17 Super Snacks "Not All Ray Peat Approved"

[narouz]

Okay, narouz, that's a relief to me but I still see that you asked for that list.
And I have to say: I don't see you changing your opinion and I can guarantee you that I will not and this discussion is not helpful to anybody. So why not agree to disagree and move on.
There are people here who discuss Peat's latest newsletter, people asking for help ... and you have that list to make ...
There is better use of our time, don't you think?
I will be gone again for at least two weeks starting on friday so I really don't feel this is leading anywhere. Do you?

Actually, I do, peatarian.
I wish you would accept my honest statement
that I am not attacking you.
I love reading your stuff.
You've "been there and done that" in PeatLand for a long time.
I see your struggle as nothing short of heroic.
You provide a wonderful source of rare Peat interpretation
and are an inspiration to all of us.

And I am not just buttering you up. I mean that.

The view I persist in that seems to so torment you
is that I do think we are on the same team.
I think there is a place for your kind of Peat interpretation
and for mine.
My persistence derives from curiosity about why you don't share that view.
I don't mean to be mean here,
but it does seem to me that
it may be you, not I,
who has some rigidities about how Peat should be interpreted.

I haven't had a chance in the last few days to do more
than scratch the surface in replying to your responses.
I've only had time to offer some brief reactions.
I am thankful to you for extending yourself this far.
If you think it is a waste of your time, I understand.
But think it is a wonderful, friendly discussion,
and I am learning a lot from it! :)

 

[peatarian]

You are very sweet, narouz but I feel those scratches already and I finally found something we totally agree upon:
There is room for your way and for my way in Ray Peat land. We might meet from time to time and have a friendly chat.
That would be a wonderful thought for me to end this discussion with.

 

[kettlebell]

(kidding narouz, i enjoy your posts. also, peatarian, i didn't imply that narouz posts went over your head)

Well, I have to admit it's not easy making an argument in a foreign language. It's always a bit like doing embroidery using a sword instead of a needle.

Peatarian,

You write (and probably speak) better English than I do, and i'm English and pretty well educated!

Narouz and Peatarian, I love your exchanges. Its like reading a really good book.

 

[narouz]

You are very sweet, narouz but I feel those scratches already and I finally found something we totally agree upon:
There is room for your way and for my way in Ray Peat land. We might meet from time to time and have a friendly chat.
That would be a wonderful thought for me to end this discussion with.

Swing by sometime and I'll make you sweetbreads--
I learned about them from you!

 

[narouz]

So many things have been brought up,
I would feel somehow incomplete if I didn't follow up
as I wished to
in some way or another,
maybe in a different place....

But just as a kind of general, emotionally based response
in this lull,
and as an offhand kind of response to the question:
who would my "list" (derisively spoken) be for?
Put it this way:

If I had a friend or and acquaintance--
and let's imagine I ran into him at the grocery store--
and he said to me something like:
"Look, I know you're on that crazy Ray Peat diet.
I'm feeling like ***t.
You seem like you're feeling pretty good.
I want to try it too."

Now, I would feel like a complete ****
if I told my friend something esoteric like:
"There is no Peat diet,"
or something snooty like,
"Go read Peat."

So I would say, Alright man! Come along!
Okay...put back that Crisco vegetable oil.
Grab that refined coconut oil.
Let's go to the dairy section.
No, maybe not the whole milk, since you've been wanting to lose weight;
get a couple of gallons of the lowfat.
You like cheese?
Get a lot of those; maybe try to avoid the enzymed ones.
Let's go to the fruit section.
No...put back those pineapples and bananas,
and get a bag of those oranges.
No...definitely put back that those fried chicken wings.
Do you like juice?
Get that organic pulp-free.
Okay, let's find some gelatin and see if they've got any soup bones.
You got coffee?
Etc.

After that, I'd try to give him some notion of rough proportions.
I wouldn't want him drinking only one cup of milk per day
while eating an entire bag of oranges
(and spitting out the pulp).
Etc.

It would be more complicated than that,
and I would try to steer him in the right direction.
But it would be a Starting Point.

You better believe I would tell him to read Peat.

That's just one rough kind of impetus I've had
for trying to cook up some kind of starting point summary or outline
in the form of a chart.
I'm not trying to sell anything
or popularize anything,
or rule over anybody,
or presume to speak for Peat,
or suggest that Peat's ideas are sheerly about food,
or imply that I know-it-all or am infallible,
or assume that everybody is the same,
or be a ninny about context,
or set myself up as an authority,
or say someone else can't have a different or better view.

I think a lot of people coming to this forum are like my imagined friend.

 

[peatarian]

You mean: imagined?

 

[peatarian]

I have come across many sick people during the last years. They were always thrilled to hear about alternative methods for treating their diseases. But they were always waiting for some kind of fancy newly discovered jungle flower or some kind of newly developed drug. Even those who were lethally sick did not do one thing on the 'list' I gave them. They don't use ASA because it will make their stomachs bleeds. They have to eat PUFA because those are essential. They cannot eat butter because of cholesterol. They cannot eat sugar due to diabetes. They can't drink milk because they are allergic. They cannot drink coffee because of their hearts. They will not use vitamin E because their doctor tells them it's not good to use supplements. Carrots cannot be eaten because of their teeth and oysters are gross.
Some cannot bring themselves to eat liver but don't mind shooting hormones they don't understand three times a day. They think a little carcinogen in their foods will not kill them but believe stronger than in any other kind of religion in the little pills their doctors prescribe for every symptom.

Do we really have to start all over again? I don't want to. It starts to bore me. I have said it all.
Yesterday I had a four year old kid here. He wanted cookies. The discussion reminded me a bit about this. I want cookies, are there no cookies, will you get me cookies, why are there no cookies, but i want cookies, coooooookiiiiiies. I think he heard what I said just as much as you do. He didn't want to hear it. He wanted cookies.
Narouz: I will take you up on your offer to cook for me. I know how much trouble it is to prepare this dish and I thank you.

For the fifth or sixth and last time: I think you're wrong about that list.
If people don't understand the why, the how doesn't mean much.
I have met people who needed help - the list didn't do anything for them.
For all those who have read Peat and still don't get him, tell them to read Danny Roddy.
Yes, it's always good to have a starting point.
Make your list by all means. I'm sure your imaginary friend will feel much better.
Your real friends will go on laughing about you.
I have stopped giving sick people more than one advice at a time.
I speak of painful experiences so I kind of hope you'll never understand me that way.
Good luck, narouz!

 

[j.]

I'm not trying to sell anything
or popularize anything,
or rule over anybody,
or presume to speak for Peat,
or suggest that Peat's ideas are sheerly about food,
or imply that I know-it-all or am infallible,
or assume that everybody is the same,
or be a ninny about context,
or set myself up as an authority,
or say someone else can't have a different or better view.

who read all the disjuncts, honestly? (disjunct is a statement next to an "or")

 

[Ray-Z]

peatarian and narouz: I have enjoyed this exchange. The two of you could have an interesting debate about drying paint.

Narouz: In trying to identify an optimal Peat diet or basic peat diet, you encounter a fundamental tradeoff between concreteness and generality.

If your guidelines are very general, aspiring to suit a wide range of people, then they cannot address many of the practical questions people encounter when they start Peating. Of course, general principles such as "avoid PUFA" and "substitute simple sugars, particularly sucrose and fructose, for starch" can be incredibly valuable, but these ideas aren't hard to find in Peat's writing or interviews or in other Peaty parts of the intertubez.

On the other hand, if you offer very specific recommendations or meal plans, you must drop the pretense that your guidelines are "optimal" for more than a select group of very average people.

My preferred solution is to abandon any search for "optimality" and instead offer illustrations of diets developed by individual members of this forum and based on Peat's principles. (Such illustrations already appear in various parts of this forum.) This approach has several advantages.

First, it helps readers address many concrete, practical problems that may not seem important enough to address in general guidelines -- precisely how much liver, how much salt, what doses of supplements, and so forth.

Second, it helps readers adapt Peat's ideas to their own conditions. For example, young men who look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club may prefer Kettlebell's diet, while the fat or criminally insane may find the Ray-Z diet especially well tailored to them.

Third, this approach presents the diversity of Peaty ways of eating, encouraging flexibility rather than uniformity.

Fourth, readers are unlikely to treat the diets of individual forum members as gospel.

In short, Narouz, your greatest contribution to this forum may be not an abstract, lifeless Optimal Peat Diet but the glorious, richly detailed Narouz Diet.

 

[peatarian]

Ray-Z -- Where the hell have you been during the last centuries? (Yes, time moves differently in this thread.)
Standing ovations to you.
Beautifully said. Couldn't agree more.
(Couldn't do that sooner, could you?)

 

[narouz]

peatarian and narouz: I have enjoyed this exchange. The two of you could have an interesting debate about drying paint.

Narouz: In trying to identify an optimal Peat diet or basic peat diet, you encounter a fundamental tradeoff between concreteness and generality.

If your guidelines are very general, aspiring to suit a wide range of people, then they cannot address many of the practical questions people encounter when they start Peating. Of course, general principles such as "avoid PUFA" and "substitute simple sugars, particularly sucrose and fructose, for starch" can be incredibly valuable, but these ideas aren't hard to find in Peat's writing or interviews or in other Peaty parts of the intertubez.

On the other hand, if you offer very specific recommendations or meal plans, you must drop the pretense that your guidelines are "optimal" for more than a select group of very average people.

My preferred solution is to abandon any search for "optimality" and instead offer illustrations of diets developed by individual members of this forum and based on Peat's principles. (Such illustrations already appear in various parts of this forum.) This approach has several advantages.

First, it helps readers address many concrete, practical problems that may not seem important enough to address in general guidelines -- precisely how much liver, how much salt, what doses of supplements, and so forth.

Second, it helps readers adapt Peat's ideas to their own conditions. For example, young men who look like Brad Pitt in Fight Club may prefer Kettlebell's diet, while the fat or criminally insane may find the Ray-Z diet especially well tailored to them.

Third, this approach presents the diversity of Peaty ways of eating, encouraging flexibility rather than uniformity.

Fourth, readers are unlikely to treat the diets of individual forum members as gospel.

In short, Narouz, your greatest contribution to this forum may be not an abstract, lifeless Optimal Peat Diet but the glorious, richly detailed Narouz Diet.

Thanks, Ray-Z.
You make many good points.

If you read through the labyrinthine twists and turns of "Notes Toward..."
(not urging you do! could be injurious to your health!)
you will see how many descriptor words I've tried out, thrown out for discussion.
I started with "strict."
That seemed not quite right.
Sometime ago I changed to "optimal"
with the main notion in my head being
that anyone can have a "bad" Peat diet or a "loose" Peat diet,
so why not try to shoot for an "optimal" one as some kind of rough template.

But I do understand your complaint about it,
and in fact have felt that way about it myself for a while.

In most ways I've always felt that my "Notes Toward..." thing
is an almost pathetically humble endeavor,
but, still, a worthwhile one, in my view,
and for a number of reasons.

When you say,

"Of course, general principles such as "avoid PUFA" and "substitute simple sugars, particularly sucrose and fructose, for starch" can be incredibly valuable, but these ideas aren't hard to find in Peat's writing or interviews or in other Peaty parts of the intertubez."

I agree in part,
but I also think you give somewhat short shrift to a whole range of
general statements made by Peat--
general statements about foods and amounts and proportions.
Peat himself does generalize
and does make benchmark kind of statements about amounts and ratios--
always of course with the tacit understanding
that these aren't intended as "rules,"
or that "one size will fit all."

What he hasn't done is systematize those general expressions.
My personal leading guess as to why
is that it simply bores him.
Also, he is loathe to give the impression that he is selling or popularizing.
There are other reasons I entertain.

When we communicate here,
when, for example, Charlie starts the interesting thread/poll
called something like "How Strictly Do You Do a Peat Diet Plan,"
I think many of us, maybe even most,
have in mind something roughly similar to what you and I and Charlie have in mind.
Yes, yes--variations, different emphases, etc--
but I think there is a tacit agreement floating around
on the commonalities.
There better be,
or threads like Charlie's is meaningless.
How can you comment meaningfully upon how strictly you do a Peat diet,
if you deny the existence of such a critter,
or if you say it is so radically subjective as to defy outline or summary?
Same with my misbegotten
"Is The Peat Diet a Difficult Diet?" thread.
How can we comment intelligently if we don't share some, basic notion
of what a Peat diet Is...?

Such a shared, approximate understanding would seem to underlie
much or perhaps most of our efforts here, IMO.
We are just extraordinarily finicky
about articulating those shared, rough commonalities.
For a LOT of different reasons,
which do fascinate me.

Peat likes "demystification" of the world.
Is it wrong to "demystify" Peat?

On the "Narouz Diet" designation...
well, I see where you're coming from, I think.
But there are also some things that put me off about it.
1. It would feel like I was boasting.
2. It would seem like I was implying that my version of a Peat diet was somehow special or better.
3. It would seem to negate the very notion I'm after, which is that we do come to share
many common denominators in our interpretations of a Peat diet.
It is the common denominators that I'm interested in (at least in the "Notes Toward..." project),
not pushing my peculiarities.

And, yes, in that sense--
the common denominator sense--
there will be a kind of "lifelessness."
Well, "lifeless" in the sense that it will lack a certain level of detail or specificity.
That's the whole idea.
It's supposed to be kinda boring, in a way.

How about "Non-Authoritarian Peat-Derived Starting-Point Diet"...? :)

 

[narouz]

I'm not trying to sell anything
or popularize anything,
or rule over anybody,
or presume to speak for Peat,
or suggest that Peat's ideas are sheerly about food,
or imply that I know-it-all or am infallible,
or assume that everybody is the same,
or be a ninny about context,
or set myself up as an authority,
or say someone else can't have a different or better view.

who read all the disjuncts, honestly? (disjunct is a statement next to an "or")

j-
Don't make me open a can o' whoop-**** on ya!

 

[Ray-Z]

Narouz:

My internet connection is fubar so I can't deliver my usual Ray-Z WALL OF TEXT (with apologies to Phil Spector). [Readers breathe a sigh of relief.]

When you say,

"Of course, general principles such as "avoid PUFA" and "substitute simple sugars, particularly sucrose and fructose, for starch" can be incredibly valuable, but these ideas aren't hard to find in Peat's writing or interviews or in other Peaty parts of the intertubez."

I agree in part,
but I also think you give somewhat short shrift to a whole range of
general statements made by Peat--
general statements about foods and amounts and proportions.
Peat himself does generalize
and does make benchmark kind of statements about amounts and ratios--

I'll concede that I may have understated the volume of Peaty principles applicable to most people. I'm not sure how much of this material the friend in your hypothetical example would need to learn quickly that he could not readily find in Peat's writing, in this forum, or on Danny's site. 80/20 principle and all that. But maybe a summary/outline would be useful.

I think many of us, maybe even most,
have in mind something roughly similar to what you and I and Charlie have in mind.
Yes, yes--variations, different emphases, etc--
but I think there is a tacit agreement floating around
on the commonalities.
There better be,
or threads like Charlie's is meaningless.

Wouldn't the argument for systematization be stronger if we disagreed, e.g. if Peat's writing were confusing and haphazard? If the regulars of this forum mostly agree, can't we conclude that the currently available resources provide a fairly consistent picture of Peat's ideas? [Here, I'm just playing devil's advocate.]

On the "Narouz Diet" designation...
well, I see where you're coming from, I think.
But there are also some things that put me off about it.
1. It would feel like I was boasting.
2. It would seem like I was implying that my version of a Peat diet was somehow special or better.
3. It would seem to negate the very notion I'm after, which is that we do come to share
many common denominators in our interpretations of a Peat diet.
It is the common denominators that I'm interested in (at least in the "Notes Toward..." project),
not pushing my peculiarities.

Many of us found Kettlebell's sample diet instructive. As we all know, Kettlebell is not in the least egotistical (when he's not comparing himself with Brad Pitt). (J/k, Kettlebell.)

How about "Non-Authoritarian Peat-Derived Starting-Point Diet"...? :)

Cool. I'm likely to stop my bitching when I no longer see the word "optimal" baiting me...

Thanks for the thought-provoking remarks, Narouz.

 

[narouz]

Narouz:

My internet connection is fubar so I can't deliver my usual Ray-Z WALL OF TEXT (with apologies to Phil Spector). [Readers breathe a sigh of relief.]

When you say,

"Of course, general principles such as "avoid PUFA" and "substitute simple sugars, particularly sucrose and fructose, for starch" can be incredibly valuable, but these ideas aren't hard to find in Peat's writing or interviews or in other Peaty parts of the intertubez."

I agree in part,
but I also think you give somewhat short shrift to a whole range of
general statements made by Peat--
general statements about foods and amounts and proportions.
Peat himself does generalize
and does make benchmark kind of statements about amounts and ratios--

I'll concede that I may have understated the volume of Peaty principles applicable to most people. I'm not sure how much of this material the friend in your hypothetical example would need to learn quickly that he could not readily find in Peat's writing, in this forum, or on Danny's site. 80/20 principle and all that. But maybe a summary/outline would be useful.

I think many of us, maybe even most,
have in mind something roughly similar to what you and I and Charlie have in mind.
Yes, yes--variations, different emphases, etc--
but I think there is a tacit agreement floating around
on the commonalities.
There better be,
or threads like Charlie's is meaningless.

Wouldn't the argument for systematization be stronger if we disagreed, e.g. if Peat's writing were confusing and haphazard? If the regulars of this forum mostly agree, can't we conclude that the currently available resources provide a fairly consistent picture of Peat's ideas? [Here, I'm just playing devil's advocate.]

On the "Narouz Diet" designation...
well, I see where you're coming from, I think.
But there are also some things that put me off about it.
1. It would feel like I was boasting.
2. It would seem like I was implying that my version of a Peat diet was somehow special or better.
3. It would seem to negate the very notion I'm after, which is that we do come to share
many common denominators in our interpretations of a Peat diet.
It is the common denominators that I'm interested in (at least in the "Notes Toward..." project),
not pushing my peculiarities.

Many of us found Kettlebell's sample diet instructive. As we all know, Kettlebell is not in the least egotistical (when he's not comparing himself with Brad Pitt). (J/k, Kettlebell.)

How about "Non-Authoritarian Peat-Derived Starting-Point Diet"...? :)

Cool. I'm likely to stop my bitching when I no longer see the word "optimal" baiting me...

Thanks for the thought-provoking remarks, Narouz.

Ray-Z,

Yeah, "optimal,"...
perhaps not my finest moment as Peat Diet Descriptor Selector.
But I hope you understand where I was coming from.
Actually, the Evelenqa (was that it?) and peatarian exchange,
or rather peatarian's fisking of E's Peat Snack Suggestions
is what kinda baited me to join in on this deliciously daftly titled thread.
Peatarian's view resonated with mine along the lines of "optimality" (is that a word?)
peatarian said something like,
why have a thread about bad Peat snacks?
We all know how to do that.
We should be shooting for examples of good Peat snacks.
Something like that.
I agreed (but I thought it was fine of Eve. to post it
because she stated that it might not be perfectly Peatian).

So as I said, that was my impulse:
By "optimal" I meant to make that sort of distinction.
But I do indeed now see that "optimal" is, well...not optimal.
Sorry bro, I didn't mean to bait ya! :)

I do understand how connotative words can be
and that is why I've wrestled with so many options.
I will go back and find some of those posts where I tossed out a LOT of possibilities,
then went through and self-fisked them.

And since we're discussing that initial exchange between peatarian & Eve.,
the other thing that sorta baited me about that was
that peatarian was pointing Eve. toward good Peat snacks
by noting which specific snacks were not good Peat snacks.
That made me wonder:
1. Why is it desirable to advise about a Peat diet
only by saying what a Peat diet is not?
Isn't it at least as legitimate to say what a Peat diet is?
and
2. Wouldn't peatarian's advice about what is not optimal(!) in terms of a Peat diet
strongly suggest that she holds at least an approximate notion of what a Peat diet is?

Back to your point:

I'll concede that I may have understated the volume of Peaty principles applicable to most people. I'm not sure how much of this material the friend in your hypothetical example would need to learn quickly that he could not readily find in Peat's writing, in this forum, or on Danny's site. 80/20 principle and all that. But maybe a summary/outline would be useful.

You are it seems a faster learner than I.
Speaking for myself, looking back, it seems that it took me about 3 months
before I was understanding the basics of a good Peat diet.
For months I was eating stuff, thinking it was good Peat stuff,
or in good Peat proportion,
when really...not.
I would have very much benefitted from an accurate, faithful, approximate,"starting point,"
articulation of a good Peat diet.

When you write:

Wouldn't the argument for systematization be stronger if we disagreed, e.g. if Peat's writing were confusing and haphazard? If the regulars of this forum mostly agree, can't we conclude that the currently available resources provide a fairly consistent picture of Peat's ideas? [Here, I'm just playing devil's advocate.]

You devil.
Actually, thank you for the devilish advocacy. I appreciate that.
My response would be:
1. If we actually do not disagree, what harm is there in articulating what we agree upon?
and
2. I think you may be papering over some of the dauntingness
confronting new (or even veteran!) Peat pupils.
For example, try to reconcile these quotes about a Peatian diet,
3 from Peat himself, the last from Danny Roddy (generally, an excellent Peat interpreter, IMO)

"The amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids often said to be essential (Holman, 1981) is approximately the amount required to significantly increase the incidence of cancer, and very careful food selection is needed for a diet that provides a lower amount."-- Ray Peat, PhD in “Unsaturated fatty acids: Nutritionally essential, or toxic?”

“My recommendation is to eat to increase the metabolic rate (usually temperature and heart rate), rather than any particular foods.”— Ray Peat, PhD

"I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption. In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."--Ray Peat, PhD

"There is no Peat diet."--Danny Roddy

As I say, that kind of violent discordance left moi very daunted and confused.
Add to that the fact that a huge amount of Peat dietary thought
is recorded in the voluminous Hours of Peat interviews.
Again, personally, I was not able and still have not been able to study all that.
So, as I say, I believe you may underestimate the difficulty facing the new Peat student.

Which brings us to the question,
which I asked in earnest to peatarian:
is there or should there be an understanding
that Peat's works should be viewed as "occult."
That they are "hidden" or "resistant" to interpretation for a reason or purpose?
Well, to me, they are somewhat resistant (the dauntingness I noted).
And I am willing to be persuaded that that resistance is intentionally designed by Peat.
I don't think so, but it is not a stupid view.

You wrote:

"Many of us found Kettlebell's sample diet instructive. As we all know, Kettlebell is not in the least egotistical (when he's not comparing himself with Brad Pitt). (J/k, Kettlebell.)"

Yes, absolutely!
He turned up some great stuff from deep in the interviews which I had missed, unsurprisingly.
And his finely tuned incorporation of steady, small, Peat-food dosings was extremely helpful, IMO.
peatarian's input about what she eats--what she considers good Peat food--was wonderful.
And nwo2012 eating views.
And many, many others.

Here's the very simple point:
all those individual diets shared common Peat foods and principles.
Are they unspeakable?

Once your internet connection returns to health,
hit me with the Spectoresque Wall O' Words!
I've always been a fan of that.
:)

 

[peatarian]

“Since the contextuality of communication is always in the foreground when I talk or write, you know that someone is confusing me with an authority when they talk about my ‘protocol’ for something. Context is everything, and it’s individual and empirical.”
— Raymond Peat, PhD

 

[narouz]

“Since the contextuality of communication is always in the foreground when I talk or write, you know that someone is confusing me with an authority when they talk about my ‘protocol’ for something. Context is everything, and it’s individual and empirical.”
— Raymond Peat, PhD

Granted.
But consider alongside of that quote the one following:

"I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption. In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."--Ray Peat, PhD

We might try to reconcile those quotes in many ways:
1. Peat contradicts himself.
2. Peat does not contradict himself;
rather, his general guiding statements
(like the one above)
can be seen as compatible with your quote from Dr. Peat.
That is, Peat making general statements about diet
does not preclude his insistence that individual diets will legitimately vary.
3. Peat misspoke in the case of your quote.
4. Peat misspoke in the case of my quote.
5. Peat was misquoted.

 

[narouz]

You mean: imagined?

You mean to imply it is far-fetched?

 

[narouz]

You are like a dog with a bone and you will not let go of that bone.

I will not be called a dog!

 

[Ray-Z]

Behold the Spectoresque WALL OF TEXT. I sure hope you're happy, Narouz.

Peatarian's view resonated with mine along the lines of "optimality" (is that a word?)
peatarian said something like,
why have a thread about bad Peat snacks?
We all know how to do that.
We should be shooting for examples of good Peat snacks.
Something like that.
I agreed (but I thought it was fine of Eve. to post it
because she stated that it might not be perfectly Peatian).

So as I said, that was my impulse:
By "optimal" I meant to make that sort of distinction.
But I do indeed now see that "optimal" is, well...not optimal.
Sorry bro, I didn't mean to bait ya! :)

No worries, man. I meant to say that the word "optimal" itself was baiting me. For obscure reasons that have nothing to do with you or this forum, steam comes out of my ears whenever someone speaks of optimizing a highly complex and uncertain system (such as a biological or economic system). (If you've read N.N. Taleb's book, The Black Swan, you understand this peeve, but it's tangential to our conversation.) In any case, I didn't mean to accuse you of baiting me.

You are it seems a faster learner than I.
Speaking for myself, looking back, it seems that it took me about 3 months
before I was understanding the basics of a good Peat diet.
For months I was eating stuff, thinking it was good Peat stuff,
or in good Peat proportion,
when really...not.
I would have very much benefitted from an accurate, faithful, approximate,"starting point,"
articulation of a good Peat diet.

I made big mistakes -- including eating mountains of potatoes and insufficiently ripe fruit -- for several months of Peating. I made these mistakes not because I misunderstood Peat's ideas, but because I underestimated the benefits and overestimated the hassles of strictly applying some of these ideas. Once I saw the diets of knowledgeable Peaty peoplez on this forum, I realized that I could make some changes and that smart people with similar health concerns thought these changes might make a difference.

I conclude that what I really needed -- besides a kick in the pants -- were real-world, battle-tested examples of Peaty diets responding to individual concerns and circumstances. And the more examples of Peaty diets, the merrier, because each expands the range of possible responses to one's own conditions.

Might some of these examples contain foods widely considered unPeat, such as, to take a recent example, buckwheat? (Not bashing WillTB here; just using his diet as an example.) Yes, but such deviations will spark discussion, generating enough info for readers to make their own judgments.

I think you may be papering over some of the dauntingness
confronting new (or even veteran!) Peat pupils.
For example, try to reconcile these quotes about a Peatian diet,
3 from Peat himself, the last from Danny Roddy (generally, an excellent Peat interpreter, IMO)

"The amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids often said to be essential (Holman, 1981) is approximately the amount required to significantly increase the incidence of cancer, and very careful food selection is needed for a diet that provides a lower amount."-- Ray Peat, PhD in “Unsaturated fatty acids: Nutritionally essential, or toxic?”

“My recommendation is to eat to increase the metabolic rate (usually temperature and heart rate), rather than any particular foods.”— Ray Peat, PhD

"I think the basic anti-aging diet is also the best diet for prevention and treatment of diabetes, scleroderma, and the various "connective tissue diseases." This would emphasize high protein, low unsaturated fats, low iron, and high antioxidant consumption, with a moderate or low starch consumption. In practice, this means that a major part of the diet should be milk, cheese, eggs, shellfish, fruits and coconut oil, with vitamin E and salt as the safest supplements."--Ray Peat, PhD

"There is no Peat diet."--Danny Roddy

As I say, that kind of violent discordance left moi very daunted and confused.
Add to that the fact that a huge amount of Peat dietary thought
is recorded in the voluminous Hours of Peat interviews.
Again, personally, I was not able and still have not been able to study all that.
So, as I say, I believe you may underestimate the difficulty facing the new Peat student.

I see your point about the quotes above, though they appear to me more abstract -- and, hence, more susceptible to confusion -- than Peat's conclusions about specific foods or hormones. If you follow the rule of interpretation that the specific trumps the general, then you don't really need to reconcile the quotes above to figure out what to eat today. So I don't think your example proves the inscrutability of Peat's dietary recommendations. I'll concede that Peat has done a lot of interviews and written a lot (though common themes obviously recur throughout)...

You wrote:

"Many of us found Kettlebell's sample diet instructive. As we all know, Kettlebell is not in the least egotistical (when he's not comparing himself with Brad Pitt). (J/k, Kettlebell.)"

Yes, absolutely!
He turned up some great stuff from deep in the interviews which I had missed, unsurprisingly.
And his finely tuned incorporation of steady, small, Peat-food dosings was extremely helpful, IMO.
peatarian's input about what she eats--what she considers good Peat food--was wonderful.
And nwo2012 eating views.
And many, many others.

Here's the very simple point:
all those individual diets shared common Peat foods and principles.
Are they unspeakable?

I agree that one could make explicit some of this shared understanding, and that doing so could be helpful in clarifying one's own understanding of Peat. Where I think we may disagree is what would best help forum members to apply Peat's ideas.

BTW, thanks for that photo of Phil Spector. Alas, I doubt his diet in prison is very Peaty.

 

[narouz]

Behold the Spectoresque WALL OF TEXT. I sure hope you're happy, Narouz.

Ah...wonderful!

No worries, man. I meant to say that the word "optimal" itself was baiting me. For obscure reasons that have nothing to do with you or this forum, steam comes out of my ears whenever someone speaks of optimizing a highly complex and uncertain system (such as a biological or economic system). (If you've read N.N. Taleb's book, The Black Swan, you understand this peeve, but it's tangential to our conversation.) In any case, I didn't mean to accuse you of baiting me.

You know, I think the New Yorker had a long review of that book which I read with interest, and Taleb appeared on some of the newsy shows I watched at the time. Alas, the evil PUFA has left me with little clear memory of his thesis.

I made big mistakes -- including eating mountains of potatoes and insufficiently ripe fruit -- for several months of Peating. I made these mistakes not because I misunderstood Peat's ideas, but because I underestimated the benefits and overestimated the hassles of strictly applying some of these ideas. Once I saw the diets of knowledgeable Peaty peoplez on this forum, I realized that I could make some changes and that smart people with similar health concerns thought these changes might make a difference.

I agree about benefitting from example diets here. But I'd have to say I misunderstood some of Peat's ideas. And how they fit together: not just correct foods, but correct proportions, correct timing, etc. That is what I meant to convey when I said Peat does not "systematize" it. Maybe not the best word. There are a hell of a lot of ideas! And because they are all floating around out there, loose, well, one thing that I did wrong was to seize upon ONE that appealed to me because it was more COMFORTABLE or FAMILIAR and run with it. Like the starch thing. I ate a lot of potatoes (with lots of butter!) and rice and tortilas. I think that contributed to my fatness. Once I somewhat wrapped my brain around the WHOLE of Peat's general dietary principles and ideas, I could see better how it all might fit together, and I think I began eating more like he thinks is healthy.

Also, I'd note: I'd guess that most of those "example diets" sprang from a common, shared notion of that WHOLE of Peat's food/nutrition views. A General, if approximate, notion. Again I wonder: why not articulate that? My suspicion is that we Peat followers are a self-selectedly fininky bunch who mirror our leader's predilections, especially with regard to Authority. It is unsurprising that many Peatians view with suspicion or even contempt what they imagine to be somebody trying to Force some Dogma or Orthodoxy down their throats. Or even some Generalities. The battle cries ring out: To Generalize is the Lie! To Summarize is to Destroy!

As I'm sure you know, I think that is way overwrought and wrongheaded.

With this tacit taboo on generalization (with regard to Peat), we are left to flounder around in waters similar to those the Supreme's plunged into with pornography: We can't define it, but we know it when we see it.

I conclude that what I really needed -- besides a kick in the pants -- were real-world, battle-tested examples of Peaty diets responding to individual concerns and circumstances. And the more examples of Peaty diets, the merrier, because each expands the range of possible responses to one's own conditions.

I agree. But still, my remarks above apply. One can generalize about a range.

Might some of these examples contain foods widely considered unPeat, such as, to take a recent example, buckwheat? (Not bashing WillTB here; just using his diet as an example.) Yes, but such deviations will spark discussion, generating enough info for readers to make their own judgments.

Just so, but also true of the general articulation I've made my hobbyhorse.

I see your point about the quotes above, though they appear to me more abstract -- and, hence, more susceptible to confusion -- than Peat's conclusions about specific foods or hormones. If you follow the rule of interpretation that the specific trumps the general, then you don't really need to reconcile the quotes above to figure out what to eat today. So I don't think your example proves the inscrutability of Peat's dietary recommendations. I'll concede that Peat has done a lot of interviews and written a lot (though common themes obviously recur throughout)...

On "...the rule of interpretation that the specific trumps the general..."
I guess I don't see that rule as applicable for what I have in mind.
I mean, in some human endeavors, especially artistic endeavors, certainly the specific is crucial.
Does it trump the general?
I wouldn't think so...seems like they best go hand-in-hand.

I know you understand that my "Starting Point Approximate Peat Derived Diet Sketch" (or whatever)
would not seek to trump any specific variation.

I agree that one could make explicit some of this shared understanding, and that doing so could be helpful in clarifying one's own understanding of Peat. Where I think we may disagree is what would best help forum members to apply Peat's ideas.

Fair enough. Why not, then, both?
But remember: I think there would be other values in expressing a general, approximate Peat diet.
It could be, I think, a valuable reference point
clarifying a LOT of what we attempt to communicate here.
For example: Charlie's poll about "How Strictly Do You Do a Peat Diet?"
Wouldn't that be a lot more meaningful if we knew and could agree, approximately,
what a Peat diet is?
Or: my thread, "Is a Peat Diet a Difficult Diet."
Very helpful (essential?) to know what we mean by "a Peat diet."
Or any of the many threads that aim to answer different versions of the general question:
"Have You Seen Any Improvements While on Your Peat Diet?"

To use a different word:
Wouldn't such a shared generalization make our communications and conclusions
more Scientific?

BTW, thanks for that photo of Phil Spector. Alas, I doubt his diet in prison is very Peaty.

Yeah...Phil is lookin' kinda rough.
Is he ever gettin' out?