Aesthetics / Muscle / Dieting

[Aleeri]

I've been doing Ray Peat diet like 1.5 years now along with experiments with supplements and thyroid hormones. Body temperature seems just about optimal, resting pulse rate could come up (probably down because of exercise) but in general, after I eat I have a good pulse rate in the 75-85.

In the process, I also got more fat than ever around my belly. I no longer see how some of the Ray Peat guidelines could ever work long term when this is the case.

What's becoming increasingly clear to me is that the Ray Peat principles do not take in consideration or care about those of us who also want to LOOK good, as in building muscle, abs and keeping body fat levels on the lower side. Fructose is prized for example and starch is not, yet fructose is very inferior for building muscle.




These aesthetics are considered positive traits, as in we find them more attractive in partners, excess body fat is never seen as healthy, it turns people off for good reason. Some people argue that it's not healthy to have body fat levels that give you a six-pack, but then why do we view it as attractive, I don't buy this reasoning.

Clearly, the drop in metabolic rate after we are young makes it very hard to go back to the effortless lean we experience when we kids. How would it even be possible to? When we are young we are growing/learning at a crazy rate, that's why the body consumes so much energy, this doesn't happen when we older and the body stops developing like this. No Ray Peat diet will ever bring that back, that's certain.




None of the Ray Peat guidelines are compatible with weight loss for aesthetics and he doesn't even seem to like exercise much, to be honest. Zero people that are public in the Ray Peat community such as for example Danny Roddy etc has an impressive physique.

It's always about stress reduction here rather than stress adaptation and I am kinda on the fence that a 90kg lean muscular person has way higher survival chance than a skinny fat Ray Peat follower with a high pulse rate. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Resistance training taught me one thing and that is that stress adaptation and mental challenges are equally good ways to reach stress reduction or even better. The more you challenge yourself the stronger you become to resist life's challenges.

All in all, when it comes to resistance training and maintaining an aesthetically pleasing body, it can be concluded that Ray Peat knows very little.




The question then is who has similar views to Ray Peat in terms of diet but focus more on exercise? What good tips out there can we try?

Fasting and caloric deficit is a big no-no in terms of Ray Peat, yet it is the ONLY WAY to lose body fat.

And don't tell me the crap about bringing up your metabolic rate will make you lose it. Yes, you might lose some weight that way in the span of a couple of years, but it will never make you look awesome. Same as you will never build that muscle without lifting that weight.

Also if the metabolic rate was all there was then taking tons of T3 and eating like a champ would make you lose body fat, and it doesn't. I tried it. Many people tried it. Many people here just got fat.

Bodybuilders often take T3 when they diet on a deficit to lose fat, how could increasing metabolism through eating MORE and taking T3 be expected to do the same? It doesn't.




The human body is a machine built for survival and it will store energy as much as it can when the opportunity is given, hence if you always eat an excess you will never lose fat.

Please prove me wrong but nobody will be able to since then you will be like sitting on the billion-dollar weight loss secret. If there was an easy way somebody would have discovered it already.


The best possible ways I've researched are:

• Alternate day 24h fasts every 3 days (seems to not lower metabolism as much as traditional dieting according to research)
  
• Skipping a meal in order to easier reach a deficit on any given day
  
  
• Combine the above with occasional refeeds and 1-2 weeks off dieting every few weeks of dieting and it is probably the best way to lose fat without hurting metabolism through metabolic adaptation.

If you guys have any good links to fitness gurus or the like that seem to value metabolic rate but also are successful in terms of aesthetics, please share. Where are these people, they seem to not exist.

I would love for Ray Peat to talk about building muscle and weight loss but clearly, he does not have experience in these areas or even interest, which is why he never writes about it.

 

[Jon]

Lol people are not gonna like this post here.

But I tend to agree with your points on most levels. I do think you’re being a bit absolutist though. I don’t think most people on here DO care about aesthetics, they mostly care about having better health markers and feeling better because when you feel like crap for long enough, all you want is relief.

 

[tygertgr]

Not getting fat is just a matter of eating less and walking/biking/swimming more. I personally think some careful skipping of meals can help.

Some of the Peat refrains that cause problems seem to be targeted to an audience of relatively sickly people, like the ideas you should constantly sip juice and that exercise is lethal. Just understand he's not talking to you when he says stuff like that. Exercise more and don't eat so much all the time. Simple as.

I think the resting heart rate thing is probably nonsense as long as it's not consistently really low. Mine ranges all over the place day to day with no bearing on whether I'm having a good day or not.

 

[OceanSpray]

Here’s the thing. There are Ray Peat diet principles, and then there are Ray Peat Forum diet principles. It’s tricky.

When you break down what Peat says, it’s actually all a very mainstream. There’s nothing revolutionary, extreme or radical about any of his theories. They are as mainstream as they could be, in that they are very sensible.

But as is the norm, sensible is boring, and people are used being offered silver bullet diets, and so thats what many try to turn Peat’s diet into as well.

If 200 grams of sugar is optimal, as Peat suggests, then 600 grams must be three times as good. If a teaspoon of coconut oil is good for you, three table spoons will turn you into a superman. If carbs are good, then table sugar must be superfuel. And so on.

I would easily say that two thirds of what’s often passed off as Ray Peat diet is advice litteraly made up by this forum, and not coming from Peat himself.

Ray Peat is not your personal trainer. You have to figure out what will work for you. I think there are quite a few people here with great physique.

Fasting is NOT the only way to lose weight. That’s the silver bullet crazy talk and utter nonsense.

I say this as someone who’s been Peating for over 4 years, who had balooned up, and then went back down to where I want to be. Once I realized all of the above.

Once you delve into Peat, it’s very hard to go elsewhere because the guy just makes sense. But the guy doesn’t give you a blueprint for living your life. Peat is always in the back of my head, but I had to find myself what works for me.

 

[DrJ]

One thing not commonly thought of regarding fat storage beyond calorie balance is that it is also a way the body isolates toxins and protects itself. Fatty liver is a a reaction to liver harm. Visceral fat storage is protecting internal organs and possibly isolating an irritated digestive system, mediated by cortisol.

When you see someone with a flat stomach and a non-veiny six pack or toned stomach, you are basically seeing these attractive traits:

-low or no inflammation or bacterial overgrowth in the gut
-good insulin sensitivity, little insulin spiking
-low cortisol due to low stress life
-steady supply of food so no trigger for the body to store extra fat

You are correct that eating in excess will cause you to gain weight, but that is in excess of your metabolic rate. The swing on caloric overrun or deficit will generally be no more than 10-25%, while you can potentially boost your metabolic rate by 7x by getting all cells to oxidative phosphorylation, or something in between, which is substantially more impactful than percentage changes.

You can't abuse T3 or it will just turn into reverse t3 so it's really not a good strategy.

Did you check Kate Deering? She claimed to initially put on weight and then return to a svelte figure on a Peat diet.

 

[Aleeri]

Lol people are not gonna like this post here.

But I tend to agree with your points on most levels. I do think you’re being a bit absolutist though. I don’t think most people on here DO care about aesthetics, they mostly care about having better health markers and feeling better because when you feel like crap for long enough, all you want is relief.

Yes I probably am too absolutist haha, I am just tired of reading stuff that doesn't make sense rationally as a whole. Like reducing burning fatty acids for fuel while still getting rid of body fat, it's contradictory. It seems to me that this will go in cycles since it is impossible to avoid some fat storage over time, and for periods the body will need to burn that fat, as in burning fatty acids.

 

[Aleeri]

Fasting is NOT the only way to lose weight. That’s the silver bullet crazy talk and utter nonsense.

Yes, I did not mean it as the only way. Why I mentioned it is that it seems to me as one of the best ways that make sense long term, as in something you can continuously do and implement to remain in good shape with little effort.

Fasting makes sense on an evolutionary perspective too, we are not created or meant to have constant access to food. If we were our metabolism would not be able to adjust to the degree that it can.

Counting calories sucks and can cause more stress then it solves, and just trying to eat less each meal can be hard to estimate. Fasting creates a deficit without you having to overthink your diet and prevents overeating since there is only so much you can get down in one session before full.¨

It seems to have less negative effect on metabolism too.

 

[Aleeri]

When you see someone with a flat stomach and a non-veiny six pack or toned stomach, you are basically seeing these attractive traits:

-low or no inflammation or bacterial overgrowth in the gut
-good insulin sensitivity, little insulin spiking
-low cortisol due to low stress life
-steady supply of food so no trigger for the body to store extra fat

You are correct that eating in excess will cause you to gain weight, but that is in excess of your metabolic rate. The swing on caloric overrun or deficit will generally be no more than 10-25%, while you can potentially boost your metabolic rate by 7x by getting all cells to oxidative phosphorylation, or something in between, which is substantially more impactful than percentage changes.

You can't abuse T3 or it will just turn into reverse t3 so it's really not a good strategy.

Did you check Kate Deering? She claimed to initially put on weight and then return to a svelte figure on a Peat diet.

Yeah, I did read Kate Deering book, I've also read a bunch of others on the subject.

While I agree with some of the above, there are some issues with the whole that I do not think it answers.

Sugar is promoted here as it lowers cortisol, in my experience though, it just makes it harder to stick within healthy caloric ranges and easily makes you put on fat. Fruit is the only source I see working alright, since it is broken down slower and makes you full easier. Viceral fat is said to be correlated with high cortisol, I got the most viceral fat while eating sugar (on higher protein/fat I was leaner). The concept doesn't hold up practically for me. Hence, using sugar as a stress reducer makes no sense to me, it gives me the opposite results I want.

My experience eating lots of sugar and calories while also supplementing thyroid ended up with me getting a gut and putting on lots of muscle. It's often talked about how high cortisol makes it hard to put on muscle, it clearly does not seem to be the issue in this case. I am muscular but got the gut. I would say this is a more anabolic environment, I posted labs too in a thread here and they were pretty great on all points, high testosterone / low estrogen / good thyroid etc, except physically I looked like ***t from the diet. It has not improved since, I think I gained more fat even.

Low life stress is practically impossible with how the world works today. I've read Hans Seyle's research/books too. I would argue that life stress is what propels people as well and is needed to make progress in life. All major life breakthroughs for me always came after periods of intense stress. I am not on the side of stress avoidance as a valid plan.

I am not convinced that a steady supply of food would mean no fat storage either. All people nowadays in the west have a steady supply of food, and we are more obese than ever.

 

[Jon]

Yes I probably am too absolutist haha, I am just tired of reading stuff that doesn't make sense rationally as a whole. Like reducing burning fatty acids for fuel while still getting rid of body fat, it's contradictory. It seems to me that this will go in cycles since it is impossible to avoid some fat storage over time, and for periods the body will need to burn that fat, as in burning fatty acids.

Agreed :). I think a more wholistic approach (protein, varied fibers, starch, fructose, etc.) is best for good health. Welllll...we burn fat plenty of the day, as soon as your blood glucose, insulin, and leptin fall to baseline levels (usually after around 4 hours fasted) you burn lots of fat. That’s what muscles run off of at rest. The caveat is like you said, at the end of the day did you eat enough calories to Maintain your body fat level.

Anyway, I do think you may be a bit misguided on fasting being best for maintaining metabolism during a deficit (or otherwise). Too small of a meal window will cause peripheral insulin resistance via heightened cortisol (and probably adrenaline) resulting from fasting. Notice how at around the 12 hour mark of fasting you lose your hunger? ( I experienced that every time) that’s your body raising your cortisol, purging your liver and muscle of glycogen, and probably spiking your adrenaline to keep you alert since you are running low on blood sugar at that point. Counting calories may be a pain, but it’s tried and true, and it will allow you to keep a better metabolism than fasting will since 3- 4 meals has been shown to be superior for insulin sensitivity compared to 1, 2, or 6 (assuring roughly 4 hrs between meals).

 

[Aleeri]

Anyway, I do think you may be a bit misguided on fasting being best for maintaining metabolism during a deficit (or otherwise). Too small of a meal window will cause peripheral insulin resistance via heightened cortisol (and probably adrenaline) resulting from fasting. Notice how at around the 12 hour mark of fasting you lose your hunger? ( I experienced that every time) that’s your body raising your cortisol, purging your liver and muscle of glycogen, and probably spiking your adrenaline to keep you alert since you are running low on blood sugar at that point. Counting calories may be a pain, but it’s tried and true, and it will allow you to keep a better metabolism than fasting will since 3- 4 meals has been shown to be superior for insulin sensitivity compared to 1, 2, or 6 (assuring roughly 4 hrs between meals).

Thanks, what you say makes sense theoretically for me but practically I do not see it holding up. Agree about the 12 hour mark you lose hunger.

Cortisol/adrenaline seem to increase at ANY time you are on an energy deficit, it is the way the body liberates the body fat for burning after all?

I've read the book EAT STOP EAT by Brad Pilon and it was very convincing, and also this post is very good: The Metabolic Adaptation Manual: Problems, Solutions, & Life After Dieting


All in all, it looks like you are just trading the time and intensity you experience cortisol/adrenaline rise.

You can eat with a constant caloric deficit and suffer every day from cortisol/adrenaline increase.

OR

You can fast 1 day on every 4th day and only suffer that day, but eat like normal the other days. (endotoxin benefits here too)

 

[Jon]

Thanks, what you say makes sense theoretically for me but practically I do not see it holding up. Agree about the 12 hour mark you lose hunger.

Cortisol/adrenaline seem to increase at ANY time you are on an energy deficit, it is the way the body liberates the body fat for burning after all?

I've read the book EAT STOP EAT by Brad Pilon and it was very convincing, and also this post is very good: The Metabolic Adaptation Manual: Problems, Solutions, & Life After Dieting


All in all, it looks like you are just trading the time and intensity you experience cortisol/adrenaline rise.

You can eat with a constant caloric deficit and suffer every day from cortisol/adrenaline increase.

OR

You can fast 1 day on every 4th day and only suffer that day, but eat like normal the other days.

It would be AWESOME if you could actually trade constant suffering for one big bolus of it on just one day...but it doesn’t work like that

All fatigue is cumulative. Mental, physical, and dietary stress all pool into the same bucket. Believe it or not, your fatigue investment can be a hit or miss for quality of return depending on how much you invest and how quickly.

You’re totally right, I’m not saying cortisol and adrenaline won’t be present during a calorie deficit because they absolutely will, that’s how the body mobilizes fat stores to be utilized as energy. The thing is, you can minimize the amount of time you release cortisol during a deficit by eating more frequent meals and not release a huge bolus of cortisol.

During a deficit your cortisol will be released often BUT the severity of that release matters because even when you break a fast you’re not entirely ridding yourself of all that cortisol. The body doesn’t work on On and Off switches, it works on endocrinological pulsing and will not instantly clear out a hormone just because it’s not being released currently. It takes time to mop it all up and if it’s a large amount that was released you can be pretty sure by the time you release cortisol again, not all of the previous release will have been cleared. This is true if normal dieting BUT usually normal dieting doesn’t involve the development of peripheral insulin resistance (at least not with me). The only time I ever saw that show up was when I tried IF. So in large part you can retain very good endocrine function while dieting the normal way instead of fasting. But all in all, if you really don’t care about the nuances then adherence is what matters most for goal accomplishment.

 

[gaze]

you say that peat diet makes you fat but both peat and roddy have no excess fat and look quite youthful in the face, so it’s a pretty dumb to claim the peat guidelines will “never work long term” when peat himself is 83 and healthy. You expect them to look like bodybuilders without lifting weights? You got fat from eating too much ice cream and whole milk, both roddy and peat have cautioned against eating excessive fat. if you want a good physique then lift weights eat good protein and carbs. no one ever said your not allowed to eat starch, in fact most would agree it refills muscle glycogen better then fructose. The recommendation of sugar over starch is because people with poor digestion and diabetes can eat sugar, and it creates more CO2. Just because peat prefers fruit doesn’t mean starch is the devil. stop blaming others for your own mistakes.

 

[Aleeri]

It would be AWESOME if you could actually trade constant suffering for one big bolus of it on just one day...but it doesn’t work like that

All fatigue is cumulative. Mental, physical, and dietary stress all pool into the same bucket. Believe it or not, your fatigue investment can be a hit or miss for quality of return depending on how much you invest and how quickly.

You’re totally right, I’m not saying cortisol and adrenaline won’t be present during a calorie deficit because they absolutely will, that’s how the body mobilizes fat stores to be utilized as energy. The thing is, you can minimize the amount of time you release cortisol during a deficit by eating more frequent meals and not release a huge bolus of cortisol.

During a deficit your cortisol will be released often BUT the severity of that release matters because even when you break a fast you’re not entirely ridding yourself of all that cortisol. The body doesn’t work on On and Off switches, it works on endocrinological pulsing and will not instantly clear out a hormone just because it’s not being released currently. It takes time to mop it all up and if it’s a large amount that was released you can be pretty sure by the time you release cortisol again, not all of the previous release will have been cleared. This is true if normal dieting BUT usually normal dieting doesn’t involve the development of peripheral insulin resistance (at least not with me). The only time I ever saw that show up was when I tried IF. So in large part you can retain very good endocrine function while dieting the normal way instead of fasting. But all in all, if you really don’t care about the nuances then adherence is what matters most for goal accomplishment.

I am not convinced I am right but I am not convinced the daily deficit with normal eating is right too. I just want results that can be implemented long term.

I did traditional dieting with normal eating and deficit (about 20% energy deficit) before for 3 months and was in the best shape of my life, but I felt like absolute ***t afterwards. It took months to get back feeling good and weight rebound. It's impossible to live that way long term so it cannot be the lifestyle solution to looking good.

Wouldn't minimizing cortisol be contrary to what we want since it is what liberates body fat in the first place? I am guessing what you mean here is that we want less cortisol increase and we want it over a longer period of time rather than a short time of high cortisol.

Although I am not sure it makes sense either, resistance training versus other forms of training proves that it's better to have high-stress load for a short period of time rather than prolonged stress. So does most other stress research (I am neverminding the stuff about insulin resistance here). It would make sense that it works the same way in terms of energy deficit in diet, it would also make sense in the evolutionary sense. Creating an energy deficit when the organism has access to food makes no sense on an evolutionary basis. I am meaning in terms of killing a deer here or finding a tree full of oranges.

The occasional fasts would also make training easier on the days you are not undereating, since you then have more fuel for the training load.


Concerning peripheral insulin resistance caused by IF. The thing is that both types of eating, IF and regular with the same caloric amount does not result in weight gain in any of the diets, so the insulin resistance even if it's there does not seem to have any effect? It looks to me like more of an adaptation to the eating style.

This study is interesting, improvements in body composition without caloric reduction but IF: A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults

This one is contrary on insulin-like you say: Early Time-Restricted Feeding Improves Insulin Sensitivity, Blood Pressure, and Oxidative Stress Even without Weight Loss in Men with Prediabetes. - PubMed - NCBI

The article I mentioned before drew this conclusion from the research:

In summary, evidence suggests no benefit to increased meal frequency, at least when it comes to fat loss or energy expenditure. So, there’s no need to perpetually carry around six Tupperware containers to continuously stoke the metabolic furnace. While the time-restricted feeding data is less conclusive, it’s safe to say that time-restricted feeding has the capacity to help lower caloric intake when calories are not matched. When they are matched, time-restricted feeding is as effective as standard feeding for weight loss, with some studies suggesting a minor benefit. However, the minor benefit seems to shrink in studies that implement increasingly tighter control of energy balance, and time-restricted feeding inherently foregoes the benefits of equally spaced protein feedings on protein turnover in muscle tissue (Figure 7). To be fair, the previously cited studies that have measured lean mass do not support the idea that more lean mass is lost during time-restricted feeding. There are, however, two important caveats to consider. First, these studies typically measure fat-free mass, not muscle; as such, broad measurements of fat-free mass may not directly reflect the protein balance of skeletal muscle. Second, the likelihood of substantial muscle loss is almost certainly higher in highly trained individuals attempting to get very lean than in the samples studied to date. Such a population tends to carry more muscle tissue, employ a larger caloric deficit, induce more substantial alterations in anabolic and catabolic hormones, and approach essential body fat levels to a greater extent than the general population, or even a recreationally trained population. For less extreme instances of weight loss, I am of the opinion that time-restricted feeding can be a valuable strategy for people who prefer to eat fewer, larger meals and enjoy the psychological benefit of forgetting about food during long fasting periods. However, early in my bodybuilding career, I implemented this strategy myself during contest preparation. While it fit my schedule and eating preferences quite well at the time, I suspect that a more even meal distribution would have better preserved muscle tissue.

 

[Aleeri]

you say that peat diet makes you fat but both peat and roddy have no excess fat and look quite youthful in the face, so it’s a pretty dumb to claim the peat guidelines will “never work long term” when peat himself is 83 and healthy. You expect them to look like bodybuilders without lifting weights? You got fat from eating too much ice cream and whole milk, both roddy and peat have cautioned against eating excessive fat. if you want a good physique then lift weights eat good protein and carbs. no one ever said your not allowed to eat starch, in fact most would agree it refills muscle glycogen better then fructose. The recommendation of sugar over starch is because people with poor digestion and diabetes can eat sugar, and it creates more CO2. Just because peat prefers fruit doesn’t mean starch is the devil. stop blaming others for your own mistakes.

What I meant is that increasing metabolism through caloric excess is a recipe for failure obviously like you also state, and some nutrients like sugar make it hard to balance especially for me. Peat talks a lot about reducing reliance on burning fatty acids yet that is needed to burn body fat, it is what happens when you burn fat or eat below energy expenditure. Only a perfectly matched energy intake to energy expenditure would minimize that and that's close to impossible to achieve, everything in the body goes in cycles.

He has a gut by the way at 83 and not much muscle mass. My grandfather has no gut at 80 and never ate like Ray Peat all his life. Lots of factors apply. Roddy was never fat to begin with from what I understand, I'm not justifying that to his now Peat way of eating.

I had better body composition on higher protein and fat, so fat is not an issue here unless it is in combination with the sugar, which then makes it problematic unless you want to live on low-fat meat cuts and low-fat milk. Easier to just ditch the sugar.

I am not blaming anyone, I am trying to reason here for a good solution that works long term for people who also want to do resistance training and sport abs. Clearly, Peat guidelines do not apply in that case and this is what I mean about the post.

 

[Jon]

Like the dude said in your quote; more frequent meal feeding would most likely have resulted in higher lean mass retention. It’s been shown that animals fed less than 3 protein meals a day had bigger livers than those who recieved more frequent feedings.

Insulin resistance will have effect. It is an adaptation to the feeding pattern but it will hinder your glycogen storage. It takes time to top out glycogen stores and it’s essential for high performance in the gym.

You likely had issues from your previous traditional deficit because you didn’t spend enough time at maintenance to normalize grehlin and leptin levels. And if you got lean enough (under 8% bf) then your levels would likely have never normalized being that that level of leanness does not support healthy hormonal function. Obviously you could never stay in a deficit forever lol there are strategies you have to employ to retain a body composition once the dieting is over. It took me awhile to learn that too, but once I understood how to transition from a diet to maintenance I no longer had rebounds.

 

[Aleeri]

Like the dude said in your quote; more frequent meal feeding would most likely have resulted in higher lean mass retention. It’s been shown that animals fed less than 3 protein meals a day had bigger livers than those who recieved more frequent feedings.

Insulin resistance will have effect. It is an adaptation to the feeding pattern but it will hinder your glycogen storage. It takes time to top out glycogen stores and it’s essential for high performance in the gym.

You likely had issues from your previous traditional deficit because you didn’t spend enough time at maintenance to normalize grehlin and leptin levels. And if you got lean enough (under 8% bf) then your levels would likely have never normalized being that that level of leanness does not support healthy hormonal function. Obviously you could never stay in a deficit forever lol there are strategies you have to employ to retain a body composition once the dieting is over. It took me awhile to learn that too, but once I understood how to transition from a diet to maintenance I no longer had rebounds.

Thanks for the input Jon, any links or reading you would recommend? I did spend a couple of weeks slowly increasing calories, don't think it helped much tbh.

I understand about the lean mass retention and see the benefit but on a lifestyle basis it is not convenient with frequent meals, and the more often you eat the harder it gets to track unless you carry around food. There is the beauty of IF or every day fasting that you simply do not have to think about those details anymore, it's easily done.

 

[gaze]

What I meant is that increasing metabolism through caloric excess is a recipe for failure obviously like you also state, and some nutrients like sugar make it hard to balance especially for me. Peat talks a lot about reducing reliance on burning fatty acids yet that is needed to burn body fat, it is what happens when you burn fat or eat below energy expenditure. Only a perfectly matched energy intake to energy expenditure would minimize that and that's close to impossible to achieve, everything in the body goes in cycles.

He has a gut by the way at 83 and not much muscle mass. My grandfather has no gut at 80 and never ate like Ray Peat all his life. Lots of factors apply. Roddy was never fat to begin with from what I understand, I'm not justifying that to his now Peat way of eating.

I had better body composition on higher protein and fat, so fat is not an issue here unless it is in combination with the sugar, which then makes it problematic unless you want to live on low-fat meat cuts and low-fat milk. Easier to just ditch the sugar.

I am not blaming anyone, I am trying to reason here for a good solution that works long term for people who also want to do resistance training and sport abs. Clearly, Peat guidelines do not apply in that case and this is what I mean about the post.

I get where your coming from, but the reason you have issues with sugar is because you ate a high fat high protein diet. Essentially, you gave yourself hidden diabetes because the fat clogged your insulin receptors so your ability to process sugar is trashed. And your right, burning any sort of fat is not good, which is why fast/stressful weight loss can be dangerous which is why slow weight loss is ideal. Also vitamin E should be taken during which fat is being burned to mitigate the oxidative stress. If you choose the high fat diet, you have to stick with it for life and deal with the low co2 and weak hormone production even while being thin, or you can fix your glucose metabolism through lower fat diets, and focusing on getting vitamin b1 so when you eat sugar your body burns it instead of getting fat. Also to say peat has a gut is a stretch. He may have a litte extra fat on his stomach, but I wouldn’t consider that a gut and 99% of people at 83 are either over weight or way too frail. Peat has a very good frame, broad shoulders in my opinion, and he doesn’t slouch showing his bones to be in good health and that his body is producing adequate co2/hormones

 

[bromuda]

I understand your frustration, when I first encountered Ray's work I thought I found the holy grail and that I would look like a greek god within no time at all. Truth is, having a really good physique (I'm talking like those in men's physique comp) is just a about hard training and constantly stressing the muscles in a new way. And I share your view on stress, unless your really unhealthy stress is crucial, otherwise we deteriorate.

 

[Jon]

Thanks for the input Jon, any links or reading you would recommend? I did spend a couple of weeks slowly increasing calories, don't think it helped much tbh.

I understand about the lean mass retention and see the benefit but on a lifestyle basis it is not convenient with frequent meals, and the more often you eat the harder it gets to track unless you carry around food. There is the beauty of IF or every day fasting that you simply do not have to think about those details anymore, it's easily done.

Yeah man anytime! Yeah there’s a bunch of stuff I can send your way, I’ll do that soon. It’s pretty late over here lol. Yeah that’s an easy trap to fall into, it used to be common suggestion by gurus to “reverse diet” but in more recent time it’s been seen to be better to figure out theoretical maintenance via the katch mcardle formula, spend two week adding back in calories until you hit that number (preceded by 2 days of a high carb/ low fat refeeding at maintenance) then once you hit maintenance, spend about 3 months there. If it’s proper maintenance and weight stabilized about 2-3lbs heavier (because of replenished glycogen, sodium, and food bulk) and stays there for most of the 3 months then you will more than likely feel all of the effects of dieting fall off and will have pretty concisely changed your body fat settling point.

I tracked for years and made sure to track a very wide variety of foods and their weights. I now have most thing memorized so tracking is easy. And tbh when I’m just spending time at maintenance (not gaining or losing) I don’t even need to track. My appetite has proven to be reliable for periods of 2 years without making me gain weight. Of course in that time I assured frequent protein feeding and eyeballed about 30-40g worth of protein 3-4 times a day and ate lower fat by choosing leaner foods but other than that I never really tracked anything and weight stayed the same.

 

[Aleeri]

I get where your coming from, but the reason you have issues with sugar is because you ate a high fat high protein diet. Essentially, you gave yourself hidden diabetes because the fat clogged your insulin receptors so your ability to process sugar is trashed. And your right, burning any sort of fat is not good, which is why fast/stressful weight loss can be dangerous which is why slow weight loss is ideal. Also vitamin E should be taken during which fat is being burned to mitigate the oxidative stress. If you choose the high fat diet, you have to stick with it for life and deal with the low co2 and weak hormone production even while being thin, or you can fix your glucose metabolism through lower fat diets, and focusing on getting vitamin b1 so when you eat sugar your body burns it instead of getting fat. Also to say peat has a gut is a stretch. He may have a litte extra fat on his stomach, but I wouldn’t consider that a gut and 99% of people at 83 are either over weight or way too frail. Peat has a very good frame, broad shoulders in my opinion, and he doesn’t slouch showing his bones to be in good health and that his body is producing adequate co2/hormones

Agreed he is in good shape for his age, he's not just in as good shape as a guy who worked out all his life, at least in terms of physique.

I just find everything so contradictory to itself.

Testosterone and anabolic hormones are important, there is clear evidence for their levels correlate to fat intake. If you go too low fat you get problems there, this has been talked about a lot.

Also, this low-fat thing would not be possible without modern industry, then you can forget about milk, cheese, and meats except wild game, since they all sport high fat. Also I am of Scandinavian heritage, there is not much fruit there and carbs was hard to come by before agriculture. Should this not have affected some biological processes? Does not seem primed for carbs.

When I increased sugar my SHBG went down, this is the only dietary change in 5 years that has increased my Free T. Diabetics have too low SHBG, it's a clinical marker. I lived mostly on low-fat milk (not skim), fruit/juice and meat. I did not consider it a high-fat diet. Everything worked well on this diet except the increase in visceral fat.

I've read all of Broda Barnes books often cited and mention by Ray Peat. He treated hundreds of his overweight patients by doing a higher fat/higher protein diet protocol called a "Reducing Diet" that you would go on as soon as you needed to lose some weight. It's explained in detail in his book on Hypothyroidism.

That's the opposite even though he was a somewhat expert of his time concerning thyroid and metabolism charing the same views as Peat. Peat never mentions this, it annoys me a lot he doesn't address Broda's full research. Clearly, Broda would not prescribe such as thing if it had very harmful implications for his thyroid patients.