Unpopular Opinion: I Think Some Of Ray's Ideas Are Just Not Helpful And Actually Make Matters Worse

[TeaRex14]

I would bet that Ray Peat wouldn't consider the standard protocol of dairy, fruit, liver etc 'bizarre'. He eats like that, as does Roddy.

When people say that they failed on the Peat diet they're referring to that kind of approach. You might have your own interpretations.

That's contextual, not taking into account everything else they eat. That's like saying I had a glass of orange juice today, and therefore, I had nothing but orange juice today. Doesn't make any sense.

1. Peat's understanding of the body is based on non-accepted cell biology (Ling)
2. There is evidence that a higher metabolism isn't always desirable, leading to higher all cause mortality
3. Many of his recommendations contradict his own guidelines (meat high in tryptophan, estrogen)
4. His arguments against starch are based on very old and obscure studies (the granule issue)
5. The general tendency to overvalue rat studies etc.

I think the most problematic thing by far might be 1. . Peat's understanding of cell biology is so far outside of the mainstream it's almost fringe science.

Most of the least diseased cultures around the world conduct their lifestyles in ways that are very pro metabolic. So that's not really true in most cases. I guess if you're overdosing yourself on thyroid medication everyday you may have problems, but short of this, increasing metabolism through diet and lifestyle is beneficial. The meat thing is another contextual error, if your diet is focusing on carbohydrate you won't be eating enough tryptophan to inhibit metabolism. Someone eating a carnivore diet, that's a different story. The persorption thing isn't even the main objection to starch in the first place. I don't know why people tend to focus on this, WestsidePUFA made the same ridiculous claim every time as well. The main issue with starch is the promotion of LPS, which can cause problems for people who already have impaired digestion.

 

[MatheusPN]

1. Peat's understanding of the body is based on non-accepted cell biology (Ling)
2. There is evidence that a higher metabolism isn't always desirable, leading to higher all cause mortality
3. Many of his recommendations contradict his own guidelines (meat high in tryptophan, estrogen)
4. His arguments against starch are based on very old and obscure studies (the granule issue)
5. The general tendency to overvalue rat studies etc.

I think the most problematic thing by far might be 1. . Peat's understanding of cell biology is so far outside of the mainstream it's almost fringe science.

Understand the context, when peat says a high metabolism is good? Under what conditions?

Have you read any of his books? Because 3, 4 and 5 are completely invalid, he explicit explain why or when, some users here also clarify

 

[Braveheart]

This forum has degenerated into gibberish. This is so sad. I'll just go read more of Peat's articles and stop wasting my time here.

So right...thank goodness we can hit un-watch or better yet un- follow...has kept me from dropping forum altogether at times.

 

[somuch4food]

This forum has degenerated into gibberish. This is so sad. I'll just go read more of Peat's articles and stop wasting my time here.

That's not the forum that has degenerated. It's the Internet as a whole. Most articles that circulate on the web and get traction are really shallow. They are designed to maximize clicks and views. The content doesn't matter as long as people access the page they get ad/affiliate revenue. It's sad. Whenever marketing is implicated, the content gets shallower.

People are also less and less healthy and intelligent and so, they post anything or ask questions before attempting to answer it by themselves. It's easy to post a question. It's much harder to reflect on it on your own, it also takes some confidence in yourself to trust your conclusion.

I'm guilty of this sometimes when I don't feel well enough to exercise sound judgment.

 

[TeaRex14]

This forum has degenerated into gibberish. This is so sad. I'll just go read more of Peat's articles and stop wasting my time here.

I think there's still a lot of meaningful content on the forum. The issue is as the forum grows in numbers, and it gets more recognized, there's anti Peat trolls that show up. And I do mean trolls, because most of them aren't supplying any valid or even controversial critiques. They're just lying and misrepresenting what he has advocated.

 

[jb116]

I disagree with this. Peat seems open to starch being a decent food source under some circumstances, but he's made it clear on multiple occasions that high quality fruit is superior. So no, he hasn't explicitly said "no starch," but he has said there's better options, so it's not a stretch to say the ideal Peat diet wouldn't include starch.

soooooo what is it you disagree with

 

[MarcelZD]

I think there's still a lot of meaningful content on the forum. The issue is as the forum grows in numbers, and it gets more recognized, there's anti Peat trolls that show up. And I do mean trolls, because most of them aren't supplying any valid or even controversial critiques. They're just lying and misrepresenting what he has advocated.

If you think people are misinterpreting Peat or even lying about his views, why don't you try to lay out a correct framework that can be critiqued?

Earlier in the thread I quoted Peat verbatim on the issue of gluten, which he thinks should absolutely not be eaten, and even then I was accused of taking things out of context.

 

[postman]

If you think people are misinterpreting Peat or even lying about his views, why don't you try to lay out a correct framework that can be critiqued?

Earlier in the thread I quoted Peat verbatim on the issue of gluten, which he thinks should absolutely not be eaten, and even then I was accused of taking things out of context.

This will be fun.

 

[Kartoffel]

Start with reading my previous post in this thread to give you more of a clear idea to what i'm referring to.. if you have any further questions or desire to discuss anything specific past that let me know..

Just for a bit more clarity , i'm talking partly about his particular methodology.. he often attempts to interpret the mechanisms and mechanistic modes of action within human physiology from in-vitro studies, animal studies (mainly rats), some anecdotal feed back and some case studies (which are all very low tier on the evidence hierarchy), and then make broad conclusions and generalisations from these mechanistic theories into human nutrition. This is a very flawed way of utilising the science. Mechanistic interpretations of data are great for motivating more scientific exploration of certain things, and it could be said that all this experimenting with certain aspects of a ray peat inspired diet (and supplementation for that matter) are in a sense participating in such exploration. Albeit in an uncontrolled manner so only can be taken as anecdotal evidence at best for the most part.

Peat has made some absolutely ridiculous errors in his interpretation of data and studies (looking at studies of uncooked starch in rats as a reason to avoid starch in general - 1. cooking starch is an obvious thing that most people eating starch do, 2. we have vastly different digestive systems than rats. And then seemingly ignores all subsequent studies and data, after the old initial rat study, on starch that points to it being well utilised and digested by humans). He has made similar conclusions about legumes, examining issues with them in an uncooked state ignoring the fact that noone eats them raw, and unwilling to even look at high level evidence that suggests very good nutritional value for humans. He recently started recommending mushrooms after considering that cooking them alters their "toxicity" to being unproblematic. I mean this is such a basic thing that took him decades to work out. Has he considered how cooking starch or cooking legumes solves many of his so claimed problems with them? It seems such an obvious consideration, but one still wonders. Further he very rarely if ever looks at, considers or discusses high level research and evidence that goes against his narrative. For example, very well conducted, high level randomised controlled studies on dairy and its negative effects on human health (of which the literature is abundant). When faced with such evidence, be it new or old that challenges his beliefs very often he will allude to some conspiracy theory and brush them off without actually delving into the science.



Agreed.
Also just want to say that there are many gems in Peat, like I said i'm not discrediting EVERYTHING, but the idea that he is just right as a blanket and taking the things he says as gospel is problematic for many reasons, some of which are explained above. For example, I think the emphasis he places on providing the body with adequate glucose as a fuel source is a great one, and one that is seemingly very timely considering the anti sugar movement of current. I think his emphasis on the issues associated with refined vegetable oils and consuming high levels of cooked refined PUFAs is a good one as well.

Ok, so in your lengthy post the two points of criticism I could find are that his theories are mechanistic (and based on in vitro studies), and that he is wrong about starch. I'm not really sure what to resond to the first point other than wonder whether you have really read or listened to anything he says. On the starch issue: Do you really want to suggest that he is not aware that cooking mostly eliminates the persorption of starches? He has said many times that he thinks that cooked starches are not optimal but fairly safe, and he has conducted many experiments with his students in Mexico where they would try different starches and afterwards look for particles in their blood. Your attempt to paint him as an abstract, quixotic fool is pretty lame. He has probably worked with more people and their problems than any other current researcher. Btw, it wasn't in subsequent studies that other people showed that persorption doesn't occur with cooked starches, Volkheimer himself said that in his articles.

In your previous post, you mentioned his carrot thing as an example of how mechanistic his interpretation of data is, and argue that his recommendation to eat one every day is based on an old, isolated rat study. I'm not sure but I think he has never even mentioned any rat studies. He came up with the carrot after seeing that it alleviated PMS symptoms and lowered cholestrol in many of the hundreds of women he consulted with, and many of them reported that they found undigested pieces of carrot in their stool. I can't confirm that for myself, but it is definitely true for bamboo shoots, which are absolutely fantastic, and which I would never have considered without him mentioning them. Both carrots and bamboo shoots have been used in controlled, human studies so I don't really see your point here.

So, I'll ask again: what specifically is he wrong about? You haven't actually mentioned anything, you just tried to frame it as if he only looks on animal and in vitro studies. I don't agree with him on everything when it comes to some of his practical suggestions, but your criticism that he doesn't consider human evidence is just foolish.

 

[TeaRex14]

If you think people are misinterpreting Peat or even lying about his views, why don't you try to lay out a correct framework that can be critiqued?

Earlier in the thread I quoted Peat verbatim on the issue of gluten, which he thinks should absolutely not be eaten, and even then I was accused of taking things out of context.

Valid critiques would be saying I think PUFA is good, I think low carb is good, I think saturated fat clogs your arteries, I think whole grains are better than fruits, etc. All of these things are beliefs Ray Peat doesn't agree with, but nevertheless there is a substantial amount of the scientific community who would stand behind some of these claims.

What is misrepresentation is saying Peat recommends you consume 2 quarts of milk and a quart of orange juice everyday. This is what happens when people start taking isolated quotes, often taken out of the context of the interview he was having, and try to formulate dietary guidelines out of it. The gluten thing is similar, because you can also find isolate clips of him saying naturally leavened bread (sourdough) is better than store bought bread made with artificial yeast. There is no framework other than avoid PUFA, balance phosphate, and eat carbohydrate.

 

[somuch4food]

I'll attach the evidence hierarchy pyramid to this post.
This issue is just one of many with Peat and his particular way of thinking and following interpretation from people that read him, but I'll leave it at that for now...

I really disagree that meta analysis and systematic reviews have the strongest evidence. I don't view most studies highly at all. Often, they find a statistically significant result, but it's often weak and they don't take much time trying to explain why not everyone reacted in the same fashion. I've seen many studies mentioning further investigation is needed in their conclusion. That investigation might never take place.

I actually kinda prefer in vitro/animal studies since they show a particular mechanism and can be better controlled for the many variables.

Humans used in studies all come with their history and biases which make any result kind of irrevelant since there are many confounding variables. I understand they are necessary to establish the safety of medication though.

 

[Ritchie]

Ok, so in your lengthy post the two points of criticism I could find are that his theories are mechanistic (and based on in vitro studies), and that he is wrong about starch. I'm not really sure what to resond to the first point other than wonder whether you have really read or listened to anything he says. On the starch issue: Do you really want to suggest that he is not aware that cooking mostly eliminates the persorption of starches? He has said many times that he thinks that cooked starches are not optimal but fairly safe, and he has conducted many experiments with his students in Mexico where they would try different starches and afterwards look for particles in their blood. Your attempt to paint him as an abstract, quixotic fool is pretty lame. He has probably worked with more people and their problems than any other current researcher. Btw, it wasn't in subsequent studies that other people showed that persorption doesn't occur with cooked starches, Volkheimer himself said that in his articles.

In your previous post, you mentioned his carrot thing as an example of how mechanistic his interpretation of data is, and argue that his recommendation to eat one every day is based on an old, isolated rat study. I'm not sure but I think he has never even mentioned any rat studies. He came up with the carrot after seeing that it alleviated PMS symptoms and lowered cholestrol in many of the hundreds of women he consulted with, and many of them reported that they found undigested pieces of carrot in their stool. I can't confirm that for myself, but it is definitely true for bamboo shoots, which are absolutely fantastic, and which I would never have considered without him mentioning them. Both carrots and bamboo shoots have been used in controlled, human studies so I don't really see your point here.

So, I'll ask again: what specifically is he wrong about? You haven't actually mentioned anything, you just tried to frame it as if he only looks on animal and in vitro studies. I don't agree with him on everything when it comes to some of his practical suggestions, but your criticism that he doesn't consider human evidence is just foolish.

I've edited that post a little just to be a bit more clear. The carrot recommendation did start with a rat study Peat observed and paid attention to, I'll try to find it when I have time and the quote from Peat to this regard. My point is that could it not be insoluble fibre, or fibre in general (of which peat talks quite a bit against) that is what is of benefit here (I mean this is what the mountains of evidence and literature point to on the topic) rather than specifically magical carrots and bamboo shoots. This to me is such an obvious point, but the focus of carrots and bamboo shoots as being an anomaly in the world of fibre is strange to say the least. So the reason I mention the rat study is this is one that initially gained Peat's attention toward carrots and he subsequently put energy into it, finding merit in his patients and clients.
As far as starch goes, why bother even discussing it. It is a dead non issue and I don't understand why Peat persists in painting it in a negative light. Cooked starch is fine, no issue, no evidence of it being a problem apart from some out lying case studies and anecdotal claims of particular instances. Dead it. The back and forth obsession with starch in the Peat world is pointless. It's a good source of glucose and energy and is perfectly safe to consume along with sweet fruits, syrups and sugars as a source of carbohydrates.

 

[Ritchie]

I really disagree that meta analysis and systematic reviews have the strongest evidence. I don't view most studies highly at all. Often, they find a statistically significant result, but it's often weak and they don't take much time trying to explain why not everyone reacted in the same fashion. I've seen many studies mentioning further investigation is needed in their conclusion. That investigation might never take place.

I actually kinda prefer in vitro/animal studies since they show a particular mechanism and can be better controlled for the many variables.

Humans used in studies all come with their history and biases which make any result kind of irrevelant since there are many confounding variables. I understand they are necessary to establish the safety of medication though.

There is extremely good reason and rationale for this hierarchy of evidence, if you are interested it is certainly worth looking into for your own understanding and curiosity. Science is progressing in this matter and far from conclusive hence the constant requirement to keep further investigation, this is a good thing. With every study we get closer to getting the full picture, it is a mistake to jump to conclusions pre-emptively, no matter how desirable it may be to do so.
There a many problems with in vitro and animal studies, so often something found in vitro has no relevance in the human context or even worse has an opposite or orthogonal effect in the human situation (this is due to the extremely complex human biological system). Same goes for animal studies, humans are very different in physiology from say rats or mice, and there are literally countless examples of conclusions found in animal studies that have no prediction of results in the human context. Hence the rationale for these being so low in the evidence hierarchy.

 

[somuch4food]

There is extremely good reason and rationale for this hierarchy of evidence, if you are interested it is certainly worth looking into for your own interest and curiosity. Science is progressing in this matter and far from conclusive hence the constant requirement to keep further investigation, this is a good thing.
There a many problems with in vitro and animal studies, so often something found in vitro has no relevance in the human context or even worse has an opposite or orthogonal effect in the human situation (this is due to the extremely complex human biological system). Same goes for animal studies, humans are very different in physiology from say rats or mice, and there are literally countless examples of conclusions found in animal studies that have no prediction of results in the human context. Hence the rationale for these being so low in the evidence hierarchy.

I don't think we can rely on in vitro or animal studies to come to conclusions about human health, but I find them more interesting since they are often more thoroughly developed with clear reactions and can bring a better understanding of biology as a whole.

I can see controlled studies being good evidence if the results are clear cut enough, but I really dislike meta analyses and statistic based stuff in general. Numbers are easily manipulated and the more studies you combine the more variables are introduced. All you get from such analyses are tendencies and correlation and I don't consider this proof of anything.

There's also the fact that you can almost always find good and bad for any substance. Hence, anything deviled in media is often time taken outside of context. Salt, cholesterol, saturated fat and sugar have all been victim of bad science being propagated because it got in the wrong hands. Everybody should avoid salt since it's been shown to have bad effects on blood pressure in some individuals. Oh, surprise, salt can actually help with many issues too! The one perfect human model depicted in science does not exist and that in itself invalidates a lot of science. I think healthy can actually be quite different from an individual to another. Bunching everyone together just makes things more complicated.

 

[MarcelZD]

Valid critiques would be saying I think PUFA is good, I think low carb is good, I think saturated fat clogs your arteries, I think whole grains are better than fruits, etc. All of these things are beliefs Ray Peat doesn't agree with, but nevertheless there is a substantial amount of the scientific community who would stand behind some of these claims.

What is misrepresentation is saying Peat recommends you consume 2 quarts of milk and a quart of orange juice everyday. This is what happens when people start taking isolated quotes, often taken out of the context of the interview he was having, and try to formulate dietary guidelines out of it. The gluten thing is similar, because you can also find isolate clips of him saying naturally leavened bread (sourdough) is better than store bought bread made with artificial yeast. There is no framework other than avoid PUFA, balance phosphate, and eat carbohydrate.

You've reduced Peat's thought to just a few select statements that define it in your mind. Most dietary guidelines - especially those considered 'mainstream' - include carbohydrate, fruit, adequate calcium from milk, cheese etc. - just look at the ordinary food pyramid! What makes those guidelines very different from the diets of Roddy, Peat et al. in practice is that the bulk of the calories comes from starch and especially wheat. If gluten is absolutely toxic, and starch is at best a sub-optimal source of carbohydrate as Peat obviously believes, then the standard diet clearly wouldn't be very good at all.

 

[Kartoffel]

I've edited that post a little just to be a bit more clear. The carrot recommendation did start with a rat study Peat observed and paid attention to, I'll try to find it when I have time and the quote from Peat to this regard. My point is that could it not be insoluble fibre, or fibre in general of which peat talks quite a bit against, that is what is beneficial here (I mean this is what the mountains of evidence and literature point to on the topic) rather than specifically magical carrots and bamboo shoots. This to me is such an obvious point, but the focus of carrots and bamboo shoots as being an anomaly in the world of fibre is strange to say the least, and the rat study may well be the explanation for its focus in the Peatosphere.

So, even if it started with a rat study - what is your point? He saw some animal evidence, observed that it works for people. What are you talking about with the fibre? He specifically mentions that it is the insoluble fiber in those things that is good, besides some of the antimicrobial compounds in carrots or shoots.

As far as starch goes, why bother even discussing it. It is a dead non issue and I don't understand why Peat bothers talking about it. Cooked starch is fine, no issue, no evidence apart from some out lying case studies and particular instances to show it's an issue. Dead it. The back and forth obsession with starch in the Peat world is pointless. It's a good source of glucose and energy and is perfectly safe to consume along with sweet fruits as a source of carbohydrates.

Now, who is the one that doesn't live in the real world and only considers himself? There are many people that have problems with starch. I don't think it is bad, but it makes me cold and borderline hypoglycemic, if I eat it without fat and protein. I know many people that feel the same. It is also wrong to say that there can't possibly be any issue with it, and that there is no evidence for any of the effects Peat mentions. Some starch will always escape digestion (as opposed to sucrose), and that can be a source for persorption or bacterial overgrowth. Peat bothers talking about it because it is a relevant issue for many of the foods we consume in Western countries: Bread, Pasta, bananas, cooled potatoes, undercooked vegetables, etc. It's not a dead issue just because you haven't read the relevant material. Elimination of any resistant starch requires intense cooking, much more than people usually do, and the avoidance of most of our major carbohydrate sources (wheat)- There are dozens of studies showing that increased consumption of resistant starches leads to pathological changes in the colon (lower pH, increased proliferation, LPS).

Food Starch Structure Impacts Gut Microbiome Composition

"IMPORTANCE Dietary starch is a major component in the human diet. A proportion of the starch in our diet escapes digestion in the small intestine and is fermented in the colon. In this study, we use a model of the colon, seeded with porcine feces, in which we investigate the fermentation of a variety of starches with structures typical of those found in foods. We show that the microbial community changes over time in our model colon are highly dependent on the structure of the substrate and how accessible the starch is to colonic microbes. These findings have important implications for how we classify starches reaching the colon and for the design of foods with improved nutritional properties."

"Several structural features have been identified that can lead to starch escaping digestion in the small intestine (SI) and thereby being defined as resistant starch (RS) (5, 9, 10). These features include the following: (i) the native, semicrystalline (double-helical), granular form of starch, such as that found in raw foods, such as bananas; (ii) the partially recrystallized double-helical structures that form when starch is cooked and allowed to cool found, for example, in cold potatoes and stale bread; and (iii) starch which is encapsulated within matrices such as intact plant tissue or processed forms such as pasta, and therefore not available for digestion by small intestinal enzymes (11). It has been shown that starch from these materials is recovered from ileal effluents and therefore is available for fermentation in the colon (9, 12, 13)."
​

Responses in colonic microbial community and gene expression of pigs to a long-term high resistant starch diet

"The possible reason is that the significant decrease of pH value in the colon caused by long-term intake of PRS may result in the death of bacteria, and the accumulation of lipopolysaccharides (LPS). Similarly, the LPS have received increasing attention in rumen acidosis caused by a high concentration (starch) diet because of their role in the inflammatory response of the body (Tao et al., 2014). Although their benefit roles such as improving colonic mucosal integrity and reducing gut apoptosis are well known in humans and animals consuming a high RS diet (Nofrarías et al., 2007), the results of this study suggest that long-term intake of RPS may result in a negative effect on the health of pigs because of the low pH in the hindgut."​

 

[Peatful]

I’d love to know what Peat is wrong about? Perhaps particular recommendations may not work for everyone, but I would say his general premise is pretty spot on...

It takes time and experimentation to properly implement the premise he provides into your own context. Peat’s genius is in his principles not his specific recommendations.

For example:
-Peat says coconut oil is good, saturated fat is good, PUFA is bad
-ray peat forum member john doe reads this and then decides to eat 30% of his calories as coconut oil
-john doe develops intestinal issues
-john doe now believes saturated fat is bad despite the fact that coconut oil is known to irritate the intestine in large quantities in certain people
-john doe write off saturated fat. I mean why wouldnt he, it causes bacterial translocation, endotoxemia, obesity, and heart disease despite that fact that it has been a traditional food in cultures without obesity and other diseases for many generations....
-john doe then goes to a ultra low fat, high carb diet; he feels better for a week. He proceeds to give advice to others to lower thier fat, you know cuz the randle cycle bro
-2 weeks later he has bloating, brain fog, loss of libido and needs to eat constantly to avoid adrenaline rushes. Liver must be shot—> 1000mg of caffiene 6x per day
-john doe comes back to forum, asks for help. People say that he needs to go lower fat to clear his PUFA so his liver can store glycogen better.
-john doe goes lower fat, feels worse. Only 4 more years buddy, your PUFA will be gone: Enter Valhalla
-john doe invests in idealabs supplements
-john doe feels better now, hes taking lisuride, metergoline, thyroid, pansterone, oxidal, mitolipin, tocovit, kuinone. All are applied to his scrotum, except for metergoline that goes to his sphincter. He decided to take them all at once, he doesnt need to test each one out, the plain packaging indicates extreme safety of course
-john doe developes side effects, he now believes all supplements are bad and stops using them.... excipients (cue smeagle voice)
-john doe then reads that vitamin A is a poison so he goes on a low vit A diet to clear his stores. Franco aka grant genereux, aka edward j. Edmonds aka gbolduev aka tyw PM’s the secret anti- vit a diet that also happens to avoid alot of other problematic food components, its the vit a tho, grant said so... enter: meat and rice diet
-he also reads travis post on veganism and decides that meat is bad because it causes cancer because of its amino acids. Goddam polyamines, all growth, no diferentiation
-john doe then reads a westside PUFA post on starch. He goes on a high starch diet. Feels better. Determines that sugar is bad. The stars are aligning now travis, westside PUFA, and grants principles are all making sense, especially because all major civilizations lived on starch, I mean why wouldnt they, its what made humans so smart: wheat the staff of life
-eventually john doe becomes bloated and constipated. He hears peat talk about antibiotics, he decided to use penicillin after much debating about destroying his microbiome
-Uses penicillin, feels better for a day and then gets diarrhea. Microbiome is now...... Trumps hairline
-now his guts messed up, he cant eat anything, his anxiety is through the roof, and cant sleep. Good thing he can still post on the forum, phew...
-answer: fruitarian diet, kidney detox, peeing cloudy
-after a while his teeth erode and hes colder than travis after a disparaging joke about vegans
-so now, sugars, meat, iron, pufa, vit a, saturated fat, grains, dairy, fruit, masturbation, caretenoids, ejaculation, blue light, all electronics, exercise, supplements, sleeping facing south, oxygen, and living in society are all “stress”, nitric oxide, serotonin, estrogen oh my (apparently estrogen is beneficial now)
-john doe concludes Ray Peat is an A** hole, haidut is a used car salesman and the forum is filled with morons except for CLASH, his sarcastic humor and obvious bias towards the use of saturated fats even though they cause bacteria to be spread to your organs was very helpful in john does recovery
-john doe goes on a carnivore diet in the domican republic after creating a patreon account and youtube series called Locks like a mare

THE END


EDIT: added more sarcastic humor

What a roast.

It’s really funny because it’s really nuanced and true.

 

[MarcelZD]

What a roast.

It’s really funny because it’s really nuanced and true.

Well done.

Yes, portraying people who criticize Peat as borderline mentally challenged is very nuanced

 

[TeaRex14]

You've reduced Peat's thought to just a few select statements that define it in your mind. Most dietary guidelines - especially those considered 'mainstream' - include carbohydrate, fruit, adequate calcium from milk, cheese etc. - just look at the ordinary food pyramid! What makes those guidelines very different from the diets of Roddy, Peat et al. in practice is that the bulk of the calories comes from starch and especially wheat. If gluten is absolutely toxic, and starch is at best a sub-optimal source of carbohydrate as Peat obviously believes, then the standard diet clearly wouldn't be very good at all.

I don't think the standard pyramid diet is good, however to be fair, it's obvious most Americans aren't eating the pyramid diet anyways. They're living on fast foods and 7/11 junk foods. So it's kind of hard to judge just how bad the standard "heart healthy whole grain" diet really is. Needless to say, it would be easier and quicker to name the foods you should limit while applying Peat's principles. Whole grains, legumes, nuts/seeds, and raw cruciferous vegetables should be limited. Everything else is fine, even starch if your digestion is healthy. Meats, fish, eggs, dairy, fruits, juice, veggies, tubers, white rice, homemade breads, even certain processed foods. Limiting the diet to milk and oj is just straight orthorexia.

 

[MarcelZD]

I don't think the standard pyramid diet is good, however to be fair, it's obvious most Americans aren't eating the pyramid diet anyways. They're living on fast foods and 7/11 junk foods. So it's kind of hard to judge just how bad the standard "heart healthy whole grain" diet really is. Needless to say, it would be easier and quicker to name the foods you should limit while applying Peat's principles. Whole grains, legumes, nuts/seeds, and raw cruciferous vegetables should be limited. Everything else is fine, even starch if your digestion is healthy. Meats, fish, eggs, dairy, fruits, juice, veggies, tubers, white rice, homemade breads, even certain processed foods. Limiting the diet to milk and oj is just straight orthorexia.

Peat and Roddy are quite orthorexic, then.