, hormone levels and ratios, nutrient status and having an oxidative metabolism. That's the starting point. From there you decide to eat foods that will help achieve and maintain that state. For example, sugar is suggested as a way to lower cortisol. Nutrients are also needed, so orange juice makes a good food for providing certain nutrients along with sugar. It's biology, but not evolutionary biology.
-
Ray Peat believes there is a certain state our body needs to be in to be healthy. This state depends on things such as thyroid output, hormone levels and ratios, nutrient status and having an oxidative metabolism. That's the starting point.
Those are details I was familiar with and which nearly everyone seems to agree are factors in health. I was curious about what if any thinking underlies them and why he believes his particular approach to optimizing those factors works better than others.
It's biology, but not evolutionary biology.
So what sort of biology is it, if it's not evolutionary biology? In other words, what's the fundamental template underlying his thinking explaining why and how it works and why do humans thrive on his diet more than the raw Paleo diet? If biological adaptation doesn't underlie it, what does?
-
@Phil,
Sorry about that Phill, I'm not sure where you commented. I use raw honey all the time on my oysters. It's just easier for me to use simple syrup in milk/oj.
-
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.
-
Hi Danny. No problem. I didn't mean for it to come across like complaining. Glad we could spark a post from you by talking about Ray Peat.
Fermented raw honey is softer and easier to use to make simple syrup than the hard forms of raw honey. One just needs to add a little water and stir for less than a minute. Of course, buying simple syrup is a mite quicker and a lot cheaper. On the other hand, I have found that fermented honey improves my hair and skin and seems to gradually improve my carb tolerance, whereas commercial sugars have not.
On the downside, honey in all forms and some fruits spike my BG well above levels that Chris Kresser and others have been warning can cause multiple organ damage. So it's a double-edged sword and I try to keep the amounts and frequency of honey intake low since I realized how damaging they were saying the spikes could be, though I've been doing BG testing again recently after replacing a broken lancette holder and so far my max spikes have been significantly lower than before I started eating raw fermented honey (which could be coincidence, of course). Do you test your BG at all? If so, how does your BG respond to table sugar, simple syrup, Coca Cola or honey?
physiology
How do Ray Peat's underlying physiology principles differ from others, such as the evolutionary template and biological adaptation of Paleolithic/ancestral nutrition, if they do?
The raw paleo diet is less effective at dealing with the issues of hormones, thyroid etc.
It's just based on physiology.
Can you please provide some examples of how Ray Peat's diet is more effective at dealing with these issues? IIRC, the only foods that Ray Peat OKs that don't have a relatively easily obtainable raw Paleo equivalent are tubers that require cooking and grains (which he only OK'd for occasional intake, as I understand it).
Why are humans physiologically the way they are? Does it matter?
If physiology is a key part of Ray Peat's principles, then why would this not 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".
Are you saying that we adapted to cane sugar epigenetically in the less than three thousand years since it's invention? Did this adaptation apply equally to more recent industrially processed sugars?
You probably could try and make a case that much of what Ray Peat suggests is more in line with our true paleo diet....
Are you making that case?
-
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.
It seems to me that because Ray Peat has a PhD after his name people treat him like an oracle. I'll have that in about 4 years, will that make me an oracle from a mere mortal that I am now? For everyone's information on his site Peat claims to have two articles in the early 1970's in some Physiology journal, they are not on Pub Med (not that it matters to me). That is the last time he's been published according to his website, and also I suppose his first time.
I guess what I'm getting at is that there is this mystique, aura and hero worship around "Ray Peat - PhD" as if he's in some secret club. All of my professors, my adviser and committee are of necessity PhD holding academics and they hardly know anything about nutrition other than mainstream information. And they are in the nutrition department of a major USA research university.
Ultimately I'm still intrigued by what anyone has to say and open to Peat's ideas as much as the next thing, but people keep talking about "his research, his research, his research" as if he's in a lab somewhere conducting brilliant human diet experiments. He's not and hasn't done any primary research since 1973, which to put it in context is ages ago in life science publications; that is closer to the time that the structure of DNA was resolved than it is to today.
Beware the guru mentality, look at his ideas as no greater or lesser than anyone else on the internet. I still haven't actually seen the 1970's publications, who knows? He has articles on his website about ion channels being fictional, which is something my adviser actually works with. I wonder how the calcium and potassium moves across the membrane differentially according to voltage if not through a voltage gated channel?
-
Oops my whole reply looks like a quote.
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, no one could have done the experiment because there haven't been any lifetimes pass since he started. Caffeine certainly makes me feel good when I'm tired in the short term, but I also remember what happened when I quit drinking Coca Cola in my mid teens cold turkey; I had a head ache that lasted more than 24 hours, maybe even a few days intermittently. And I don't get head aches but in a blue moon so I don't suffer them well.
Almost any new diet makes people feel good acutely, placebo effect being a big part of it. What does Ray Peat look like now, and how does he feel on a regular basis? All I ever read are stories about him slipping people in bars pregnenelone in their drinks thirty years ago.
-
How do Ray Peat's underlying physiology principles differ from others, such as the evolutionary template and biological adaptation of Paleolithic/ancestral nutrition, if they do?
Carbohydrates, for example. Many people feel we aren't physiologically designed to eat a high carbohydrates diet, that insulin will make you obese, or that gluconeogenesis is not harmful etc.
Can you please provide some examples of how Ray Peat's diet is more effective at dealing with these issues? IIRC, the only foods that Ray Peat OKs that don't have a relatively easily obtainable raw Paleo equivalent are tubers that require cooking and grains (which he only OK'd for occasional intake, as I understand it).
The Raw paleo diet tends to suggest 5-35% of calories from carbohydrates, which is too low from Peat's perspective. Peat's also a fan of dairy and some cooked foods such as broth/gelatin. Fruit is preferable to grains and tubers, there's no issue with that.
If physiology is a key part of Ray Peat's principles, then why would this not matter?
Because Peat is mainly interested with practical application. Understanding the effects a food has on the body is the goal, not theorizing about why (evolution, mutation, etc.) a certain food might have such an effect.
Are you saying that we adapted to cane sugar epigenetically in the less than three thousand years since it's invention? Did this adaptation apply equally to more recent industrially processed sugars?
No.
Are you making that case?
No, I'm not interested in reenacting the paleo diet, so I'm not overly concerned about what's more accurate.
-
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?
-
Pre-rawpalaeodiet, I would go in heavily for processed foods high in sugar due to having low blood-sugar issues , and the only thing that restored me, temporarily, to normality, re concentration/alertness, was drinking coffee. The trouble was that the effects were always very temporary and harmed me a great deal, in the long-term.
-
Invisible, there's no raw requirement to restrict carbs to 5-35% of calories on raw Paleo. Don't know where you got that idea. The raw Paleo diet(s) isn't a person that make suggestions. Besides, isn't Ray Peat's recommended diet relatively low carb?
I did forget to mention dairy. Of the natural whole foods, Peat adds dairy and cooked tubers with certain grains apparently being optional, right? A lot of people who call themselves Paleo or Primal also include some tubers and/or dairy and even some grains like rice, so those things don't distinguish his views so much as the Coca Cola and table sugar, it seems.
The Raw paleo diet tends to suggest 5-35% of calories from carbohydrates, which is too low from Peat's perspective. Peat's also a fan of dairy and some cooked foods such as broth/gelatin. Fruit is preferable to grains and tubers, there's no issue with that.
Because Peat is mainly interested with practical application. Understanding the effects a food has on the body is the goal, not theorizing about why (evolution, mutation, etc.) a certain food might have such an effect.
Are you sure that Peat doesn't have any underlying principles? I'd be curious what Danny has to say about that.
No, I'm not interested in reenacting the paleo diet..../
Neither am I, and I've never seen anyone say that they are, though I have seen several people make that claim about others. Most folks seem to be trying to find what works for them.
-
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?
I'm suggesting that in some cases drugs, physical therapies and foods can induce an acute response that is not the same as it's chronic response. The pancreas, for example, seems to do a great job at clearing high circulating insulin levels from high glycemic foods, until it doesn't. Maybe the thyroid works that way as well. Kidney works that way, it seems from the evidence that it works well until a certain age or more accurately use level and then declines until it doesn't function anymore.
So I'm suggesting that just because certain drugs or foods make your serum status of different things "good" in the short term, maybe that is a Faustian bargain that will "use up" the organ in the long term. Machines works like that sometimes as well, if you run it at a speed different than it's designed for it can wear down faster and then not work at all. Neither Peat nor anyone has done this experiment because it would take many lives to do so.
-
Besides, isn't Ray Peat's recommended diet relatively low carb?
I'm no Ray Peat expert but I can say with confidence that no it is not a low carb diet, Peat recommends getting most of your energy from simple carbohydrates and specifically using as little fat as possible for energy production.
-
I haven't seen anything where Ray Peat himself recommends a certain macronutrient ratio or range, just that he favors sugary foods over starchy foods and saturated fats over PUFAs, and I've seen Peat fans make contradictory claims about the macronutrient proportions he recommends. Does anyone have a quote from him where he makes a clear, specific recommendation on macronutrient ratios/levels?
Doesn't it seem odd to anyone that no Peat supporter so far has provided the fundamental principles that underly his ... recommendations on hormones and other details? One of the biggest errors of modern reductionist nutritionism [which I'm hoping Ray Peat mostly avoids] is focusing on the details, missing the big picture, and not even bothering to try to figure out what underlies the whole health picture, or vaguely hand-waving at evolution while ignoring where it contradicts conventional recommendations. When someone can't explain what principles underlie their health approach, and how they do so, doesn't that suggest that they don't understand their own approach very well yet? This isn't meant as a criticism, I'm just trying to understand what Peat fans are putting forth here.
-
Why does evolution have to be an underpinning for health? Peat is just claiming that health arrives from the organism functioning a certain way, you don't have to put evolution in there at all.
-
It doesn't have to be and I didn't ask for it to be. If Ray Peat has an alternative underpinning, let's see it. All I did is ask what if anything it is. It was the nutritionism camp that I was referring to in regards to the hand waving about evolution, not Ray Peat. I'm starting to see a similarity in the focus on details and lack of a bigger picture, but that could be just because of the detail-focused way his views have been presented, rather than due to Ray's actual views and I would be pleased if he's not in that nutritionism camp. Sorry for not making that more clear and I hope this clears that up. I also edited my last post a mite to try to make this clearer.
The topic has been raised, presumably in part to inspire curiosity, and it has succeeded in mildly sparking my curiosity, in part because there are some similarities with raw Paleo, and also because there seems to be a lot of hoopla pro and con about Ray Peat in cyberspace lately and a lot of disagreement over what his views are.
Don't be shy, Ray Peat fans, here's your chance to promote Ray Peat's views. Surely his views aren't drawn out of thin air? If they are solid then wouldn't that mean they can withstand some questions?
Organisms functioning in a certain way can promote health; I doubt anyone disagrees with that; nor does that appear to explain Ray Peat's views or distinguish them from others. We don't seem to be making much progress in getting to the bottom of this and I wonder if it's because none of us except Danny really know a lot about Ray's views and we're sort of trying to make guesses? If we're lucky, maybe Danny will enlighten us.
-
Hey PaleoPhil,
you can read all of this if you're interested in the details: http://raypeat.com/articles/ (http://raypeat.com/articles/)
-
I had already checked Ray Peat's website, thanks, and didn't find answers there. I did find one at Danny Roddy's website, though. I knew I could count on Danny:
"The Perfect Health Diet acknowledges that very low-carb diets are usually counterproductive. While I get the impression that most people think Peat-a-tarianism is some gigantic sugar orgy, Paul [Jaminet] and Peat have similar recommendations for carbohydrate consumption. Paul's recommendations hover around 150 grams while Peat usually recommends 180-250 grams, but he himself eats closer to ~400 grams." http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012/1/16/the-lens-of-a-peat-a-tarian-part-i-the-perfect-health-diet.html (http://www.dannyroddy.com/main/2012/1/16/the-lens-of-a-peat-a-tarian-part-i-the-perfect-health-diet.html)
I don't know why Peat eats more carbs than he recommends.
Opinions vary on what constitutes low, moderate and high carb. Majority opinion seems to be that 100 g or less per day for an avg sized male is low carb http://www.livestrong.com/article/251583-number-of-grams-for-low-carb-diet/. (http://www.livestrong.com/article/251583-number-of-grams-for-low-carb-diet/.) So Peat's diet wouldn't commonly be considered low carb.
I don't know whether 180-250g carbs is generally considered high carb. I did find this: "Most of us eat between 225-250 grams of carbs a day," http://www.superlowcarb.com/carb/high/diet/. (http://www.superlowcarb.com/carb/high/diet/.) So it sounds like it's somewhat lower carb than the avg American diet.
-
I don't think Peat has recommended any particular amount of carbs (I know that he recommends low/moderate amounts of protein though). What Danny has written is his own interpretation I guess. Why is the amount of carbs of such a huge importance to you, are you diabetic?
-
Warning--long post--read at your own risk. ;)
I wouldn't call it a huge importance--like I said before, people have made different claims about RP's views and I'm mildly curious as to what they actually are. Now you're offering a differing view than what Danny provided about Ray Peat on carbs, so the question is apparently still an open one, as I still haven’t seen anything from Ray Peat directly and specifically on this. Maybe Danny could provide a source and respond to your claim, if he reads this thread again. It's interesting how divergent the opinions are on what Ray Peat's views are.
I haven’t been diagnosed as diabetic, but for years (going back before I started raw Paleo and even before cooked Paleo) I've gotten big BG spikes and certain negative effects after eating certain carby foods, including reportedly healthy raw Paleo ones (though my fasting morning BG was always termed "fine" by physicians, actually lower than average, so the physicians never investigated it and I was unaware of the alleged harm that could be done by BG spikes and lows and for many years was eating a relatively standard diet that included too many everday carbs for me to get a clear picture, except mainly in retrospect).
Several bloggers, including some that are healthcare practitioners, have suggested that this could be due to insulin resistance or other malfunction from many years of SAD and other factors and that it might be fixed by increasing carb intake, doing more weightlifting, eating probiotic foods, etc., which I have been experimenting with for some months now with a small amount of improvement in my BG spikes and carby food tolerance (though it's hard to tell what might have occurred just via raw Paleo alone). Interestingly, the single biggest help along these lines seems to have been raw fermented honey, which sort of falls in line with some of what Ray Peat says, though not specifically raw fermented honey so much as other "sugary" foods. Which brings to mind another question--does Ray Peat discuss "probiotic" foods or the Old Friends Hypothesis at all?
It makes sense to me to try to further repair any underlying problems that may be contributing to my remaining carb intolerance, rather than just coddle the problem by severely restricting carby food intake. Maybe I'm being overoptimistic in hoping for additional improvement, but so far it's looking encouraging.
There’s quite a debate raging online about whether one should try to improve insulin sensitivity via “safe starches” (certain cooked tubers and/or grains that Paul Jaminet, Kurt Harris, Richard Nikoley, Anthony Colpo and others recommend, IIRC) vs. more “sugary” foods that Ray Peat, Danny Roddy and many here appear to recommend, if I understand correctly. So it is relevant info for me and I've been exploring and experimenting with both sides of the coin. How important it all actually turns out to be for me only time will tell.
I suppose my goal is to try to get to a point like where Lex is, where I can sort of just "set it and forget it" when it comes to diet/lifestyle/health and focus more on other things. At various stages I've guessed that no more improvement would be possible, only to be pleasantly surprised later when I tried something else (not always dietary), that helped further and sometimes achieved results I didn't think possible.
If none of this is relevant to you, that's fine, I'm not claiming it's relevant to anyone else. I try to avoid giving the impression of prescribing to others and people are free to ignore my posts if they’re not interesting.
-
So you haven't been diagnosed as diabetic, but you believe you are, right?
How much were these big BG spikes, have you measured?
Shouldn't you blame your BG spikes on your eating habits, rather than on the carbs? If you eat a lot of carbs (especially fast digesting ones) at once you'll get BG spikes no matter if you're diabetic or not.
Ray Peat is most likely against probiotic stuff, he thinks bacteria in the gut release endotoxins and other stuff which has bad effect on the estrogen balance.
About the carbs claim, again, this seems like Danny's own interpretation (or let's see a reference of Ray Peat saying you need X grams of carbs per day).
-
So you haven't been diagnosed as diabetic, but you believe you are, right?
No, not at all. That's not what I said.
What do you consider the max carbs one can eat at a meal without BG going over 160 mg/dl? If we use the 400 mg/dl figure that Danny Roddy mentioned re: RP and assume he spreads it across 4 meals, to be generous, that calculates out to 100 g carbs at a single meal, right? Let me know if you think there are different numbers and what they are and what you think it does to Peat's BG.
-
Pretty sure the carbs thing is not set in stone, and certainly not 'high' as that usually implies both lowish fat and protein. Unless you are talking a large energy expenditure, these macros wouldn't in normal circumstances be 'low'. Kyle actually grabbed the main point which is to minimize use of ffas as up there in his hiearchy of importance as with oxidative metabolism or whatever. So, you don't need to eat tons of sugars, just enough and not be compensating with lots of incomplete proteins or unsaturated fats (high sat fat diets contian some PUFAS). Basically unless you are eating all the time you are going to be using ffas whether the diet is 'high' in paleo carbs or not, like with fasting and infrequent eating etc... This at times in history would have been a default state out of necessity, but isn't necessarily optimal. Hence back to that same 'argument' of natural vs optimal, particularly with poor health -> wellness, which as mentioned isn't really much of an argument for the already open minded.
you are still looking through it from different markers than is in the material which is why its never going to connect. There is no 'diet' specifically with macros or even foods in the typical way (good or bad perhaps, but differ quite greatly from 'natural' and not) . You could even have an isocaloric diet that was peaty, as long as the protein was whole from dairy and whole animals.
So this lack of set WOE coupled with the larger deal of being within the main guidelines and markers as being most important for health, is why it originally didn't make sense to try to take a daily breakdown of his or others' personal eating and then see what translates to paleo and raw.
-
Why does evolution have to be an underpinning for health? Peat is just claiming that health arrives from the organism functioning a certain way, you don't have to put evolution in there at all.
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.
I personally do not see it as anti-evolutionary or whatever, just anti the idea that evolution and such is as static as some people insist on, despite ridiculous amounts of evidence showing the opposite, and since the term itself implies something not static...
I do think he has a sense and cares about what was needed and supplied in our natural environment and what is missing today from our eating or otherwise. This is particulary true in the ways some people choose to limit foods to X and Y based on some ideas and then call that a 'paleo' diet which likely is nothing like such whatsoever. Generally with every excuse in the book when its missing all kinds of crap or full of other crap because its "all natural". He's certaily spoken about it, whether its of utmost importance that foods need to match other foods, yeah probably not.
I'm sure when you get the larger points about whole animal protein, how pufas (in his research anyway) effect or inhibit various processes, the importance of and advantages of combining carbs/proteins etc...in terms of their real world effects, the other stuff loses more ground in terms of what our optimal 'blueprint' or whatever really is. We can spend our lifetime finding some peoples' here and there that ate entirely animal foods or mostly mongogo nuts without really seeing how these diets are working in the present day to produce a basic sex drive or pulse reading, and many alt-camps fall into this trap. We have people eating just fruits or sprouts or grainfed cooked meats or whatever, so the mere existing without meeting various markers for health, (particular when presenting a 'teh only' optimal vs disease type mindset) is also usually fairly useless information.
In terms of why one would make a 'peat' decision of coffee over raw cacao or whatever, or even processed vs. whole, you'd have to read the material. Bringing up past cultures or past fictionlized 'paleos' only has limited value in the face of real world tweaks. Geneally the types of people who agree with that likely will sniff out more Peaty stuff, and the ones who insist on doing things 'all natural' are the ones who in my book shouldn't be needing to make any excuses about health markers and such as clearly they should be physiologically leaps and bounds over such 'nonsense'. Usually not the case IME, but people just love their pet-theories of how looking healthy or having a high sex drive kills you and its fine to have kids that look like bird zombies or whatever, because that is likely how it should be without all the wrong stuff... Anyway, perhaps the importance of meeting his markers over others, or factors of 'toxicity' or whatever, or a lack of evidence of people doing well long term, is where I would be most critical too.
-
I think we're in agreement on the gist of your points, KD. I agree wholeheartedly that it doesn't make sense to just re-enact some fictional idea of Stone Agers (literal re-enactment would be impossible, as the world has changed since then) as though it had magical/spiritual powers or something. The accusation that some raw Paleoists, often unnamed, or all of us (from the critics) are doing that is frequently thrown around, yet I'm skeptical of whether most people actually do that. I don't recall anyone ever saying they do something like that other than maybe William.
I suspect that more folks try various things to see what if anything helps and some come to find that raw Paleo helps, with perhaps some of those investigating further to find out why it works so much better than the diets the "experts" recommend and what other "expert" advice might be wrong.
I also suspect that one reason gurus like Ray Peat become popular is because they say things that seem dramatically different from what the conventional experts say. When convention fails, some folks become all ears regarding alternative approaches that sound plausible, and then when some folks report success, others give it a try.
Have any of the Peatatarian-type diet promoters here tried a fully raw Paleo/Primal version of it to compare and contrast the results and thus find out whether raw Paleo/Primal was really the problem for you or whether it was just the version you were doing? I know that the "You were doing it wrong (for your needs)" answer can be a way to excuse the failings of a misguided dietary approach, yet isn't it also possible that a raw Paleo/Primal version of Peatatarianism might work just as well?
The thread's getting long and my memory is short, so I did some reviewing of it and found that some light was shed on the underlying principles behind Ray Peat's approach:
... "I'm inclined, and there's direct present experimental evidence that supports it better than some of the currently popular ideas [fish eating] that fruit eating is a good candidate for supporting evolution to be more human than ape-like, supporting a big brain, and the kind of digestive system we have." Ray Peat
Thanks for sharing that early in the thread, Storm. So it looks like the Peat model, like raw Paleo, is also built on a foundation of evolutionary adaptation, starting with a fruit-eating ape (presumably millions of years ago), with the optimally adapted diet remaining more similar to that fruit-heavy ape diet than the more common Paleo/Primal diet notions, right?
Fruits are also quite popular here. I do lean toward thinking that (healthy) humans are better adapted to raw fruits than what many cooked Paleos seem to think, though maybe it could be more complex than some in both the pro- and anti- fruit camps think. For example, perhaps wild fruits or fruits most similar to those that were actually consumed over the millennia are healthier than the typical supermarket fare? It's a topic that will be debated endlessly, of course.
-
People might admit they arn't 'full on savages' or whatever, but for the most part they arn't all that open to where not eating regular bugs, whole animals, blood, bones, and oher stuff you might actually have to eat neolithic foods, or at the very least process foods, and include things like salt or other supplemental stuff, to make that completely work for you. Not very common for people to agree with that or especially to agree at all that humans simply are capable of figuring out better ways of doing things... So I disagree that people don't think there is some kind magic just to removing neolthic and cooked foods as that makes up most of peoples logic here without any real mentioning of testing of the markers Peat or other less-fringe types associate with true health.
If someone presents the idea that (assuming other reasonably healthy habits) restricting a diet to raw and paleo will actually heal or fix things over other approaches (or is even some kind of requirement to be healthy) in this present moment..this is one and the same in my book, as it automatically conceptually makes any other ideas inaccessible.
Have any of the Peatatarian-type diet promoters here tried a fully raw Paleo/Primal version of it to compare and contrast the results and thus find out whether raw Paleo/Primal was really the problem for you or whether it was just the version you were doing? I know that the "You were doing it wrong (for your needs)" answer can be a way to excuse the failings of a misguided dietary approach, yet isn't it also possible that a raw Paleo/Primal version of Peatatarianism might work just as well?
pretty sure most of these people just don't post/spend time here anymore.
Also as I keep trying to say, there really is no paleo/primal version. Integral parts of the philosophy are basically antithetical to those things. Primal if you mean in the whole animals and fruits(ripe/juices) + dairy perhaps...without the drugs and refined stuff, but not likely in the 100% raw/disease-is-due-to-cooking-sense.
I suspect that more folks try various things to see what if anything helps and some come to find that raw Paleo helps, with perhaps some of those investigating further to find out why it works so much better than the diets the "experts" recommend and what other "expert" advice might be wrong.
Maybe. Where I am at personally is I do see the other end where say, criticism (Stone or perhaps Peat), may also appear totally reasonable (to the fantasy or whatever) and offer its own short term relief and yet perhaps those solutions fall short in their own ways. Then perhaps the 'all natural'/raw approach is indeed better. Its a matter of specifics ultimately and like above its more about never ruling out what you might need for your particular situation, or weighing honestly how all these approaches work out instead of being left holding a bunch of ideals. Similarly to above, I think you give people too much credit where you think people will readily entertain that their ideas about what is good or bad and the ways they validate their approach, are remotely incorrect. The thing is, is this is particularly entrenched when it gets wrapped up in how people believe things should be in nature.
-
We still seem to be on the same basic page, KD.
Not very common for people to agree with that or especially to agree at all that humans simply are capable of figuring out better ways of doing things... So I disagree that people don't think there is some kind magic just to removing neolthic and cooked foods as that makes up most of peoples logic here ...
I don't see that as a substantial disagreement, as I wasn't trying to claim that no one claims there isn't some kind of magic at all to removing Neolithic and cooked foods. I only meant to report that I haven't noticed anyone beyond a single person who got banned put forth caveman magic and re-enactment as their core reason for trying raw Paleo and doing what they do, without regard for personal experience (ie, doing what works for them). If they're out there, they're pretty quiet.
If someone embraces Paleo re-enactment for re-enactment's sake or because of belief in caveman magic, speak up and let us hear you. The critics of raw Paleo seem to think you're common in these parts. I suspect that far more of us did what I, Tyler, Lex and others have talked about--tried many different things and found that raw Paleo worked for us.
without any real mentioning of testing of the markers Peat or other less-fringe types associate with true health.
I do think that in this and most other diet forums that there is not enough testing to see if the diets are really working and how much work remains to do, and there is too much back slapping and assumption of good health. For example, I've seen lots of talk that carby foods harm no one and that supplements are harmful nonsense, yet rarely do I see people report that they've done postprandial BG tests or tests for nutrient deficiencies. I'm not advocating for low carb diets or supplements, just wondering how they know for sure that these issues don't exist in themselves, much less anyone else, unless they test, except via overconfident assumption or by some sort of magical thinking (though likely more ex post facto than a priori like some critics claim)?
I've seen many reports where people say they started developing symptoms or got curious after many years of doing raw veganism or vegetarianism and finally got tested and discovered that they were severely deficient in B12 or other nutrients or had other bad health markers. I chose not to assume that raw Paleo would just magically fix everything overnight, despite marvelous results, and instead have put it to the test and found that at least one nutrient deficiency has persisted on raw Paleo.
So I agree that some folks remarks seem to ascribe too much power/magic to raw Paleo's ability to cure nearly everything very rapidly for everyone, but it seems to result in large part from their own personal success more than an a priori belief in caveman magic. In other words, there's a tendency toward overconfidence after early success.
There also seems to be a lack of putting things vigorously to the test when some folks jump from raw Paleo to the latest fad, such with the current Ray Peat mini-mania. Mind you, once testing reveals success I don't think it's necessary to continue doing a lot of the same testing, as testing could become a mania of its own and there do seem to be a lot of expensive and unnecessary tests done in the medical and scientific community just to generate bucks.
-
If Ray Peat has an alternative underpinning, let's see it. All I did is ask what if anything it is.
I think the "health markers" are the underpinning. From what I've read Ray Peat considers the metabolism of young people as healthy (high metabolism, temperature, pulse etc) and the metabolism of elderly people to be unhealthy (largely the opposite of young). I think the idea is that using certain foods and drugs and not using others puts your body in a state that mimics the youth condition in terms of gland function, tissue turnover and a bunch of other things I can't think of off the top of my head right now. So if your blood work looks like someone in their 20's, your heart is working like someone in their 20's and your cells are dividing like someone in their 20's maybe you'll feel like someone in their 20's even if you're in your 50's, 60's or beyond. That is how I see Ray Peat's health philosophy, if I have that wrong I'd be happy for a Ray Peat expert to correct me.
-
I meant what is the underpinning to all that, which had already actually been answered, but I forgot:
Quote from: storm on February 05, 2012, 02:34:22 pm
... "I'm inclined, and there's direct present experimental evidence that supports it better than some of the currently popular ideas [fish eating] that fruit eating is a good candidate for supporting evolution to be more human than ape-like, supporting a big brain, and the kind of digestive system we have." -Ray Peat
In other words, it's the same evolutionary underpinning of raw Paleo, but Ray Peat apparently sees fruit-eating apes of millions of years ago to be more important to our current biology than our Paleolithic human ancestors (and Peat experts are of course free to correct me).
So it doesn't "have to be about evolution," but Ray Peat himself apparently thinks it is. He just appears to emphasize a different part of our evolutionary heritage than what most scientists in the fields of evolutionary/Paleolithic nutrition and Paleoanthropology tend to do. I don't recall seeing a fruit hypothesis for brain growth before. Up till now I only recall seeing brains/marrow, fish and tubers hypothesized as the fuels of hominid-to-human brain growth.
-
Well yeah, whether we are talking peat, vegan, paleo..whatever, its pretty clear that even after flip flopping one thing after another people are always sure they have the answer. Think I tried to say that in my first post in the thread here...
At least its a put-up-or-shut-up type model with the peat stuff, which seems to me just way more trustworthy when testing your health against than the more faith-based natural hygiene-type cult hypothesizing within veganism/paleo where its all "yeah your doctor might even tell you that you have all the signs of AIDS...but this is just you comming out of the 'low grade fever' (98.6) of teh cooked foods". Of course people here generally arn't that extreme (which is practically an actual quote i've seen elsewhere) and may have legit empirical stuff too, but you do see similar comments to the former - and other left-field hypothesis - I'd say pretty regularly here.
Even though we can argue about what ideal trigs and BG and such, theres some markers and just common sense stuff which obviously indicate things going better or worse and their departures from an ideal, yet people will still want to argue and make excuses. When you have actual examples of these not matching up with the good/bad in diet choices it should present a problem to the simple models people love to cling to, otherwise we are never talking science or rationality but religion.
So, to me this too goes both ways and applies to any theories, natural or otherwise. Even Einstein's stuff is seen to be both genius, compelling, overarching, and wrong in many ways. There does seem to be evidence that like...bacteria might be sort of important and so forth amongst probably alot of things the subjects here have going for it, that may be missing in other philosophies and 'improve them' as I think you might have been getting at. But at the end of the day, do the majority of people need to be hitting every last thing right to improve their health (to limit say, as many AGEs as possible from food) ? OR do they need to focus on the general trends and WOEs that keep the body from producing its own destructive patterns ( their own AGEs etc...)? I think ultimately seems to be the difference in ways of thinking.
Other than the people sold in medical model food pyramid stuff, most others are far too brainwashed in this weird "well if I don't do the "bad crap"..the body knows what to do!" - stuff, which certainly can work, but is almost always clouded in ignorance as to what true trends sustain health in the real world. Whereas when understanding more how things work objectively, it is less of a mystery why many things that seem healthy or natural templates actually are anything but, or could theoretically be healthy due to hitting a lot of the 'goods', but maybe just isn't the right particular solution.
-
Yup.
-
That blip about the fruit eating vs. fish eating leading to larger brains in human evolution is not the "underpinning" of Ray Peat's health ideas. What part of that short statement says anything about using sucrose, aspirin and exogenous hormones? I think you're still hung up on the evolution angle being necessary which to me doesn't make sense. That's like saying that if cars were built to run on gasoline, which we know they are, there is no possible fuel mixture that could work better, and that if you are designing new fuel you have to somehow link it to the traditional fuel used before. All evolution gives you is the increased likelihood that an organism will be well adapted to a food that it has access to due to natural selection. Of course at every juncture in evolution there is a point where food availability changed or the organism changed to take advantage of a new niche, it's all up in the air all the time but looks stagnant from where we're sitting, like how a forest looks stagnant but is really a war field with plants and insects attempting genocide, altering the land in their favor etc.
-
The quote from Storm appears to have broad implications that Ray managed to touch on in that short but dense excerpt. According to Storm's quote, Ray said that fruit eating is a more likely candidate accounting for the "big brain" and (smaller) "digestive system" of humans and our overall "evolution," more so than fish, apparently. This would help explain his advocacy for fruits and other "sugary" foods (such as sucrose) and tie several of his detailed recommendations together into a cohesive, comprehensible whole. It's a big controversial claim with profound implications if correct. The use of the sucrose, aspirin, etc. are the details that apparently flow from these and perhaps other fundamentals. It does match up with at least the sucrose, fruit and fish/PUFA details. It would also explain Danny Roddy's quote about Ray advocating relatively robust carb intake, if that's also correct. In other words, it would tie multiple details described in this thread together.
Interestingly, in the quote Ray even appears to imply that the more common views that animal or fish fats provided the crucial raw materials to support human evolution are "fantasy theories" unsupported by the evidence. I'd be interested to see what evidence Ray is pointing to here to support his view over the others.
Maybe it would help if Storm could provide the source, to verify it and also enable us to see the broader context and any supporting sources cited.
I think you're still hung up on the evolution angle being necessary which to me doesn't make sense.
I'm open to whatever reasoning underlies Ray Peat's views based on what he himself has actually said or wrote. If it turned out he was a creationist and thought that we're well designed for fruit eating because the Creator designed us to be able to eat plenty of fruit from abundant fruit trees in the Garden of Eden, or whatever his views might be, fine. I just want to understand his views, as I wish to follow Stephan Covey's advice to "seek first to understand, then to be understood."
Where not much is available, we may need to rely on those who know his views best, such as perhaps Danny Roddy, who claims to know them well. If you have different information straight from Ray Peat, please feel free to present it like Storm kindly did.
I'm not interested in debating the importance of evolution in this thread. I'm just trying to understand Peat's actual views, rather than the interpretations of his supporters or critics, which contradict each other even amongst the supporters. In other words, I'm trying to cut through the haze of contradictory claims about details to get at the core of Peat's ideas and to avoid the proverbial "not seeing the forest for the trees."
After that, if I'm interested in learning more about the details, I can still do so, and it will make them more comprehensible if I understand the framework into which they all fit together. Understanding the foundation is important, for even in science "a house built on sand cannot stand." I find it makes things easier to understand for me and already things are getting clearer. If you're not interested in it, that's fine too. I'm not saying anyone else has to agree with what I'm saying, just explaining what I'm asking about and why.
-
That's like saying that if cars were built to run on gasoline, which we know they are, there is no possible fuel mixture that could work better, and that if you are designing new fuel you have to somehow link it to the traditional fuel used before
Although I agree with the general point you are trying to make I think thats an extremely bad example. When designing an engine the fuel to be used is the primary factor to be considered. An engine designed to run on gasoline will not nessecarely only run on gasoline but its output efficiency will be highest on gasoline. If one want's a simular (but not equal) engine to run equally well on say ethanol things like compression ratio, fuel air factors need to be adjusted. In fact you would have to rebuild most of the engine. Therefore i think your example doesn't hold much merit.
(human)Evolution didn't design anything for any one fuel. It merely preserves mutations and species that are able to use the available fuel(of different kinds) as efficiently as possible whilst still mantaining the abilty to compete with their enviremont. So rather than being designed for one particular fuel we are in fact adapted to use the broadest possible range of fuels.
-
I would have to say humans evolved larger brains for the same reason that human ancestors evolved them...because it's usually advantageous for a vertebrate to have a larger brain. Dinosaurs were evolving them before they were wiped out. Mammals have been evolving larger brains for as long as they've existed, as well. Why would there be some extra, separate reason? It's a natural progression.
It's ridiculous the number of agendas that people are pushing in the area of nutrition in this culture. Get a life already!
-
If it were indeed true that mammals naturally evolve larger brains, then I would have expected a different, non-hominid species to have at least gotten somewhere near our level of intelligence before us wiping them out via natural selection. There are some very highly evolved animals such as bears who are at the top of the food-chain but who haven't evolved anywhere near our level of intelligence. Bears have, incidentally, the best smell-sense of all mammals and the best muscular strength of all mammals.
-
swell , more de-railing and placing importance on one mis-selected and mis-interpreted quote of a forum poster.
Read it again. First of all mind the [...] and the context. Second, does it say that eating tons of fruit led to a big brain, or maybe just that fish eating is a poor candiate for our evolution based on what we know of our physiology? Pretty sure most 'peatards' are in the 'meat and saturated fat' and then also with 'cooked food' camps as spurning various developments...
Either way, all he's trying to do is bring skepticism to how people validate their diets (eating lots of non close-shore fish) based on 'evolutionary' ideas rather than the actual effects the diets create, which can in a way give us a better sense of what may have happened in the past.
Same principle every time, not very complicated. People could go on mostly raw fruits (without other needed materials or other negative factors of such) based on 'ideals' and then watch their thyroid/homrones etc.. go to shit, so still not exactly getting what he's talking about ( considering he is pro seafood and anti anything resembling vegan )as far as validating anything with postulates of the past. Notice not alot of peat folks eating fruit mono meals like in 'da nature' which should be the give away there.
The whole fatty fish thing with paleo is 100% rediculous anyway. Only certain types of fish are fatty and for the most part these are totally unavailable in any suspected areas of our early development or without hardcore technology. This is not only not a paleo thing, most premoden man did not eat deep cold water ocean fish and Inuits ate mostly sea mammal meat last time I checked. But afterall, anythign natural that doesn't require processing is surely healthy and suitable, just remove cooked and neolithic food, totally good to go on whatever else you can put together for all your your nutrient needs and functioning. Make sure you eat a fair amount of plant seeds too. Surely the sign of using that increased intelligence.
And I can assure you, cavemen would not kill you and then eat your brain in order to try to understand and get at your magic flickering porn box. Ditto with your magical milking goat. Same with cooked foods. They would find these conveniences revolting. Also I suspect surely that their pure dispositions required millennia of generations before these devolvements did not leave them constantly bedridden with discomfort that truly healthy people today experience after extended bouts on a pure diet.
-
If it were indeed true that mammals naturally evolve larger brains, then I would have expected a different, non-hominid species to have at least gotten somewhere near our level of intelligence...
Give it time. It might still happen.
And primates eat all kinds of different diets, from mostly-carnivorous, like tarsiers, to almost vegan, like gorillas. It's ridiculous to act like diet has anything to do with primates developing larger brains, given that wide variation in primate diets.
-
Give it time. It might still happen.
And primates eat all kinds of different diets, from mostly-carnivorous, like tarsiers, to almost vegan, like gorillas. It's ridiculous to act like diet has anything to do with primates developing larger brains, given that wide variation in primate diets.
I don't buy it. Evolutionary pressure improves survival and intelligence does not necessarily promote survival. Indeed, many animals are far more evolved than us(ie containing far more complex DNA etc. than us) yet have no appreciable intelligence. Plus, if intelligence was so easily achievable, one would have to assume that the Earth would already have been contacted by sentient aliens ages ago(after all, radio communication started over a century ago, so any sentient civilisation within 50 light years or so should have contacted us by now).
-
Geoff, reptiles were developing larger and larger brains tens of millions of years ago. It was a clear progression toward larger brains in dinosaur evolution. Also, you completely ignored my point that primates eat many different types of diets.
As far as aliens, do you bother talking to the bacteria in your colon? No? Why would you expect beings that can travel faster than lightspeed to bother contacting us, then? Think about it...they are more likely to study us like we study lab rats, not TALK to us like we're their equals. ROFL
-
Re aliens:- you do have a partial point, that aliens likely have no beneficial interest in us. That said, if they view us as lab-rats, then it would be highly likely that they would treat us in the same way as humans treat other species - in other words, by now, they would have wiped us out or grabbed most of the Earth's surface and kept the few, remaining humans in zoos, or kept humans as pets or domesticated animals ( neutering the majority of us like humans do to their pets).
Re reptiles:- I was under the impression that reptiles, being cold-blooded had natural limits as to how big their brains could grow.
Interesting link that claims that bigger brains did not evolve due to higher intelligence being selected for, but due to a better sense of smell etc.:-
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/mammals-big-brains-began-with-a-.html (http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/05/mammals-big-brains-began-with-a-.html)
-
Hit it Raw, I think my analogy stands because even though humans are consciously designing engines for a fuel source their knowledge of what works is limited, especially in the beginning. So the first combustion engine was essentially trial and error, and future designers kept the parts that worked (analogous to beneficial mutations) while discarding ones that didn't (natural selection). While engineers probably believe that an engine they designed cannot run on a better fuel than they had in my I think it's pretty reasonable to say that in the vast possibilities of the universe there are probably some fuel mixtures, maybe similar or maybe very different, that would run as good or better. It just so happens that because of the availability of materials and how the human brain works we ended up with what we have.
Similarly things like refined sugar and aspiring weren't around during intensively naturally selective times in human history, but although we weren't selected for them by use that doesn't preclude them from working well.