Author Topic: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!  (Read 73993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,870
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #100 on: April 10, 2012, 04:27:51 pm »
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.
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #101 on: April 10, 2012, 06:57:34 pm »
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, 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.

Quote
"For the Peatatarians who eat oats or rice"
Quote from: invisible
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!/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!/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):
Quote
"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
Quote
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
Quote
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
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #102 on: April 10, 2012, 08:53:41 pm »
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.


« Last Edit: April 10, 2012, 09:08:13 pm by KD »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,870
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #103 on: April 10, 2012, 11:03:28 pm »
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.
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #104 on: April 11, 2012, 12:05:35 am »
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.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 12:27:54 am by KD »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #105 on: April 11, 2012, 06:28:30 am »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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
« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 10:13:13 am by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #106 on: April 11, 2012, 12:56:55 pm »
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.

« Last Edit: April 11, 2012, 01:38:13 pm by KD »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #107 on: April 11, 2012, 07:29:46 pm »
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?
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #108 on: April 12, 2012, 02:10:13 am »
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.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2012, 02:35:59 am by KD »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #109 on: April 12, 2012, 07:53:42 am »
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.
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline KD

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,930
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #110 on: April 13, 2012, 12:50:06 am »
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.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2012, 12:58:29 am by KD »

Offline invisible

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #111 on: April 15, 2012, 08:35:27 am »
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.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #112 on: April 15, 2012, 08:03:49 pm »
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. 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?
« Last Edit: April 15, 2012, 08:09:02 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline invisible

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #113 on: April 16, 2012, 11:16:35 am »
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.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #114 on: April 16, 2012, 06:53:51 pm »
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?
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline Danny

  • Forager
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #115 on: April 17, 2012, 10:15:14 am »
@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.

Offline invisible

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #116 on: April 17, 2012, 02:01:21 pm »
So what sort of biology is it, if it's not evolutionary biology?
physiology

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2012, 02:11:24 pm by invisible »

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #117 on: April 17, 2012, 07:21:07 pm »
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?

Quote
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).

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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?
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #118 on: April 17, 2012, 10:59:10 pm »
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?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 12:57:39 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #119 on: April 18, 2012, 11:58:54 am »
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.

Offline invisible

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #120 on: April 18, 2012, 02:26:42 pm »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 03:34:48 pm by TylerDurden »

Offline invisible

  • Elder
  • ****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #121 on: April 18, 2012, 02:33:51 pm »
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?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 02:44:38 pm by invisible »

Offline TylerDurden

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,870
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
    • Raw Paleolithic Diet
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #122 on: April 18, 2012, 03:46:09 pm »
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.
"What is the point of growing up If you can't be childish sometimes..." - Tom Baker as Dr Who.

Offline PaleoPhil

  • Mammoth Hunter
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,198
  • Gender: Male
  • Mad scientist (not into blind Paleo re-enactment)
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #123 on: April 18, 2012, 07:34:17 pm »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2012, 07:39:33 pm by PaleoPhil »
>"When some one eats an Epi paleo Rx template and follows the rules of circadian biology they get plenty of starches when they are available three out of the four seasons." -Jack Kruse, MD
>"I recommend 20 percent of calories from carbs, depending on the size of the person" -Ron Rosedale, MD (in other words, NOT zero carbs) http://preview.tinyurl.com/6ogtan
>Finding a diet you can tolerate is not the same as fixing what's wrong. -Tim Steele
Beware of problems from chronic Very Low Carb

Offline Raw Kyle

  • Global Moderator
  • Mammoth Hunter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,701
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Ray Peat podcast...interesting!
« Reply #124 on: April 19, 2012, 02:48:20 am »
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.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk