Peat Got The Fats Quite Wrong

Giraffe

Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
3,730
Steffi said:
post 100727 It is very hard to eat lots of PUFA. Unfortunately the food lobby only declares SFA on the label and nothing about the MUFA/PUFA ratio - which in my opinion is the important information. Or just PUFA would be fine.
But when you look it up, PUFA is in most cases a rather small fraction of the total fat. It is hard to eat any significant amounts.
From a book called "Fatty Acids in Foods and Their Health Implications" (google online)

English walnut - lipid 67.4 % of which PUFA 70.5 %
Strawberry - lipid 0.4 % of which PUFA 72.1 %

If minimum "requirements" for "EFA" are less than 0.5 % of the total calories this means that less than 3 g English walnut or 462 g strawberries are sufficient based on a 2,400 kcal diet.

Also see other treads about PUFA:
Required levels of PUFA are highly exaggerated
haidut's Summary of PUFA
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DRTrenbolone

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
22
I'd like to join the discussion, as I've had some similar questions/concerns with regards to "Peating", if you will. I'm by no means an expert on the intricacies of biochemical reactions from food, however I do have a lot of real world application of various nutritional protocols in the context of physique goals and physique manipulation, so to speak.

I dieted for a bodybuilding show in 2013 at the age of 24...I went from 176lbs to ~140lbs by the time I was "show ready" lean...single digit body fat lean...I can post a few pictures if any of you care to see. I didn't exclude any foods really. I will say this, as much as I could, I kept my carbohydrate intake as high as possible and favored keeping dietary fat low, protein relatively high (even over 1g per lb of bodyweight)...I kept the other macros (mainly fat) as low as I could in order to leave as much caloric room for carb intake. That being said, I did not eat "Peat" at the time...carbs could mean anything to me at the time. I followed a flexible dieting/IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) approach and simply had some standard go to food choices to hit my daily numbers, but would not turn down a candy bar, or a poptart or WHATEVER, assuming it FIT MY NUMBERS for that day...my absolute main concern was hitting my macronutrients and thereby calories appropriately in a given day in order to maintain a steady, calculated calorie deficit. I got very, very lean doing this...and kept at least a significant portion of muscle mass. I did NOT use any performance enhancing drugs/androgens.

What is my point? If my thyroid was ridiculously suppressed, and I was put in such poor health from consuming PUFAs at the time etc...I do not think I would have been able to get that lean. Keep in mind...this was a full 32 week period of being in a calculated calorie deficit...a very long cut. Additionally, I had eaten ample PUFAs and basically just about any food leading up to that point of my life. If my thyroid was so damaged and my dietary choices had caused such deleterious effects, do you think I would have been able to train as hard as I did and lose adipose tissue at such a steady rate?

Now, I have followed a lot of Peat style ideas on and off, to greater or lesser degrees, since perhaps a year after my show (early 2014) and I can honestly say that I notice very little difference in my body whether I follow his protocols more hardline, less hardline, or not at all. I'm only being honest here. At the same time, I obviously believe there is some truth and logic behind his ideas or I wouldn't be on this forum, and I wouldn't be following at least some of his advice. However, from an anecdotal perspective, I know SOOO MANY guys my age and much older who have eaten nut butters, as well as fish oil etc their entire lives; they are in great shape, muscular and lean...leaner than I am, and I eat basically zero of that at this point. They feel great, perform activities fine...no sign of metabolic down regulation. In science, anecdotal evidence is the least valued form of evidence, however it is STILL evidence and STILL raises questions as to the real life application of these nutritional ideologies.
 

Brian

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
505
DRTrenbolone said:
post 101399 I'd like to join the discussion, as I've had some similar questions/concerns with regards to "Peating", if you will. I'm by no means an expert on the intricacies of biochemical reactions from food, however I do have a lot of real world application of various nutritional protocols in the context of physique goals and physique manipulation, so to speak.

I dieted for a bodybuilding show in 2013 at the age of 24...I went from 176lbs to ~140lbs by the time I was "show ready" lean...single digit body fat lean...I can post a few pictures if any of you care to see. I didn't exclude any foods really. I will say this, as much as I could, I kept my carbohydrate intake as high as possible and favored keeping dietary fat low, protein relatively high (even over 1g per lb of bodyweight)...I kept the other macros (mainly fat) as low as I could in order to leave as much caloric room for carb intake. That being said, I did not eat "Peat" at the time...carbs could mean anything to me at the time. I followed a flexible dieting/IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) approach and simply had some standard go to food choices to hit my daily numbers, but would not turn down a candy bar, or a poptart or WHATEVER, assuming it FIT MY NUMBERS for that day...my absolute main concern was hitting my macronutrients and thereby calories appropriately in a given day in order to maintain a steady, calculated calorie deficit. I got very, very lean doing this...and kept at least a significant portion of muscle mass. I did NOT use any performance enhancing drugs/androgens.

What is my point? If my thyroid was ridiculously suppressed, and I was put in such poor health from consuming PUFAs at the time etc...I do not think I would have been able to get that lean. Keep in mind...this was a full 32 week period of being in a calculated calorie deficit...a very long cut. Additionally, I had eaten ample PUFAs and basically just about any food leading up to that point of my life. If my thyroid was so damaged and my dietary choices had caused such deleterious effects, do you think I would have been able to train as hard as I did and lose adipose tissue at such a steady rate?

Now, I have followed a lot of Peat style ideas on and off, to greater or lesser degrees, since perhaps a year after my show (early 2014) and I can honestly say that I notice very little difference in my body whether I follow his protocols more hardline, less hardline, or not at all. I'm only being honest here. At the same time, I obviously believe there is some truth and logic behind his ideas or I wouldn't be on this forum, and I wouldn't be following at least some of his advice. However, from an anecdotal perspective, I know SOOO MANY guys my age and much older who have eaten nut butters, as well as fish oil etc their entire lives; they are in great shape, muscular and lean...leaner than I am, and I eat basically zero of that at this point. They feel great, perform activities fine...no sign of metabolic down regulation. In science, anecdotal evidence is the least valued form of evidence, however it is STILL evidence and STILL raises questions as to the real life application of these nutritional ideologies.

I agree with your observations. In my opinion higher PUFA only seems to be harmful in the context of poor liver function, excess adipose tissue, low muscle mass, and already damaged metabolism. However this happens to be most people. Someone with low bodyfat, high muscle mass, and regular non-stressful muscle training usually seem to do fine on just about anything as long as it is complete nutrition.

A lot of Peat's ideas are most relevant to recovering from dysfunction and are less important to someone already in good condition.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DRTrenbolone

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
22
Another thing I forgot to address:

WEIGHT LOSS/GAIN IS DICTATED BY NET CALORIE BALANCE!

I see some posts like: I switched to a lot more carbs or sugar or whatever and I gained X amount of weight. When I was low carb I lost X amount of weight. Look...you lost weight low carbing because I can promise you that it indirectly created a large calorie deficit without being aware of such, additionally it allowed for more glycogen to be depleted and thereby more water loss along with it...roughly 4 grams of water loss for every 1 gram of glycogen you lost, assuming you were hydrated. You gained weight Peating because you increased sugar consumption/carb consumption, indirectly increasing calorie intake and thereby increasing body weight. There is no way around this...many seem to think there are mystical magical ways to eat in which it circumvents the typical net calorie balance fact of reality, but there isn't. YES, you can do things that increase your metabolic rate...but even with DRUGS...like clenbuterol and t3, you're looking at a max 10-15% increase in metabolic rate which equates to what? Say your BMR is roughly 1500kcal...you expend an additional 150kcal at rest now due to your increased metabolic rate. You can outdo that with a couple extra tablespoons of sugar.

The basics hold true...and I don't care if you follow a ketogenic diet, a high starch diet, a high protein diet, a Peat diet...whatever...if you aren't consuming the appropriate calorie needs for yourself, you will likely get changes in body weight and body composition that are unfavorable.
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
DRTrenbolone said:
However, from an anecdotal perspective, I know SOOO MANY guys my age and much older who have eaten nut butters, as well as fish oil etc their entire lives; they are in great shape, muscular and lean...leaner than I am, and I eat basically zero of that at this point.

Well ultimately yes, when healthy you're more robust so diet matters less. Most people I know are I would say healthy, they can certainly keep lean and bright minded without paying much attention to diet other than avoiding fast food. They'll probably remain healthy. But for someone with health issues, the diet makes a difference (whether good or bad). Note that keeping lean is not really reflective of healthy in my opinion: I've stayed lean no matter what crazy diet I was on, but my health as measured by other metrics has varied greatly, in contrast there seems to be people who just take on weight easily if they don't watch what or how much they're eating.
 

Brian

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
505
DRTrenbolone said:
post 101403 Another thing I forgot to address:

WEIGHT LOSS/GAIN IS DICTATED BY NET CALORIE BALANCE!

I see some posts like: I switched to a lot more carbs or sugar or whatever and I gained X amount of weight. When I was low carb I lost X amount of weight. Look...you lost weight low carbing because I can promise you that it indirectly created a large calorie deficit without being aware of such, additionally it allowed for more glycogen to be depleted and thereby more water loss along with it...roughly 4 grams of water loss for every 1 gram of glycogen you lost, assuming you were hydrated. You gained weight Peating because you increased sugar consumption/carb consumption, indirectly increasing calorie intake and thereby increasing body weight. There is no way around this...many seem to think there are mystical magical ways to eat in which it circumvents the typical net calorie balance fact of reality, but there isn't. YES, you can do things that increase your metabolic rate...but even with DRUGS...like clenbuterol and t3, you're looking at a max 10-15% increase in metabolic rate which equates to what? Say your BMR is roughly 1500kcal...you expend an additional 150kcal at rest now due to your increased metabolic rate. You can outdo that with a couple extra tablespoons of sugar.

The basics hold true...and I don't care if you follow a ketogenic diet, a high starch diet, a high protein diet, a Peat diet...whatever...if you aren't consuming the appropriate calorie needs for yourself, you will likely get changes in body weight and body composition that are unfavorable.

I disagree that metabolic rate only increases by 10-15% by maximizing oxidative metabolism. I think it can be much more than that when a person improves all the factors that increase oxidative metabolism (heal fatty liver, become replete in fat solubles, restore insulin senstivity, restore Cytochrome C, restore pregnenolone/progesterone/DHEA levels, removing inflammation, decreasing inflammatory amino acid intake, eliminating endotoxin, uncoupling mitochondia etc). Just increasing thyroid hormone is only one factor. All of these together can probably almost double basal metabolic rate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DRTrenbolone

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
22
jyb said:
post 101404
DRTrenbolone said:
However, from an anecdotal perspective, I know SOOO MANY guys my age and much older who have eaten nut butters, as well as fish oil etc their entire lives; they are in great shape, muscular and lean...leaner than I am, and I eat basically zero of that at this point.

Well ultimately yes, when healthy you're more robust so diet matters less. Most people I know are I would say healthy, they can certainly keep lean and bright minded without paying much attention to diet other than avoiding fast food. They'll probably remain healthy. But for someone with health issues, the diet makes a difference (whether good or bad). Note that keeping lean is not really reflective of healthy in my opinion: I've stayed lean no matter what crazy diet I was on, but my health as measured by other metrics has varied greatly.

Perhaps this is so...however, how are they remaining healthy and how did they avoid said health issues and weight gain originally? They've been eating like this for their entire lives. Why do some have these health issues and others do not?

Does this all come down to genetics? I'm looking at things from the perspective of optimizing my health and improving upon my health, whether or not it's pretty good; arguably, it could always be better. The implications of what you are saying is that this is only worth noting if you've already crashed into a wall and need a way out...but, that wouldn't make sense because you'd need to drive the car into the wall first and according to much of this information, all of these people I speak of are driving their cars dangerously...yet, they never crashed. I'm trying to figure out how and why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Brian

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2014
Messages
505
DRTrenbolone said:
Does this all come down to genetics?

I would say it's mostly epigentics. The health of your recent ancestors and the health of your mother during pregnancy are probably the strongest influences on the type of metabolism you will be born with. A lot of progress can be made over the span of a few decades if you were born with poor metabolic function. It seems that it takes a lot of convincing to remove the epigentic adaptations to stressful/polluted environments and lifestyles.
 

Joocy_J

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2015
Messages
209
DRTrenbolone said:
post 101399 I'd like to join the discussion, as I've had some similar questions/concerns with regards to "Peating", if you will. I'm by no means an expert on the intricacies of biochemical reactions from food, however I do have a lot of real world application of various nutritional protocols in the context of physique goals and physique manipulation, so to speak.

I dieted for a bodybuilding show in 2013 at the age of 24...I went from 176lbs to ~140lbs by the time I was "show ready" lean...single digit body fat lean...I can post a few pictures if any of you care to see. I didn't exclude any foods really. I will say this, as much as I could, I kept my carbohydrate intake as high as possible and favored keeping dietary fat low, protein relatively high (even over 1g per lb of bodyweight)...I kept the other macros (mainly fat) as low as I could in order to leave as much caloric room for carb intake. That being said, I did not eat "Peat" at the time...carbs could mean anything to me at the time. I followed a flexible dieting/IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) approach and simply had some standard go to food choices to hit my daily numbers, but would not turn down a candy bar, or a poptart or WHATEVER, assuming it FIT MY NUMBERS for that day...my absolute main concern was hitting my macronutrients and thereby calories appropriately in a given day in order to maintain a steady, calculated calorie deficit. I got very, very lean doing this...and kept at least a significant portion of muscle mass. I did NOT use any performance enhancing drugs/androgens.

What is my point? If my thyroid was ridiculously suppressed, and I was put in such poor health from consuming PUFAs at the time etc...I do not think I would have been able to get that lean. Keep in mind...this was a full 32 week period of being in a calculated calorie deficit...a very long cut. Additionally, I had eaten ample PUFAs and basically just about any food leading up to that point of my life. If my thyroid was so damaged and my dietary choices had caused such deleterious effects, do you think I would have been able to train as hard as I did and lose adipose tissue at such a steady rate?

Now, I have followed a lot of Peat style ideas on and off, to greater or lesser degrees, since perhaps a year after my show (early 2014) and I can honestly say that I notice very little difference in my body whether I follow his protocols more hardline, less hardline, or not at all. I'm only being honest here. At the same time, I obviously believe there is some truth and logic behind his ideas or I wouldn't be on this forum, and I wouldn't be following at least some of his advice. However, from an anecdotal perspective, I know SOOO MANY guys my age and much older who have eaten nut butters, as well as fish oil etc their entire lives; they are in great shape, muscular and lean...leaner than I am, and I eat basically zero of that at this point. They feel great, perform activities fine...no sign of metabolic down regulation. In science, anecdotal evidence is the least valued form of evidence, however it is STILL evidence and STILL raises questions as to the real life application of these nutritional ideologies.

lol - username = DRTrenbolone
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DRTrenbolone

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
22
Joocy_J said:
post 101409
DRTrenbolone said:
post 101399 I'd like to join the discussion, as I've had some similar questions/concerns with regards to "Peating", if you will. I'm by no means an expert on the intricacies of biochemical reactions from food, however I do have a lot of real world application of various nutritional protocols in the context of physique goals and physique manipulation, so to speak.

I dieted for a bodybuilding show in 2013 at the age of 24...I went from 176lbs to ~140lbs by the time I was "show ready" lean...single digit body fat lean...I can post a few pictures if any of you care to see. I didn't exclude any foods really. I will say this, as much as I could, I kept my carbohydrate intake as high as possible and favored keeping dietary fat low, protein relatively high (even over 1g per lb of bodyweight)...I kept the other macros (mainly fat) as low as I could in order to leave as much caloric room for carb intake. That being said, I did not eat "Peat" at the time...carbs could mean anything to me at the time. I followed a flexible dieting/IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) approach and simply had some standard go to food choices to hit my daily numbers, but would not turn down a candy bar, or a poptart or WHATEVER, assuming it FIT MY NUMBERS for that day...my absolute main concern was hitting my macronutrients and thereby calories appropriately in a given day in order to maintain a steady, calculated calorie deficit. I got very, very lean doing this...and kept at least a significant portion of muscle mass. I did NOT use any performance enhancing drugs/androgens.

What is my point? If my thyroid was ridiculously suppressed, and I was put in such poor health from consuming PUFAs at the time etc...I do not think I would have been able to get that lean. Keep in mind...this was a full 32 week period of being in a calculated calorie deficit...a very long cut. Additionally, I had eaten ample PUFAs and basically just about any food leading up to that point of my life. If my thyroid was so damaged and my dietary choices had caused such deleterious effects, do you think I would have been able to train as hard as I did and lose adipose tissue at such a steady rate?

Now, I have followed a lot of Peat style ideas on and off, to greater or lesser degrees, since perhaps a year after my show (early 2014) and I can honestly say that I notice very little difference in my body whether I follow his protocols more hardline, less hardline, or not at all. I'm only being honest here. At the same time, I obviously believe there is some truth and logic behind his ideas or I wouldn't be on this forum, and I wouldn't be following at least some of his advice. However, from an anecdotal perspective, I know SOOO MANY guys my age and much older who have eaten nut butters, as well as fish oil etc their entire lives; they are in great shape, muscular and lean...leaner than I am, and I eat basically zero of that at this point. They feel great, perform activities fine...no sign of metabolic down regulation. In science, anecdotal evidence is the least valued form of evidence, however it is STILL evidence and STILL raises questions as to the real life application of these nutritional ideologies.

lol - username = DRTrenbolone

Believe it or not...I find it kind of ironic to have a steroid as a username...However, I have not YET started to use anabolics. Believe me...if I was on AAS now and looked the way I do, I would quit.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DRTrenbolone

Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2014
Messages
22
Also...if you think I was on steroids at 138-141lbs lol...you really need to do a bit more research. I understand my username possibly confusing you into thinking I am "on"...I'm not and haven't been..especially when I competed for that show, although in retrospect, I wish I did use PEDs because I was scronny.

You have to understand in powerlifting/training subculture, steroids play a major role and are joked about quite a lot...that's the reason for the username.
 

schultz

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
2,653
DRTrenbolone said:
I dieted for a bodybuilding show in 2013 at the age of 24...I went from 176lbs to ~140lbs by the time I was "show ready" lean...single digit body fat lean...I can post a few pictures if any of you care to see. I didn't exclude any foods really. I will say this, as much as I could, I kept my carbohydrate intake as high as possible and favored keeping dietary fat low, protein relatively high (even over 1g per lb of bodyweight)...I kept the other macros (mainly fat) as low as I could in order to leave as much caloric room for carb intake. That being said, I did not eat "Peat" at the time...carbs could mean anything to me at the time. I followed a flexible dieting/IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros) approach and simply had some standard go to food choices to hit my daily numbers, but would not turn down a candy bar, or a poptart or WHATEVER, assuming it FIT MY NUMBERS for that day...my absolute main concern was hitting my macronutrients and thereby calories appropriately in a given day in order to maintain a steady, calculated calorie deficit. I got very, very lean doing this...and kept at least a significant portion of muscle mass. I did NOT use any performance enhancing drugs/androgens.

What is my point? If my thyroid was ridiculously suppressed, and I was put in such poor health from consuming PUFAs at the time etc...I do not think I would have been able to get that lean. Keep in mind...this was a full 32 week period of being in a calculated calorie deficit...a very long cut. Additionally, I had eaten ample PUFAs and basically just about any food leading up to that point of my life. If my thyroid was so damaged and my dietary choices had caused such deleterious effects, do you think I would have been able to train as hard as I did and lose adipose tissue at such a steady rate?

Here are some things that came to mind when reading your post:::
1. You're young and have a hormonal advantage that may disappear as you get older.
2. I'm guessing there is less of an effect from PUFA when there is a caloric deficit. Ray has talked about how little kids can eat more PUFA with less damage because they tend to burn it for energy quite quickly.
3. Being in a calorie deficit while training hard could cause increased adrenal hormones which would give you the energy to work hard.
4. Keeping carbohydrates high while in a caloric deficit can prevent a decline in thyroid function.

The thyroid is a little more complicated than low thyroid = overweight. I don't fully understand it but Ray has talked about how he himself had a high metabolic rate but was hypothyroid. Here is a Peat quote that helps explain it a little...

"Supplementing thyroid can sometimes reduce the rate of metabolism, by allowing cells to retain enough magnesium, which stabilizes ATP."

And here is an audio clip of Ray talking about how he used to be hypothyroid but consumed massive calories and had a high metabolic rate.



My point is, things are not always so clean cut. You are placing a lot of value on looks as if looking good means someone is healthy. I know people who smoke and who also look healthy and athletic, that doesn't mean smoking isn't bad. I know people who look good who drink excessively several times a week. That doesn't make it healthy. It's possible that the people you see who are eating nut butters and such things have problems that you don't know about. Maybe a sore joints, bad back, depression, anxiety, who knows? A lot of guys wouldn't admit this stuff so it would be tough to really know just by observation alone.

Anecdotal evidence is considered poor evidence because there are literally hundreds of factors that cannot be kept track of unless people are being followed around all day by some scientist or are very diligent about documenting their life. For example, the mothers diet in utero, were they breast fed or formula fed, how much sunlight do they get, do they have a supportive family/friends, were they bullied in school as a kid, do they live in a city with higher pollution, does their tap water have high estrogen activity, was their grandmother exposed to atom bomb fallout, was their grandfather beaten as a kid? These are the types of things that could alter a persons health and they would be things most people would not consider.

The body is complex.
 

Attachments

  • Hypothyroidism and High Metabolic Rate.mp3
    856.7 KB · Views: 102

moss

Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2013
Messages
305
schultz said:
post 101416 Anecdotal evidence is considered poor evidence because there are literally hundreds of factors that cannot be kept track of unless people are being followed around all day by some scientist or are very diligent about documenting their life. For example, the mothers diet in utero, were they breast fed or formula fed, how much sunlight do they get, do they have a supportive family/friends, were they bullied in school as a kid, do they live in a city with higher pollution, does their tap water have high estrogen activity, was their grandmother exposed to atom bomb fallout, was their grandfather beaten as a kid? These are the types of things that could alter a persons health and they would be things most people would not consider.

The body is complex.

So true schultz
The body is complex and so is mindset......
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
DRTrenbolone said:
Perhaps this is so...however, how are they remaining healthy and how did they avoid said health issues and weight gain originally? They've been eating like this for their entire lives. Why do some have these health issues and others do not?

When I look around me, it's pretty clear we are all born different. Some need to watch what or how much they eat otherwise they keep getting fatter. Some stay lean whatever the diet. Some even do pufa fast food and seem healthy. So, already it should be clear we're not all equal. It doesn't mean its all set at birth or that seemingly healthy people can't become unhealthy. But for someone healthy, it could take more than just some pufa from an average diet to get unhealthy. Healthier means you can repair yourself and not be affected as much. But it does not mean eating fast food is safe, especially if you're prone to health problems. Unfortunately, if we're here online then it's probably because we are in that category. For me, yes definitely diet has an impact on my health. That's also a good thing, it means I am better now than I was in the past. Am I vulnerable to pufa? Probably, but its possible there are worse things to my health or that I am not much affected by it. Pufa is not the only problem out there. Diet in this context is really like taking a pill to cure a disease. If you're not sick, you don't really need the pill. In the short term, your healthy friends don't really need to care about diet as much as you might.

But you are right to question any diet if it is not helping you, and definitely if you are less healthy than before starting it. That should be a sign to move on and change variables. I would have avoided some problems if I had done just that, waiting only a few months instead of years before concluding whether the diet is being useful or not.
 
J

James IV

Guest
If there is one thing you MUST realize when following anyone's advice, it's that context is everything. Peat generally answers questions directly. Many people seem to apply these answers in the broad sense. With health, it just doesn't work that way.
Peat says saturated fat is probably harmless. I'm going to assume he means when you are not displacing too many carbohydrate, and when you are not consuming excess energy. In either of those situation saturated fat can become harmful.
Peat says monounsaturated fat is more fattening that saturated. Does that mean monounsaturated fat is bad? No. If you are not over consuming, it can be just as, if not more healthy in some situations than saturated fats.

Everything is context. Any food can become unhealthy when eaten beyond your metabolisms capability. Getting fat is not healthy, regardless of what got you there. Any fat storage beyond a few pounds of energy storage, is a sign your body is protecting you from something that you are doing to it.

Regarding the contest dieting. That's really irrelevant. I work in a gym, with bodybuilders. If you get your energy deficit low enough through restriction and increased output, you can get lean. However, this approach gets more difficult the more times you do it, and almost always requires a period of over feeding (and susequent fat gain) to restore the metabolism after the show. This is why bodybuilders generally have an "off" season. You will also see that metabolisms vary greatly amongst competitors (likely related to food choices, and history of "cuts" ) and two guys of the same size and starting weight may need very different caloric intakes to achieve leaness. I am around 180 lbs fairly lean (and getting leaner), I rarely lift and do no cardio, and I eat as many, or more, calories as many of the 200lb plus guys that I work with.
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
I agree, mostly, about Peat and context.
I would just add this note.
The very frequently made qualification regarding context can be used as an avoidance technique in some situations,
a way to avoid meaningful discourse.

If someone says as a general statement, "Peat recommends dairy and fruit,"
my view is that that is a legitimate assertion.
A true assertion, as a general statement.

And so someone should not be able to come along and argue something like:
"We can never make general statements summarizing or generalizing about Peat's dietary advice.
All generalizations about Peat's diet are false."
That line of argument is itself false, in my opinion.
It seeks merely to mystify and obscure. :)
 
J

jb116

Guest
How about this:

All generalizations of Peat's generalizations are legitimate.
Within Peat generalizations are specifics.
Generalizations on Peat specifics may or may not be legitimate without context.

:cool:
 

narouz

Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2012
Messages
4,429
jb116 said:
post 101714 How about this:

All generalizations of Peat's generalizations are legitimate.
Within Peat generalizations are specifics.
Generalizations on Peat specifics may or may not be legitimate without context.

:cool:

Hmmm...an interesting take.
Here's where I see problems:

1 "All generalizations of Peat's generalizations are legitimate."
If I generalize thusly about Peat in asserting,
"Peat generally recommends consuming large amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids,"
I believe that would be a false generalization.
Now, if you're saying that if Peat himself makes a general statement or statements,
and we faithfully summarize those general statements,
then, yes, I agree with you.

2. You write, "Generalizations on Peat specifics may or may not be legitimate..."
I wouldn't think you could generalize about a specific.
That's what makes it a "specific." :)
For example, let's say forum member HHD declares that
though she has tried for years
she can not tolerate orange juice from organic orchards.
Okay.
So the Peat generality is that orange juice, especially organic orange juice, is a great food.
But in HDD's case,
I believe her to be truthful in her own specific experience.
However, I would not say that her specific experience voids Peat's general recommendation.

I don't mean to come off as a priggish ahole.
Alas...I probably do. :lol:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

supercoolguy

Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2015
Messages
411
At the book store in 1997. I remember picking-out a Mayo Clinic Medical Book Written by a Student and he mentioned Flax Oil was NOT the great thing people thought. Esp for Men and prostate cancer. He flat out said No-Go on consumption for men. Connecting that with RP's work i felt lucky to have found that book and landed on that section.
 
J

jb116

Guest
narouz said:
post 101727


Hmmm...an interesting take.
Here's where I see problems:

1 "All generalizations of Peat's generalizations are legitimate."
If I generalize thusly about Peat in asserting,
"Peat generally recommends consuming large amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids,"
I believe that would be a false generalization.
Now, if you're saying that if Peat himself makes a general statement or statements,
and we faithfully summarize those general statements,
then, yes, I agree with you.


Yes, absolutely :)

narouz said:
post 101727 2. You write, "Generalizations on Peat specifics may or may not be legitimate..."
I wouldn't think you could generalize about a specific.
That's what makes it a "specific." :)
For example, let's say forum member HHD declares that
though she has tried for years
she can not tolerate orange juice from organic orchards.
Okay.
So the Peat generality is that orange juice, especially organic orange juice, is a great food.
But in HDD's case,
I believe her to be truthful in her own specific experience.
However, I would not say that her specific experience voids Peat's general recommendation.

I don't mean to come off as a priggish ahole.
Alas...I probably do. :lol:

Ok I see where it went wrong there, I should of made it clear, "specific" as in instructional.
One can say generally, "Fruit and dairy" are Peat as a generalization
One can say generally, "Niacinamide" is Peat as a generalization
Their specific instruction in quantity, frequency, and duration, let's say, are - specifics
These types of specifics would not be legitimate without context.

Hope that clears it up...and no, you aren't coming off as a priggish ahole lol all good my friend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Replies
67
Views
21K
Deleted member 5487
D
Back
Top Bottom