Calling Time On Ray Peat

L

lollipop

Guest
Nassim Taleb (author Fooled by Randomness, The Black Swan, Antifragile, Bed of Procrustes") has some things to say about the models quants use. Make sure you look at the graveyard of quants before deciding the ones that happened to be right were right by something other than chance.
+1
 

Kyle M

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
1,407
In my thinking, when a paradigm is truly antiquated, it is replaced by another paradigm that contradicts it across many key points. It's not enough to just cite one hole in the theory - that's why it's a theory - it has holes. As I said before, Ling's theory is called the AI Hypothesis, which suggests it also has holes, even if it were to become the dominant model. Is Ling's theory cohesive enough to be a contender? Why aren't there more vocal opponents to his ideas, if it isn't accepted by anyone? Who are the ones saying, "nope, surely not". I can't find any, perhaps you know of some?

Two things, but first let me compliment your ability to continue to engage without this devolving into insults. I pushed pretty hard last post and a good many people would have gotten overly defensive at that.

1) Ling's hypothesis, furthered by Pollack and some others, is continuing to evolve (with almost no support) alongside the mainstream model. They can be considered compatible in some ways for practical terms, such as ATP being an "energy currency." The difference is that in the mainstream theory, ATP is hydrolyzed to ADP and the energy released from that phosphate bond is coupled to power an enzyme, whereas in Ling's theory (described later by Pollack) the ATP is hydrolyzed to allow proteins to go through a conformational change which powers the cell, and that the ATP is there to maintain the protein in the "relaxed" state as built-up potential energy, so to speak. So the two theories are, theoretically, completely opposed to each other. Ling claimed that the high-energy phosphate bond doesn't even exist, that it can't be coupled to another reaction through hydrolysis. BUT, as far as measuring a cell's activity and energy status, both theories would look at ATP production as the metric. So in that way they can co-exist.

2) Incorrect theories have a way of slowly becoming corrected over time, as I mentioned before, but without admitting they were wrong. My favorite example is neo-Darwinism, but for cell theory there is an analogue. Again I've been writing on this, but in short molecules like estrogen, which seems to interact with hundreds or thousands of other proteins not just its "receptor," had to be explained. So they built up a convoluted theory of protein-protein and protein-steroid interactions on top of the protein receptor-steroid interaction that supposedly is the main way estrogen and other steroids work, without giving up the receptor explanation. So now we have estrogen and its receptor, estrogen can affect the cell even if it is genetically modified to not have estrogen receptor, and estrogen receptor can interact with other proteins and other molecules in the cell even in the absence of estrogen. I ask you, what is the point of calling estrogen receptor estrogen receptor when it can receive from hundreds or thousands of other molecules? I'm sure you've heard of "estrogenic" chemicals right? Those are the thousands of chemicals, synthetic and naturally occurring, that "bind" with "estrogen receptor."

It would be simpler and more honest to scrap the whole ligand-receptor business of cell mechanics, but instead they will slowly amend it piece by piece and get closer to the true story. The theory is not helping, but rather hindering, this process however. A good theory is one that doesn't get in the way of getting closer to the truth, and AI hypothesis is one of those theories. Now, something new could be discovered that AI couldn't explain, and it would have to be discarded, but until then it's useful. Mainstream cellular mechanics ran into that problem long long ago, and drove right over it like a monster truck powered by government money.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I appreciate Ray's thoughts as an internet health personality, and I think he has some good points, but I think his ideas are an incomplete picture,
Of course they are an incomplete picture. No one has a complete picture to give.
If you are not finding Peat's ideas useful ATM, that's fine, hope you find other ideas that serve you.

I asked Danny Roddy about this, and he said he doesn't understand Gilbert Ling at all, but still believes Peat is absolutely right. To date, no one on this forum can engage directly with the claims of Ling. Even if turns out Ling is absolutely correct, no one has specified what the consequences of Ling's model are. Ling himself uses the term Hypothesis, which indicates there is further room for discussion.
I see a lot of people here ascribing more certainty to Peat's ideas than I see Peat claiming himself. Peat often expresses himself in quite limited and speculative terms. Others sometimes generalise from the particular, or turn 'could' in 'will', etc.

I returned to eating normally, enjoying a few scrambled eggs.
Don't know what you mean by eating 'normally', but I've never given up the scrambled eggs - they're good. :)
I don't thrive on primarily milk and OJ either. But then I don't consider that Peat's prescription, so that doesn't turn me off his ideas. He has also encouragesd peole to eat food they enjoy, and to pay attention to the effects of foods for themselves, which I think you may be doing.

I agree that a diet of 2 quarts of skim milk and a quart of OJ per day cannot be tolerated for long. Maybe this is something that works for him.
That's not Peat's diet (unless he's changed it since last report here), or what he recommends for most people most of the time. It's a possible basis (not complete diet) for particular purpose for particular situations.

He's not an internet personality. He's a biologist who's done many radio interviews that were put on the net, and 2 of his lectures at schools have also been put online. He didn't ask for that. His articles are free to the public but he's not advertising himself and doesn't sell anything.
+1
Other than posting a few of his articles and paintings on his own website, and responding to requests, he's not big on self-promotion.

I would argue most everything in science is open to discussion. Yesterdays truths are often todays falsities. Science is a moving target...
+1
That's science. If you want fixed certainty, try faith-based belief systems.
Some of us begin with a different premise: Peat is correct about some things and wrong about others and no one has or ever will have "the full picture"
+1

It sounds like you are saying there is a definite right and a definite wrong though. In that case why wouldn't we at some point in the future be able to have the full picture and everything right?
There is a lot of complex reality to get our heads around, and the human biological systems are right out at the leading edge of that complexity as far as we know ... I think the store of human knowledge about how our systems work, and how they can malfunction, and how we can help them return to better functioning from all those deviations, can and hopefully will increase. But whether a full picture can ever be defined I don't know, and whether any one person will ever be able to hold it all in their heads I seriously doubt.


Ray is more than milk and sugar. If you really have read deep what ray says in his words and articles.
+1
I don't really get the big deal about finding it difficult to stick to 'Peat's recommendations'. It's simple. Eat real food, and avoid the harmful pseudo-foods unless absolutely necessary.
Some people seem to be trying to make it unnecessarily more restrictive than this.
There's no reason a human being cannot be healthy on a balanced diet of fruit, honey, meat, dairy, eggs, tubers and leaves.
Maybe, if they are healthy to begin with, and they have access to sufficient good quality ingredients. Both of which are quite big ifs.
If you choose to consume hazardous substances, knowing that they are hazardous, that says something about the way you see the world, your values, and the strength of your convictions.
Or about your budget, allergies or intollerances, or societal or other relevant constraints. I don't think it's fair to judge people for not 'choosing' to eat the way you think makes sense. If you think 'knowing' is so straight forward, I think there might be an issue there, too.
Agree for real food, and veggies are part of real food that not many people in this forum seem to appreciate, though they are very tradional in all diets in the world!
Agreed. And Peat has spoken positively about them on a number of occasions, too.
I wouldn't be surprised if Ray is also a Creationist ...
I would. Unless you have a fairly non-standard definition of it.
Peat also puts a lot of faith in William Blake, who I am quite fond of personally, but also had a known history of severe mental illness - talking to angels, etc.
I know Peat studied Blake and found him interesting and inspiring, but I don't know if he put particular faith in him? Definitions of 'mental illness' are social constructs, and subject to context, bias and change. Given some of the things people say and do in the mainstream these days, I'm not sure who is in a position to judge, unless it gets to being seriously harmful to others ... oh yeah, that's mainstream and often rewarded by the culture now too.
Also, folks here don't want a challenge at all! They just believe what they read! Any idiot can do that!
This is insulting and incorrect. Please desist. There is a great deal of variety of opinion and purpose amongst the posters here.
I know that Ray Peat discusses consuming 2 qts of milk and oj, but I am concerned about people who follow that advice like it's the only thing they should be consuming.
I too am concerned that some people, not reading much of Peat for themselves, may get the impression that this is what Peat has recommended as a general dietary guideline for a complete diet. I certainly don't think it is. I've seen him suggest it as a basis of a short-term restrictive diet for fat-loss in some contexts, together with other foods.
Peat says 150 g of protein (and up to 300!!!) and then says that there is no way the milk alone would provide that.
I think I've read him proposing 80-100g protein for people in a hypothyroid state, probably more for most folk, and that he doesn't feel right with less than about 150g himself.
He also says to eat eggs, liver, seafood, meat, carrots, etc. How can just milk and oj be enough?
Right. And cheese. And a few hundred grams of carbs a day. And he has cream in his coffee because he likes the taste, and maybe some butter, and turnips and he's been known to eat icecream. And in other contexts he's talked about the benefits of other foods, like tropical fruit, greens, and potatoes and other roots and tubers, etc.
But still eat some food, for goodness sake!
+1
 
OP
C

chispas

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Messages
354
Two things, but first let me compliment your ability to continue to engage without this devolving into insults. I pushed pretty hard last post and a good many people would have gotten overly defensive at that.

1) Ling's hypothesis, furthered by Pollack and some others, is continuing to evolve (with almost no support) alongside the mainstream model. They can be considered compatible in some ways for practical terms, such as ATP being an "energy currency." The difference is that in the mainstream theory, ATP is hydrolyzed to ADP and the energy released from that phosphate bond is coupled to power an enzyme, whereas in Ling's theory (described later by Pollack) the ATP is hydrolyzed to allow proteins to go through a conformational change which powers the cell, and that the ATP is there to maintain the protein in the "relaxed" state as built-up potential energy, so to speak. So the two theories are, theoretically, completely opposed to each other. Ling claimed that the high-energy phosphate bond doesn't even exist, that it can't be coupled to another reaction through hydrolysis. BUT, as far as measuring a cell's activity and energy status, both theories would look at ATP production as the metric. So in that way they can co-exist.

2) Incorrect theories have a way of slowly becoming corrected over time, as I mentioned before, but without admitting they were wrong. My favorite example is neo-Darwinism, but for cell theory there is an analogue. Again I've been writing on this, but in short molecules like estrogen, which seems to interact with hundreds or thousands of other proteins not just its "receptor," had to be explained. So they built up a convoluted theory of protein-protein and protein-steroid interactions on top of the protein receptor-steroid interaction that supposedly is the main way estrogen and other steroids work, without giving up the receptor explanation. So now we have estrogen and its receptor, estrogen can affect the cell even if it is genetically modified to not have estrogen receptor, and estrogen receptor can interact with other proteins and other molecules in the cell even in the absence of estrogen. I ask you, what is the point of calling estrogen receptor estrogen receptor when it can receive from hundreds or thousands of other molecules? I'm sure you've heard of "estrogenic" chemicals right? Those are the thousands of chemicals, synthetic and naturally occurring, that "bind" with "estrogen receptor."

It would be simpler and more honest to scrap the whole ligand-receptor business of cell mechanics, but instead they will slowly amend it piece by piece and get closer to the true story. The theory is not helping, but rather hindering, this process however. A good theory is one that doesn't get in the way of getting closer to the truth, and AI hypothesis is one of those theories. Now, something new could be discovered that AI couldn't explain, and it would have to be discarded, but until then it's useful. Mainstream cellular mechanics ran into that problem long long ago, and drove right over it like a monster truck powered by government money.

As this thread has demonstrated, I'm not one of the insulting, defensive types. I am empathetic to all view points.

Your explanation is very helpful to me as a layman. Thanks for putting it together. I can see its relevance. And you raise some valid points.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Nassim Taleb. I thought Black Swan to be tedious, and almost entirely unconvincing, but that's just me.

I've got just two more things to say, but I will address them to Tara.
 
Last edited:
OP
C

chispas

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Messages
354
Of course they are an incomplete picture. No one has a complete picture to give.
If you are not finding Peat's ideas useful ATM, that's fine, hope you find other ideas that serve you.


I see a lot of people here ascribing more certainty to Peat's ideas than I see Peat claiming himself. Peat often expresses himself in quite limited and speculative terms. Others sometimes generalise from the particular, or turn 'could' in 'will', etc.


Don't know what you mean by eating 'normally', but I've never given up the scrambled eggs - they're good. :)
I don't thrive on primarily milk and OJ either. But then I don't consider that Peat's prescription, so that doesn't turn me off his ideas. He has also encouragesd peole to eat food they enjoy, and to pay attention to the effects of foods for themselves, which I think you may be doing.


That's not Peat's diet (unless he's changed it since last report here), or what he recommends for most people most of the time. It's a possible basis (not complete diet) for particular purpose for particular situations.


+1
Other than posting a few of his articles and paintings on his own website, and responding to requests, he's not big on self-promotion.


+1
That's science. If you want fixed certainty, try faith-based belief systems.

+1


There is a lot of complex reality to get our heads around, and the human biological systems are right out at the leading edge of that complexity as far as we know ... I think the store of human knowledge about how our systems work, and how they can malfunction, and how we can help them return to better functioning from all those deviations, can and hopefully will increase. But whether a full picture can ever be defined I don't know, and whether any one person will ever be able to hold it all in their heads I seriously doubt.



+1

Some people seem to be trying to make it unnecessarily more restrictive than this.
Maybe, if they are healthy to begin with, and they have access to sufficient good quality ingredients. Both of which are quite big ifs.

Or about your budget, allergies or intollerances, or societal or other relevant constraints. I don't think it's fair to judge people for not 'choosing' to eat the way you think makes sense. If you think 'knowing' is so straight forward, I think there might be an issue there, too.

Agreed. And Peat has spoken positively about them on a number of occasions, too.

I would. Unless you have a fairly non-standard definition of it.

I know Peat studied Blake and found him interesting and inspiring, but I don't know if he put particular faith in him? Definitions of 'mental illness' are social constructs, and subject to context, bias and change. Given some of the things people say and do in the mainstream these days, I'm not sure who is in a position to judge, unless it gets to being seriously harmful to others ... oh yeah, that's mainstream and often rewarded by the culture now too.

This is insulting and incorrect. Please desist. There is a great deal of variety of opinion and purpose amongst the posters here.

I too am concerned that some people, not reading much of Peat for themselves, may get the impression that this is what Peat has recommended as a general dietary guideline for a complete diet. I certainly don't think it is. I've seen him suggest it as a basis of a short-term restrictive diet for fat-loss in some contexts, together with other foods.

I think I've read him proposing 80-100g protein for people in a hypothyroid state, probably more for most folk, and that he doesn't feel right with less than about 150g himself.

Right. And cheese. And a few hundred grams of carbs a day. And he has cream in his coffee because he likes the taste, and maybe some butter, and turnips and he's been known to eat icecream. And in other contexts he's talked about the benefits of other foods, like tropical fruit, greens, and potatoes and other roots and tubers, etc.

+1

If you truly introspect upon your thought process, you might see that using Peat and his ideas as a means to consider making life choices, or dietary/environmental choices, is not only flawed, but somewhat problematic.

It's problematic because to do so means you grapple with Peat's logic for better or worse. To me, this is actually a faith based approach. I know it might not seem so because so much reading and thinking is involved, but let me explain...

Peat aims for logical coherence, he does often say this a lot. The theme comes across in his writings and interviews, because he repeats how his ideas fit together. The real problem however, isn't coherence: it's that your body, your metabolism, your emotions, and your behaviours are very possibly UNRELATED to microscopic instruments and mechanisms - be they cells, hormones, vitamins, etc.

This is postulated by a concept called "strong emergence". Kyle might understand this a bit better than me, but I'm putting things in laymen's terms. Ray would be of the view that the body is "weakly emergent" in that the body's holistic health depends on microscopic states of various elements. In the "strongly emergent" case, it is the whole system itself that creates fluctuations of change among the microscopic, which then drives further change in the system.

It is my opinion that Ray avoids sustained engagement with these interesting and useful concepts, by using some writerly sleight of hand, blushing over the possibilities that lead to questions of greater complexity and difficulty.

So I'm not looking for a faith based bunch of ideas, or even a glimmer of certainty. The truth is often ugly and strange and awkward, but Ray's writing isn't. In my experience, this is a good clue the picture being put forward isn't as "possible" as it is "plausible". My evidence? Look at many of the people unfortunately struggling on this forum.

It's important to also acknowledge that Ray isn't "doing science", he's just "doing a literature review". There's a profound difference. Real scientists, in universities, talk to each other, disagree, get on each other's nerves, etc. It's a highly competitive environment, played out on an international stage. Who are Ray's great peers? No one agrees nor disagrees. This is yet another clue for me - his ideas are untested by disinterested thinkers in the marketplace of ideas.

Ray's PhD is just like a driver's licence. Heaps of people have them. I was a PhD candidate myself a few years ago. Don't undervalue your own critical faculties. I was right to say people believe what they read. Sadly, literacy rates are very poor these days. It's a shame.

Lastly, Ray is not as obscure as people on this forum think. He deals in thoughts and ideas that are both ubiquitous and common. He isn't on "the outside", he's just not participating much on "the inside", where his ideas could find a bigger audience and attract significant critical attention.

Ray's a bit like Rembrandt down at the market, trying to sell his amazing paintings to people who don't really see the greatness of it. There's actually something good, possibly great in Ray's ideas, but he has terrible marketing, and seems convinced that conspirationalist forces are working tirelessly to conceal the overwhelming evidence he has assembled. Again, this is faith based thinking, but of a negative sort. Sartre calls it Bad Faith. Ever heard of it?

Anyway, this post is too long.
 

Nutrientz

Member
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
24
If you truly introspect upon your thought process, you might see that using Peat and his ideas as a means to consider making life choices, or dietary/environmental choices, is not only flawed, but somewhat problematic.

It's problematic because to do so means you grapple with Peat's logic for better or worse. To me, this is actually a faith based approach. I know it might not seem so because so much reading and thinking is involved, but let me explain...

Peat aims for logical coherence, he does often say this a lot. The theme comes across in his writings and interviews, because he repeats how his ideas fit together. The real problem however, isn't coherence: it's that your body, your metabolism, your emotions, and your behaviours are very possibly UNRELATED to microscopic instruments and mechanisms - be they cells, hormones, vitamins, etc.

This is postulated by a concept called "strong emergence". Kyle might understand this a bit better than me, but I'm putting things in laymen's terms. Ray would be of the view that the body is "weakly emergent" in that the body's holistic health depends on microscopic states of various elements. In the "strongly emergent" case, it is the whole system itself that creates fluctuations of change among the microscopic, which then drives further change in the system.

It is my opinion that Ray avoids sustained engagement with these interesting and useful concepts, by using some writerly sleight of hand, blushing over the possibilities that lead to questions of greater complexity and difficulty.

So I'm not looking for a faith based bunch of ideas, or even a glimmer of certainty. The truth is often ugly and strange and awkward, but Ray's writing isn't. In my experience, this is a good clue the picture being put forward isn't as "possible" as it is "plausible". My evidence? Look at many of the people unfortunately struggling on this forum.

It's important to also acknowledge that Ray isn't "doing science", he's just "doing a literature review". There's a profound difference. Real scientists, in universities, talk to each other, disagree, get on each other's nerves, etc. It's a highly competitive environment, played out on an international stage. Who are Ray's great peers? No one agrees nor disagrees. This is yet another clue for me - his ideas are untested by disinterested thinkers in the marketplace of ideas.

Ray's PhD is just like a driver's licence. Heaps of people have them. I was a PhD candidate myself a few years ago. Don't undervalue your own critical faculties. I was right to say people believe what they read. Sadly, literacy rates are very poor these days. It's a shame.

Lastly, Ray is not as obscure as people on this forum think. He deals in thoughts and ideas that are both ubiquitous and common. He isn't on "the outside", he's just not participating much on "the inside", where his ideas could find a bigger audience and attract significant critical attention.

Ray's a bit like Rembrandt down at the market, trying to sell his amazing paintings to people who don't really see the greatness of it. There's actually something good, possibly great in Ray's ideas, but he has terrible marketing, and seems convinced that conspirationalist forces are working tirelessly to conceal the overwhelming evidence he has assembled. Again, this is faith based thinking, but of a negative sort. Sartre calls it Bad Faith. Ever heard of it?

Anyway, this post is too long.

Strongly agree with this post. Not to mention the fact that, Ray Peat doesn't even take into account genetics. He recommends milk for everyone, even people who are lactose intolerant. If you are actually lactose intolerant like me, no amount of milk drinking is going to change that. I drank milk for 6 months despite having constant diarrhea and gastrointestinal problems upon Ray Peat's advise.

Then I did a test from 23andme.com and found out I'm lactose intolerant. Amongst other things such as caffeine intolerance, methylation issues, low MAO and COMT activity.

That's why I find the discussion on this forum of the 'ideal' diet so nonsensical. The only thing that you can really do is do genetic testing and pay a company to look at your genetics and make a diet plan for you. Yes, this is possible. And this is the ONLY way that you're going to find the 'optimal' diet for yourself.

Advising people to take hormones, and supplements is HIGHLY irresponsible and DANGEROUS since you don't know these peoples body chemistry and deficiencies. I can GUARANTEE that all of the people on here taking countless amounts of supplements have seen no improvements/only made their health worse.

The worst thing I find is that people here always look for easy solutions without using their brain. And the greed. People like @haidut sell hormones with DMSO in them. DMSO can be a very dangerous substance and potentially fatal, yet nobody here seems to care.

Hormones are also very dangerous and can disrupt your entire hormonal profile and cause extreme health issues as happened to those affected by PFS. People here just see a few studies about 'x hormone that Haidut wants to sell' done on rats, and then they think this will finally be their easy way out for THE health cure.

That's just not how it works. Diet is not the only thing affecting health. I would arguably state that genetics, social status, and lifestyle play a far greater role. But everyone on this forum wants to drink Cola and eat sugar on their couch all day and expects to have a lot of energy and good health.

In my opinion basically the only thing Ray Peat got right is that PUFA's are very unhealthy. For the rest, it depends on the individual.

Drop all of your 'wonder cure supplements', hormones, monotone Ray Peat diet.

Start exercising, sleeping well, socializing, do fun activities, lose fat before even thinking about your diet. And I guarantee that you can eat what you want and feel good. This forum just seems like people are trying to fix their health desperately, but then they only bother to look at a single factor affecting their health and ignore all the others.
 
Last edited:
OP
C

chispas

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Messages
354
Strongly agree with this post. Not to mention the fact that, Ray Peat doesn't even take into account genetics. He recommends milk for everyone, even people who are lactose intolerant. If you are actually lactose intolerant like me, no amount of milk drinking is going to change that. I drank milk for 6 months despite having constant diarrhea and gastrointestinal problems upon Ray Peat's advise.

Then I did a test from 23andme.com and found out I'm lactose intolerant. Amongst other things such as caffeine intolerance, methylation issues, low MAO and COMT activity.

That's why I find the discussion on this forum of the 'ideal' diet so nonsensical. The only thing that you can really do is do genetic testing and pay a company to look at your genetics and make a diet plan for you. Yes, this is possible. And this is the ONLY way that you're going to find the 'optimal' diet for yourself.

Does this optimal diet you speak of make you feel good?

I was also lactose intolerant for a while following food poisoning. It took 12 months to resolve. I'm all good now.

Supposedly glycine can help milk digest.
 

Nutrientz

Member
Joined
May 12, 2017
Messages
24
Does this optimal diet you speak of make you feel good?

I was also lactose intolerant for a while following food poisoning. It took 12 months to resolve. I'm all good now.

Supposedly glycine can help milk digest.

I edited my post and added some thoughts I had.

I did not pay a company/university yet to look at my genetic data. So far I've found that I need to supplement with Magnesium and a B Complex as I genetically need more of those. I definitely feel better.

There is a difference between food poisoning lactose intolerance and actual DNA coding for lactose intolerance. In my case, it's absolutely impossible to consume dairy no matter what.

I had acne for a long time eating dairy daily, and managed to finally clear that up by cutting out all dairy. My skin is glowing and I stopped having constant bloating and gas. Feeling great.

Had I followed Peat's recommendations I would still have acne and feel horrible.
 
OP
C

chispas

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Messages
354
Strongly agree with this post. Not to mention the fact that, Ray Peat doesn't even take into account genetics. He recommends milk for everyone, even people who are lactose intolerant. If you are actually lactose intolerant like me, no amount of milk drinking is going to change that. I drank milk for 6 months despite having constant diarrhea and gastrointestinal problems upon Ray Peat's advise.

Then I did a test from 23andme.com and found out I'm lactose intolerant. Amongst other things such as caffeine intolerance, methylation issues, low MAO and COMT activity.

That's why I find the discussion on this forum of the 'ideal' diet so nonsensical. The only thing that you can really do is do genetic testing and pay a company to look at your genetics and make a diet plan for you. Yes, this is possible. And this is the ONLY way that you're going to find the 'optimal' diet for yourself.

Advising people to take hormones, and supplements is HIGHLY irresponsible and DANGEROUS since you don't know these peoples body chemistry and deficiencies. I can GUARANTEE that all of the people on here taking countless amounts of supplements have seen no improvements/only made their health worse.

The worst thing I find is that people here always look for easy solutions without using their brain. And the greed. People like @haidut sell hormones with DMSO in them. DMSO can be a very dangerous substance and potentially fatal, yet nobody here seems to care.

Hormones are also very dangerous and can disrupt your entire hormonal profile and cause extreme health issues as happened to those affected by PFS. People here just see a few studies about 'x hormone that Haidut wants to sell' done on rats, and then they think this will finally be their easy way out for THE health cure.

That's just not how it works. Diet is not the only thing affecting health. I would arguably state that genetics, social status, and lifestyle play a far greater role. But everyone on this forum wants to drink Cola and eat sugar on their couch all day and expects to have a lot of energy and good health.

In my opinion basically the only thing Ray Peat got right is that PUFA's are very unhealthy. For the rest, it depends on the individual.

Drop all of your 'wonder cure supplements', hormones, monotone Ray Peat diet.

Start exercising, sleeping well, socializing, do fun activities, lose fat before even thinking about your diet. And I guarantee that you can eat what you want and feel good. This forum just seems like people are trying to fix their health desperately, but then they only bother to look at a single factor affecting their health and ignore all the others.

I do think there's some danger as well. People do like easy solutions. All of the various crash diet methods are all easy solutions. The real need is to actually eat less and move more, smile more, make more friends, do life giving things, try to enjoy the short time we all have.

Ray lives in the **** end of Mexico, with hamsters for friends, writing stuff that may or may not be taken seriously by anyone, doesn't have any kids, no wife, and no teeth lol - all of the characteristics of an outstanding internet hero!

...And his monthly newsletter ISN'T EVEN MONTHLY! GODDAMMIT I GOT BURNT BY RAY! Lol.
 

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
If you truly introspect upon your thought process, you might see that using Peat and his ideas as a means to consider making life choices, or dietary/environmental choices, is not only flawed, but somewhat problematic.

It's problematic because to do so means you grapple with Peat's logic for better or worse. To me, this is actually a faith based approach. I know it might not seem so because so much reading and thinking is involved, but let me explain...
It could well be problematic if that were all I was basing my decisions on, or if I swallowed everything he wrote whole and uncritically. I integrate a lot of ideas and empirical evidence from a lot of sources, including my own observations about what seems to have worked and not worked for me personally. I'm not treating Peat as an infallible source.
The real problem however, isn't coherence: it's that your body, your metabolism, your emotions, and your behaviours are very possibly UNRELATED to microscopic instruments and mechanisms - be they cells, hormones, vitamins, etc.
I do find myself sometimes skeptical of the strong associations people sometimes make between their subjective experiences and some specific endogenous or exogenous substance. If you've read many of my posts about my own experience, you might have noticed how often I say how hard it is to know what is causal or helpful, given how many things are always changing.
I do think there is some basic coherence to noticing that life processes do require energy, and that failure of cells to produce required energy, for a variety of reasons, is likely to cause dysfunction.
If you have never experienced significant poor health/chronic low energy, then you have not been in a position to notice the effect of this in your own life yet.
If you are proposing that health and behaviour are unrelated to cellular mechanisms, that's quite a strong claim.
It's important to also acknowledge that Ray isn't "doing science", he's just "doing a literature review".
Literature review is a valuable service in it's own right.
He also apparently has done some direct experimentation.
From what he says, he has attempted to participate in academic discourse by publishing papers. We know there are some systematic biases in science publishing. We know that there is some fraud. We know there is some influence by the pharmaceutical industry. (Not just by reading Peat, but because there is a bit published about this.) It is difficult for me as a non-expert to assess the extent to which these factors have contributed to Peat not being published much.

Look at many of the people unfortunately struggling on this forum.
Sure, there are lots of people struggling. Many - me included - came here because we were already struggling with something, and that's why were out looking on the Internet to begin with. Some find some useful information or ideas here that help them come up with a workable way to eventually get themselves out of a hole - there are some success stories. Some pick out a few tactics and persist in following them even when it's clear they are not working for them, and dig themselves deeper into a hole. I don't think that's following Peat's advice, though. Some continue to struggle on, making some gains, but not all the way out yet.

There's actually something good, possibly great in Ray's ideas, but he has terrible marketing,...
As far as I can tell, he's not particularly focused on Internet marketing. This forum is not his project, it's Charlie's and all the participants'. It's not fair to criticise him for being terrible at something he's not trying to do.
... and seems convinced that conspirationalist forces are working tirelessly to conceal the overwhelming evidence he has assembled.
He doesn't go on about it particularly, but given the US's record, I wouldn't be so confident that there has not been inappropriate covert attention paid to him. I think there are some indicators.
I don't think he talks about the evidence he's gathered himself as being overwhelming, but he does seem to think there's been a lot of evidence published that is being ignored.
He does talk about the possible influence of the pharmaceutical, particularly estrogen industries. Do you really think everything in the area of medical and pharmaceutical science publishing and funding is squeaky clean, above board, and so free from the possibility systematic bias that the speculations about it are far-fetched?

He recommends milk for everyone, even people who are lactose intolerant. If you are actually lactose intolerant like me, no amount of milk drinking is going to change that. I drank milk for 6 months despite having constant diarrhea and gastrointestinal problems upon Ray Peat's advise.
Had I followed Peat's recommendations I would still have acne and feel horrible.
Are you sure that's what he recommended? Did you tell him you were getting diarrhoea, and he said keep drinking lots of milk? My reading of him was that he said some people were able to retrain lactose tolerance by very gradual reintroduction. Not by overwhelming and overriding obvious bad symptoms. And that some people had trouble with some kinds of milk but not others, and that it could be worth trying various kinds in case. Or maybe other tactics to improve digestion. I've interpreted Peat as generally recommending to avoid irritating the gut, so I'd take that as not persisting long term with any food that clearly triggers diarrhoea. He definitely recommends paying attention to the effects of foods. I've never seen him say anyone should keep eating food that makes them feel horrible.

I can GUARANTEE that all of the people on here taking countless amounts of supplements have seen no improvements/only made their health worse.
Exactly how many was 'countless' again?

The worst thing I find is that people here always look for easy solutions without using their brain. And the greed. People like @haidut sell hormones with DMSO in them. DMSO can be a very dangerous substance and potentially fatal, yet nobody here seems to care.
More exaggerations - 'always'?. Did you notice there is discussion about the safety of DMSO? I object to people claiming it's completely safe for everybody in whatever dose, because I think it can sometimes be problematic. But for many people, the amount in Haidut's supplements is small and probably benign. Lots of things can be very dangerous and potentially fatal, if you don't pay attention. Dihydrogen monoxide, for instance.
Are you aware of any cases of it being fatal without giving any milder warning symptoms - eg skin itching or similar - that would indicate discontinuing use?

But everyone on this forum wants to drink Cola and eat sugar on their couch all day and expects to have a lot of energy and good health.
Lay off the exaggerations and insults. Obviously not true.
And I guarantee that you can eat what you want and feel good.
Easy to make these bold empty guarantees from behind a pseudonym with no stake in the outcome. Also obviously not the case that this will work for everyone.

monotone Ray Peat diet
I don't see anything inherently more monotonous about a Ray Peat-inspired diet than a good many other diets many people eat. But then maybe you were thinking of some restricted version of a diet someone here presented.

The real need is to actually eat less and move more ...
Bit of an over-generalisation. No doubt applies to some people, but not all. There are also a bunch of people who do not need to eat less, because they are underweight, struggling to gain weight, struggling to eat enough. And some who overexercise. In excess, these habits are known to cause health trouble too after a while.
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
I drank milk for 6 months despite having constant diarrhea and gastrointestinal problems upon Ray Peat's advise.
Post proof that Ray Peat advised you to drink milk in spite of having constant diarrhea and gastrointestinal problems.

Advising people to take hormones, and supplements is HIGHLY irresponsible and DANGEROUS since you don't know these peoples body chemistry and deficiencies. I can GUARANTEE that all of the people on here taking countless amounts of supplements have seen no improvements/only made their health worse.
Wow, that is quite the statement. There are many posts and many testimonials of haidut's products turning peoples lives around for the better.

The worst thing I find is that people here always look for easy solutions without using their brain. And the greed. People like @haidut sell hormones with DMSO in them. DMSO can be a very dangerous substance and potentially fatal, yet nobody here seems to care.
That attack on haidut continues. Wonder why @Nutrientz is posting on a VPN from many different countries. What in the world could he be possibly hiding?

In my opinion basically the only thing Ray Peat got right is that PUFA's are very unhealthy.
Incredible insight! We patiently await your evidence of the contrary so you can save us.

The attack on haidut, me, the forum, and Ray Peat continues.

Ray Peat's work and this forum has changed many lives. People write me often telling me how this forum has changed the lives of them and their families. They tell me how much they sincerely appreciate making this forum available and that the information here has saved a relative, turned their lives around, turned their families lives around, brought light into their world. Ray Peat's work is solid, and you can bet the darkness will try everything it can to squash out this light. And just like I told someone a couple days ago who wrote me with appreciation, I push on because of all the differences Ray Peats work has made for many and that is what makes it worth it to me to push on and deal with the attacks and fake news that come at me and this forum on a daily basis.
 
Last edited:

Wagner83

Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2016
Messages
3,295
@tara thanks for being around I appreciate your posts.

As for dsmo this has been beaten to death and there is not even a dmso option for his supplements for now. As tara said the matter has been discussed extensively and there's no doubt it has negative effects for some.
 

charlie

Admin
The Law & Order Admin
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
14,363
Location
USA
L

lollipop

Guest
Ray lives in the **** end of Mexico, with hamsters for friends, writing stuff that may or may not be taken seriously by anyone, doesn't have any kids, no wife, and no teeth lol - all of the characteristics of an outstanding internet hero!

...And his monthly newsletter ISN'T EVEN MONTHLY!
Firstly, I must say @chispas, I was enjoying your willingness to challenge without aggressive attacking (for the most part). But what you wrote here is off the charts wrong and frankly discounted your other interesting points you made. Frankly disappointing.

*Ray lives in Oregon.

*I have heard him discussing someone whom he shops and cooks with on interviews, saying things like “we used to buy frozen squid...” etc. please don’t quote me for precision, I can be inaccurate.

*many have taken him seriously and improved their health, myself included. My n=1 disproves your statement.

*He has teeth and no one claims him as an internet hero. West Side clearly broke down that argument.

*Newsletter never claimed to be monthly. Since I have got it, it has been quarterly.

For me to jump in and say something takes a lot. I usually never enter such territory. But this last piece from you was simply over the top. Please note: if others were discounting you with such bias, I actually would defend you. I am not simply on the Ray Peat always right bandwagon. I am more interested in fairness on all sides. With what you wrote here, clearly you moved out of fairness category.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Diokine

Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2016
Messages
624
Then I did a test from 23andme.com and found out I'm lactose intolerant. Amongst other things such as caffeine intolerance, methylation issues, low MAO and COMT activity.

Can you be more specific? There is no hard line genetic test for lactose intolerance - it is inferred.

Advising people to take hormones, and supplements is HIGHLY irresponsible and DANGEROUS since you don't know these peoples body chemistry and deficiencies. I can GUARANTEE that all of the people on here taking countless amounts of supplements have seen no improvements/only made their health worse.

tmimn.gif
 

Tarmander

Member
Joined
Apr 30, 2015
Messages
3,763
Strongly agree with this post. Not to mention the fact that, Ray Peat doesn't even take into account genetics. He recommends milk for everyone, even people who are lactose intolerant. If you are actually lactose intolerant like me, no amount of milk drinking is going to change that. I drank milk for 6 months despite having constant diarrhea and gastrointestinal problems upon Ray Peat's advise.

Then I did a test from 23andme.com and found out I'm lactose intolerant. Amongst other things such as caffeine intolerance, methylation issues, low MAO and COMT activity.

That's why I find the discussion on this forum of the 'ideal' diet so nonsensical. The only thing that you can really do is do genetic testing and pay a company to look at your genetics and make a diet plan for you. Yes, this is possible. And this is the ONLY way that you're going to find the 'optimal' diet for yourself.

Advising people to take hormones, and supplements is HIGHLY irresponsible and DANGEROUS since you don't know these peoples body chemistry and deficiencies. I can GUARANTEE that all of the people on here taking countless amounts of supplements have seen no improvements/only made their health worse.

The worst thing I find is that people here always look for easy solutions without using their brain. And the greed. People like @haidut sell hormones with DMSO in them. DMSO can be a very dangerous substance and potentially fatal, yet nobody here seems to care.

Hormones are also very dangerous and can disrupt your entire hormonal profile and cause extreme health issues as happened to those affected by PFS. People here just see a few studies about 'x hormone that Haidut wants to sell' done on rats, and then they think this will finally be their easy way out for THE health cure.

That's just not how it works. Diet is not the only thing affecting health. I would arguably state that genetics, social status, and lifestyle play a far greater role. But everyone on this forum wants to drink Cola and eat sugar on their couch all day and expects to have a lot of energy and good health.

In my opinion basically the only thing Ray Peat got right is that PUFA's are very unhealthy. For the rest, it depends on the individual.

Drop all of your 'wonder cure supplements', hormones, monotone Ray Peat diet.

Start exercising, sleeping well, socializing, do fun activities, lose fat before even thinking about your diet. And I guarantee that you can eat what you want and feel good. This forum just seems like people are trying to fix their health desperately, but then they only bother to look at a single factor affecting their health and ignore all the others.
Fear! Uncertainty! Be afraid! Everyone here is the most extreme version of anything you can think of! Haidut is making millions of dollars off Bangladeshi children!
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
7,370
The only thing that you can really do is do genetic testing and pay a company to look at your genetics and make a diet plan for you. Yes, this is possible. And this is the ONLY way that you're going to find the 'optimal' diet for yourself.
hahahahahahahahah
 
OP
C

chispas

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Messages
354
Firstly, I must say @chispas, I was enjoying your willingness to challenge without aggressive attacking (for the most part). But what you wrote here is off the charts wrong and frankly discounted your other interesting points you made. Frankly disappointing.

*Ray lives in Oregon.

*I have heard him discussing someone whom he shops and cooks with on interviews, saying things like “we used to buy frozen squid...” etc. please don’t quote me for precision, I can be inaccurate.

*many have taken him seriously and improved their health, myself included. My n=1 disproves your statement.

*He has teeth and no one claims him as an internet hero. West Side clearly broke down that argument.

*Newsletter never claimed to be monthly. Since I have got it, it has been quarterly.

For me to jump in and say something takes a lot. I usually never enter such territory. But this last piece from you was simply over the top. Please note: if others were discounting you with such bias, I actually would defend you. I am not simply on the Ray Peat always right bandwagon. I am more interested in fairness on all sides. With what you wrote here, clearly you moved out of fairness category.

Life's full of disappointment. Perhaps I don't expect as much as you from this forum. I mean, a lot is missed I think writing posts sometimes. If we were all just talking in a room, deeper meaning would be conveyed.

Peat does keep hamsters to allay his social isolation. Danny Roddy told me he moved to Mexico to be closer to Peat? Maybe he's moved around since then?

I was building an exaggerated picture of some of the details for sheer amusement, not to upset anyone.

Gosh it's abnormally easy to upset the sensitive petals of this forum, is your health really improving?
 
OP
C

chispas

Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2014
Messages
354
Sorry I am corrected, it is one newsletter every two months. I don't think that's what bi-monthly means, but no matter. This is the original email I got:

Subscribe to Ray Peat’s Newsletter by Email Delivery

A 12-issue subscription (~bi-monthly, 2 years)

delivered by Email is $28. USD.

To subscribe and pay online, click here.

To pay by mail, send your name and email address

along with a check or money order to: Ray Peat’s

Newsletter, PO Box 5764, Eugene OR 97405
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom