Before glyphosate. I suspect that’s a big part of our current problem with wheat and other grains.I’ll just state that whole civilizations thrived off of wheat, and that people try to find a single scapegoat for a much more complex problem.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
Before glyphosate. I suspect that’s a big part of our current problem with wheat and other grains.I’ll just state that whole civilizations thrived off of wheat, and that people try to find a single scapegoat for a much more complex problem.
beneficial aspects of wheat consumption
There are no beneficial aspects of wheat consumption. None. Very healthy and robust people can tolerate it more or less, but it is not beneficial in any way. As Ray said: Wheat isn't made for human consumption.
This is true due to the fact that you are currently in a homeostasis with such an eating pattern.I have recently come to the conclusion that I should eat what my body tells me to eat.
Being intimately in tune with your body is the key.
Sometime I go two days straight eating only watery fruit, because I feel thirsty as hell.
Sometimes my meals are comprised of 400g of red meat and green veggies, no carbs, because I don't feel like it.
Sometimes my meal will be only 2 sweet potatoes, because I am not that hungry and I am craving the potatoes.
I think it's a fallacy to try and stick to a diet, and to religiously include carbs, proteins and fats at each meal.
Hell if you want your dinner to be 100 grams of butter and nothing else, go for it.
This is true due to the fact that you are currently in a homeostasis with such an eating pattern.
In my experience when I ate only fruit for a while eventually I only wanted fruit when hungry and nothing else, because my body was in such a homeostasis and adjusted.
Currently I am eating a lot of meat and start craving meat regularly when previously I really disliked meat.
When I am back home next month I will experiment with a carnivore/dairy~ish diet. I have met people who are extremely robust eating only such foods (mongolians) for their whole life.
So how do you feel and what is your body composition like?I've been carnivore ( red meat + eggs) for about 6 years now. I've been aware of Ray Peat's views for even longer I think.
I'll be happy to answer questions. I have tried common foods on multiple occasions to account for variations in ways that the foods are produced and for things like palebo. Other than read meat and eggs, so far only 2 brands of honey that I have tried does not elicit a negative reaction in me. I can also have butter without a problem.
So most people probably fare best on a balanced diet with mixed macros for a variety of important reasons.
How do you know?
What’s « balanced » in detail?
Any study backing up that claim?
And even if there were studies for your « balanced diet » proving that it works, what would be the criterias for it « working »? Less inflammation? Better longevity? More energy?
So many criterias at play, so many diets that haven’t been studied at all by science because they dismiss them as being lunatic (the raw diet from Vonderplanitz)
Agree with most of that, my only pet peeve personally is that's its not weight loss that causes improved health or exercise even and I find myself wanting to correct whenever I read that. Weight loss and exercise are often habits of healthy people, but its not what made them healthy, they are positive "Consequences" of being healthy. Both forced calorie restriction and forced exercises are NOT the path to good health, if they were, I wouldn't be here on the RP forums with a trashed metabolism because I used to do both all the time.
Calorie restriction is probably better if and only if one is eating the SAD (high pufa, lots of processed junk foods) but even then, only maybe temporarily and in the long run will also trash health compared to proper calorie intake from quality foods.
Its stress reduction ultimately that causes improved health, which in turn tends to eventually induce healthy weight loss as well as the energy and motivation to do exercise in a healthy manner. Good health allows you to exercise. Not the other way around.
This is pretty easy to prove given that most people feel so much better when they can take an extended beach vacation, rest as much as they want, soak up sun all day, bringing down those stress hormones which are often way elevated in most people these days with all the responsibilities that modern life entails.
Being sedentary (except for light walking) is pretty much required if you're in bad shape. I'm at a stage where anything more than that does NOT help.
The cause of type II diabetes in most cases is actually just excess energy beyond which the cell can handle. More specifically, it is when there is an excess amount of reactive oxygen species beyond which the cytosol of the cells can handle, so they become resistant to taking in more glucose or fat.
Yeah perhaps my example of being 600 lb is a bit extreme. Regardless, you can actually be "starving" even when that overweight and in fact many are due to believing they need to diet down to lose weight, but they still don't lose it, and then end up making their health even worse. I am a big believer in temperature therapy now. I just don't personally see how bringing your temperature set point below 98.6F is ever healthy whether dieting at 200 lb or 600 lb though. Once the diet is over your appetite will double and you'll just get fatter. That was my experience.
Not saying 600 lb is healthy, quite the contrary. But the mannerism in which the weight is lost makes a big difference IMO. Getting fat is the bodys' response to a perceived stressor. Adding a calorie deficit by definition increases the perceived stressors, making life more difficult for you.
Started RP ... gained from 190 lb to 220 lb decided that was too much fat, dieted back down to 190 lb, realized this trashed my health, now I'm sitting at 270 lb thanks to the extreme stress that dieting did to me. If I diet again back down to 190, I bet that I'll gained back to 300+ the next time.
(Sorry if this is getting off topic BTW)
In my experience the energy issues are metabolic and not intake based. Energy processing and compromised mineral metabolism create a sitution in which the cells cannot handle energy in any kind of effective manner. Intake, of course, matters in that refined sugars and especially liquid calories are going to deplete the body of minerals used in energy production and efficient calorie processing.
I'm not sure you're arguing differently but the forced exercise angle is only going to be an acute measure, but also there exist "overweight" people in which forced weight loss will only have negative health parameters.
Effectively I just wanted to assert that the "excess energy" phrase is rather a loaded term that can be used in a dangerous and unhelpful manner (via media, for example) that'll cause animosity and directly force people into lower wellbeing. At face value it sounds like it's simply an input issue, but it's far more complex!