Calling Time On Ray Peat

[chispas]

@chispas, it's a very interesting post.
When you said: "I mean, there is crystal spectrometry imaging of human cells that demonstrate reality aligning with the current model. " @Kyle M , who is also a biochemist, made a direct response that you didn't take time to address...
I would like to know more about it, since you seem pretty sure about that assertion and Kyle's not. A debate would be great.
I think that Ling and Pollack were not the only scientists to address the problem of the Na/K pump theory, in France, a scientist called Pascale Mentré also wrote a book about the subject.

It's actually nuclear magnetic resonance, not sure why I said crystal. I think I was thinking of something else. There's a picture of the membrane and sodium pumps on the internet, I'll post here.

If Kyle's a biochemist, he should know all about this stuff. I'm not a biochemist, I'm just questioning the claims. My education is in discourse analysis and logic.

I have a friend that is a chemist, and he is open minded. I asked him about Ling, and he thought it was very interesting. He had to admit, there was photographs of the cell via the nuclear medical resonance imaging method, so he thought it strange to doubt it.

Here's a paper about it: NMR Structures of Membrane Proteins in Phospholipid Bilayers

 

[Xisca]

@Wilfrid I was just explaining why he did not "take time to address..."

 

[yerrag]

It isn't in dispute. But it does not tell you what to do in life, so all the rest I said is relevant.

There is more depth... If pufas fright leads to helplessness and a desperate try to deplete it without any other solution than depleting...

If your hand is busy making flies go away, it does not pet the head of the quiet dog.

This is just me talking, and I don't speak for the rest of the people in the forum, but I appreciate that you have good intentions in your posts, but I find myself ignoring many of your posts because in terms of relevance, I find myself just scanning through it, and not feeling I missed anything if I just skipped it. You have many good posts, and I'm just afraid I will end up missing them if I come across so many I find irrelevant to the discussion. And this has nothing to do with English not being your first language. In fact, I can imagine in you my good friend Pilar speaking.

 

[Wilfrid]

Finally, my remark was not that bad since it has turned out that it was not a crystal spectrometry thing but something different...

 

[Wilfrid]

@chispas, thanks for your response and clarification.

 

[chispas]

@chispas, thanks for your response and clarification.

Crystal spectrometry is another method of imaging, also applied to cells, but not considered as good as NMR.

One should ask, why isn't there a chemist here explaining everything for the laymen?

 

[Xisca]

Nice peaceful way of talking @yerrag.
Usually, people find me irrelevant when they do not make the type of crossing I do between different fields of knowledge.

What I can basically say is that no matter how true is RP, if it ends up with fear and helplessness about pufa, that is not better than being afraid of sugar. The problem I talked about is the fear.

Also I think that the op's question, apart from some scientific concern, is about the gap between the truth of scientific knowledge, and the practical consequences and applications in our lifes.

The link between the 2 above sentences is that this gap can generate fear, and then fear generates defensive talkings. And also, if we are unsure about what to do, or afraid to make the right choice or not, we can go to scientific talk to reassure ourselves and be less afraid.

 

[chispas]

I work with a crystallographer and there is no direct crystollographic information, as far as I know, that "disproves" Ling's main thesis.

Yes they have. If, for example, receptor biology is not correct and instead molecules interact in a more general way, then you would be able to explain better and perhaps treat better triple negative breast cancel cells that are still sensitive to estrogen. That's just one example off the top of my head.

No one is asking you to disprove his hypothesis, I'm asking for evidence of there being proof.

Also, I am not making any assumptions about receptor biology. Your example does not support Ling, it is an example in the negative case, which is just a fantasy.

Try for an example in the positive case.

 

[yerrag]

Nice peaceful way of talking @yerrag.
Usually, people find me irrelevant when they do not make the type of crossing I do between different fields of knowledge.

What I can basically say is that no matter how true is RP, if it ends up with fear and helplessness about pufa, that is not better than being afraid of sugar. The problem I talked about is the fear.

Also I think that the op's question, apart from some scientific concern, is about the gap between the truth of scientific knowledge, and the practical consequences and applications in our lifes.

The link between the 2 above sentences is that this gap can generate fear, and then fear generates defensive talkings. And also, if we are unsure about what to do, or afraid to make the right choice or not, we can go to scientific talk to reassure ourselves and be less afraid.

Thank you for not taking offense and I appreciate that you have good intentions and perspectives that I fail to see.

 

[Xisca]

lol not only you, we all have perspectives that we fail to see, and that is what leads to feeling offended.
It just happens more with me because I am not very specialised and have many different views from different fields.

Did my reformulating about why I talked about pufas make it more relevant? At least I hope...

 

[Xisca]

Ling painfully demonstrates in carefully detailed experiment after experiment how the scientific evidence for the membrane pump theory is fraudulent.

He had to admit, there was photographs of the cell via the nuclear medical resonance imaging method, so he thought it strange to doubt it.

lol the relevant comment:
Does it mean that no scientist knows who is right and if there is a membrane or not?
re-lol the irrelevant stupid comment:
Maybe there is a membrane, if they saw it, but the membrane is not what they think, and has capacities that match what Ling has proved? At least we would all be in peace....

I also remember the greeks having a very brilliant art in prooving one point true, and defending it, and then doing it as brilliantly with the opposite point of view...

 

[yerrag]

lol not only you, we all have perspectives that we fail to see, and that is what leads to feeling offended.
It just happens more with me because I am not very specialised and have many different views from different fields.

Did my reformulating about why I talked about pufas make it more relevant? At least I hope...

I'm the wrong guy to ask. I tend to let people ask rather than get ahead of them. I wasn't like that before, but having stayed long in the US rewired me. If you observe, many people in the forum talk like that. It's like a Q&A, instead of a long paragraph. Sometimes, the Q&A format works. Sometimes the long-winded paragraph works for the better.

 

[Kyle M]

Also, I am not making any assumptions about receptor biology. Your example does not support Ling, it is an example in the negative case, which is just a fantasy.

Try for an example in the positive case.

Science works by negatives, not positives. It doesn't matter if you have 10 pieces of data that seem to confirm receptor biology or the Na/K ATPase, one observation or piece of data can disconfirm it. That is the assymetrical way in which science is supposed to, but doesn't currently, operate.

Ling has more than 1 discomfirming observation about the pump that is yet to be addressed, such as how cells without them can maintain gradients.

 

[Xisca]

As YOU told me you found irrelevant to talk about the pufas, I explained why I did and asked YOU if then it was more relevant... at least I hoped so... So for me you're not the wrong guy to ask.

I'm the wrong guy to ask. I tend to let people ask rather than get ahead of them. I wasn't like that before, but having stayed long in the US rewired me. If you observe, many people in the forum talk like that. It's like a Q&A, instead of a long paragraph.

2nd time, and now I think I understand the 2nd part. But were are you from?
Are you telling me that I go ahead too much instead of having a conversation as in a face to face conversation? Which is often true...

 

[John Frusciante]

Does that automatically mean its crappy?

No not at all. Rather the opposite... if Ray drinks it, it should be at least accetable.

 

[Such_Saturation]

He is very pejorative of chaos and quantum theory, but they are just theories, so not sure what the big problem is.

Yeah theories cannot affect human reality and cannot thus be dangerous LOL

I agree about MRI though. Water crystals have a minor (significant IIRC) role in the imaging process.

 

[Xisca]

No not at all. Rather the opposite... if Ray drinks it, it should be at least accetable.

What he eats is a reference for himself and some others but not all.
I stopped dairies long ago and it was the best way to stop any ORL problems for me! And I remember as a child, the 1st time I drank UHT milk... I nearly vomited and spit the milk.
If Ray drinks UHT, he drinks what is crap for me, homogenised, sterilized...
I went back to dairy when I could get some fresh organic raw goat cheese made with pure animal rennet from goat stomach. And I can drink some of the milk when I get a chance at sb's house, fresh from the goat.

 

[John Frusciante]

What he eats is a reference for himself and some others but not all.
I stopped dairies long ago and it was the best way to stop any ORL problems for me! And I remember as a child, the 1st time I drank UHT milk... I nearly vomited and spit the milk.
If Ray drinks UHT, he drinks what is crap for me, homogenised, sterilized...
I went back to dairy when I could get some fresh organic raw goat cheese made with pure animal rennet from goat stomach. And I can drink some of the milk when I get a chance at sb's house, fresh from the goat.

Sometimes UHT milk is more digestible than those products from raw milk. He drinks it from the protein and calcium so commercial milk is ok as long as it doesn't cause digestive problems. Parmiggiano Reggiano and Pecorino Romano are made with animal rennet, the second one is from sheep milk.

 

[Xisca]

Yes I have seen some people state that they do better on UHT, I just wanted to note that the fact that Ray Peat uses it does not directly mean this is acceptable. I also have no problem with Roquefort, except the price where I live!

Also, when we have a problem with some food, is the food a problem, or is it ourself who have a problem? Is raw milk only good when it is very recently milked? Or then fermented as it used to be done before fridges! What is sad is the distance we have from good fresh food....

 

[Drareg]

A lot of passionate words here. I'll respond to you because your message contains many of the same remarks made by others. Psychology, genetics, socio-cultural influences all play a role in health, wouldn't you say? I'm not trying to counter or contradict Peat or anyone's personal testimony, I'm actually on Ray Peat's side in terms of the general direction of his thought - I just don't see it holding together very well. He is keen on coherency, and so am I, yet his writings are disjointed and the ideas are incomplete. He did once say his goal was to "change the culture". I don't see him achieving that using the current amount of obscurantism that blurs the finer points. He would probably say in reply to me that he is non-systematic because he is anti-authoritarian and there are no truths, or something along those lines, but this is like a "get out of jail free card" - at some point you have to stand up and defend your own ideas and risk being vilified like I currently am on this thread.

Also, Ray did speak recently of human cells being "practically immortal", which I thought was a bit interesting. Not sure what he means by that. I thought immortality was just an a priori concept, like infinity.

A Unique Tool for Cellular Structural Biology: In-cell NMR[/URL]

Here's another quote that sides with Ling, but provides no evidence of why Ling is correct: "Ling has demonstrated in many ways that the ruling dogma of "cell membrane" function isn't coherently based on fact. He found that hormones such as progesterone regulate the energetic and structural stability of cells. Many people, unaware of his work, have felt that it was necessary to argue against the idea that there are anesthetic steroids with generalized protective functions, because of their commitment to a textbook dogma of "cell membrane" physiology."

Notice the phrases where adjectives are unnecessarily paired with nouns: "many ways", "ruling dogma", "coherently based". this is a known logic strategy known as "guarding your argument". I want to agree with Peat, but this is weak writing that wouldn't hold up in an academic context.

I asked Danny about Ling in a straightforward way, because he's obviously read and written a lot about Peat's ideas, and I thought he might have something to share that would help me. I was actually really surprised he didn't comprehend Ling very well at all, and had a poor understanding of the relationship between Ling and Peat.

I don't know how you made the leap that I am some hateful person pursuing attention - I'm just trying to appreciate what I've read, and obtain the constructive views of others - something that seems to be in scant supply on this forum sadly.

I'm "calling time" in the sense that I'm tired to trying to "wonder what Ray means" when he says "X and Y is good and A and B should be avoided". It's just a minefield of claims that I'm sure are partly right in some contexts, but I suspect the foundations are unstable. I also think someone with a PhD in Biology and Masters in Linguistics would have the training to present all of this great information in a really concise, easy to digest way. But for some reason, he's chosen to leave it all disjointed across tens of articles for the misinformed and undertrained to attempt to understand. I worry that if it was easier to understand, it would also be easier to debunk.

His writings seem disjointed,the key term you use is "seems" to your perceptions and the words your using in this thread it’s clear to everyone you have a poor to no understanding of Lings theory and what Peat is saying,you won’t get into the deeper aspect of the biochemistry instead you hide in verbosity,now why is that?
At least Roddy has the humility to know he doesn’t and will never know all as does Peat and Ling,no doors are closed in a reality with infinite potential and creativity to such minds,you crave a closed door a box to climb in with a "coherent"path to it,instead you are given a fat paradox and this drives your fear and now the lash out against what you projected as promise onto someone’s else writings,imo. Rigid in mind needs boxes and closed doors imo. Standing up and defending ideas in the manner you imply and claiming the use of get out of jail cards highlights your craving for a closed door.

Yes define truth!
" I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true. Oh the lols Mr reality ,please stop!

Your hiding behind the terms like "global community of biologists" ,your basically arguing against Ray Peat with the same style you critique him on lol!
You use "global community of biologists" as a term to associate yourself with the majority authority,you offer know comprehension of what they say or understanding of what Ray Peat/Ling implies,your associating with illusory big names to appear authoritative on the topic.
You offer no understanding,instead you nitpick paragraphs out of context,bottom line is you wouldn’t understand him if he presented the evidence to you in-depth ,you admit this and then want Ray Peat to simplify it further,things can only be explained so simply at this level before metaphor and analogy ruin the "impression" of the actual underlying processes,see the whole world of "genetics" as a class 1 example!

You then move onto Claiming Peats writing wouldn’t stand up in an academic context,your using terms like "academic context" again to try seem superior or authoritive to Peat,this is lame.
The styles of argument you mention and attempt to use are defined and made into degree courses for a fee in university based on observed natural phenomenon in reality,this is the reason their uses only go so far,using them and hiding behind it like it’s an authority makes you look silly to say the least.
Remember the English language has almost 50% redundancy,almost half the words you use control the other half,lol!! So what do you understand sir!

This is a terrible effort again on your part,you have criticized somebody for a guarded argument (your opinion)while pulling the same technique by using techniques for styles of argumentation learned in a book, your overall point is you want to debunk Peat because you want to stay in old ways or something Peat says doesn’t fit your current bias in life anymore,if your new found bias and perception was overall healthy you probably wouldn’t feel the need to be here writing these posts or caring anymore about Peat.

The bigger mistake you make overall is context,you forget to put the authority group you hide behind "global community of biologists" into context and if we do we see a pattern in every area they are in,little to no cures,causing illness via food supplies,iatrogenics,rising rates of chronic disease,rising rates of depression,etc etc etc did I mention iatrogenics?
Now why is that?

His writings seem disjointed,the key term you use is "seems" to your perceptions and the words your using in this thread it’s clear to everyone you have a poor to no understanding of Lings theory and what Peat is saying,you won’t get into the deeper aspect of the biochemistry instead you hide in verbosity,now why is that?
At least Roddy has the humility to know he doesn’t and will never know all as does Peat and Ling,no doors are closed in a reality with infinite potential and creativity to such minds,you crave a closed door a box to climb in with a "coherent"path to it,instead you are given a fat paradox and this drives your fear and now the lash out against what you projected as promise onto someone’s else writings,imo. Rigid in mind needs boxes and closed doors imo. Standing up and defending ideas in the manner you imply and claiming the use of get out of jail cards highlights your craving for a closed door.

Yes define truth!
" I am lying” is self-contradictory, since if it’s true, I’m not a liar, and it’s false; and if it’s false, I am a liar, so it’s true. Oh the lols Mr reality ,please stop!

Your hiding behind the terms like "global community of biologists" ,your basically arguing against Ray Peat with the same style you critique him on lol!
You use "global community of biologists" as a term to associate yourself with the majority authority,you offer know comprehension of what they say or understanding of what Ray Peat/Ling implies,your associating with illusory big names to appear authoritative on the topic.
You offer no understanding,instead you nitpick paragraphs out of context,bottom line is you wouldn’t understand him if he presented the evidence to you in-depth ,you admit this and then want Ray Peat to simplify it further,things can only be explained so simply at this level before metaphor and analogy ruin the "impression" of the actual underlying processes,see the whole world of "genetics" as a class 1 example!

You then move onto Claiming Peats writing wouldn’t stand up in an academic context,your using terms like "academic context" again to try seem superior or authoritive to Peat,this is lame.
The styles of argument you mention and attempt to use are defined and made into degree courses for a fee in university based on observed natural phenomenon in reality,this is the reason their uses only go so far,using them and hiding behind it like it’s an authority makes you look silly to say the least.
Remember the English language has almost 50% redundancy,almost half the words you use control the other half,lol!! So what do you understand sir!

This is a terrible effort again on your part,you have criticized somebody for a guarded argument (your opinion)while pulling the same technique by using techniques for styles of argumentation learned in a book, your overall point is you want to debunk Peat because you want to stay in old ways or something Peat says doesn’t fit your current bias in life anymore,if your new found bias and perception was overall healthy you probably wouldn’t feel the need to be here writing these posts or caring anymore about Peat.

The bigger mistake you make overall is context,you forget to put the authority group you hide behind "global community of biologists" into context and if we do we see a pattern in every area they are in,little to no cures,causing illness via food supplies,iatrogenics,rising rates of chronic disease,rising rates of depression,etc etc etc did I mention iatrogenics?
Now why is that?