Context: Common Misinterpretations of Peat

[j.]

Do you guys ever fact check any of peats quotes?

"Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."

?????????

We tend to try the advice on our own bodies and see what happens. So one way to check that quote is increasing sugar consumption and decreasing starch consumption and see what happens to your weight.

 

[kiran]

Do you guys ever fact check any of peats quotes?

"Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."

?????????

Here's a study that says 50g of sucrose generates less of a plasma glucose and insulin response than 25g of glucose.

(this doesn't hold good for 100g of sucrose and 50g of glucose, but 100g is a lot)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9881888
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/ ... q28791.pdf

 

[frustrated]

Do you guys ever fact check any of peats quotes?

"Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."

?????????

Here's a study that says 50g of sucrose generates less of a plasma glucose and insulin response than 25g of glucose.

(this doesn't hold good for 100g of sucrose and 50g of glucose, but 100g is a lot)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9881888
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/ ... q28791.pdf

That just shows sucrose has a lower insulin response -- because it is a mixture of the two. The key word is inhibit. I've actually seen evidence of the opposite

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/31/1115183109

I have no idea why Peat is so against the stimulation of insulin either

 

[frustrated]

Do you guys ever fact check any of peats quotes?

"Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."

?????????

We tend to try the advice on our own bodies and see what happens. So one way to check that quote is increasing sugar consumption and decreasing starch consumption and see what happens to your weight.

That's just stupid. How do you know you're going to control for calories? And there's already science out there that refutes what Peat's said http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8729105

 

[j.]

That's just stupid.

If so, being stupid is one the best things I did for my health.

 

[frustrated]

And I think fruit > starch, and I think Peat is great -- I'm just pointing out some of the blind acceptance of what he's saying is, well, cultish.

 

[frustrated]

That's just stupid.

If so, being stupid is one the best things I did for my health.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

 

[j.]

And I think fruit > starch, and I think Peat is great -- I'm just pointing out some of the blind acceptance of what he's saying is, well, cultish.

Now, THAT is stupid. Saying that someone testing how something works in his body to decide whether to accept it is cultish, is absolutely idiotic.

 

[frustrated]

And I think fruit > starch, and I think Peat is great -- I'm just pointing out some of the blind acceptance of what he's saying is, well, cultish.

Now, THAT is stupid. Saying that someone testing how something works in his body to decide whether to accept it is cultish, is absolutely idiotic.

Lol dude you clearly don't understand science, or how to even argue a point.

I asked do people fact check Peat.

You said "test it out".

I said that stupid and explained why, i.e., you cannot know for sure just because you are losing weight because you might have spontaneously changed your calorie intake.

You red herringed the point I was making into a discussion about "what's best for health"

 

[j.]

And I think fruit > starch, and I think Peat is great -- I'm just pointing out some of the blind acceptance of what he's saying is, well, cultish.

Now, THAT is stupid. Saying that someone testing how something works in his body to decide whether to accept it is cultish, is absolutely idiotic.

Lol dude you clearly don't understand science, or how to even argue a point.

I asked do people fact check Peat.

You said "test it out".

I said that stupid and explained why, i.e., you cannot know for sure just because you are losing weight because you might have spontaneously changed your calorie intake.

You red herringed the point I was making into a discussion about "what's best for health"

Then what are you calling cultish? I got the impression that you're just a frustrated idiot who came here to name call.

 

[frustrated]

And I think fruit > starch, and I think Peat is great -- I'm just pointing out some of the blind acceptance of what he's saying is, well, cultish.

Now, THAT is stupid. Saying that someone testing how something works in his body to decide whether to accept it is cultish, is absolutely idiotic.

Lol dude you clearly don't understand science, or how to even argue a point.

I asked do people fact check Peat.

You said "test it out".

I said that stupid and explained why, i.e., you cannot know for sure just because you are losing weight because you might have spontaneously changed your calorie intake.

You red herringed the point I was making into a discussion about "what's best for health"

Then what are you calling cultish? I got the impression that you're just a frustrated idiot who came here to name call.

That's funny because I haven't called anyone a name (describing an action as stupid or cultish is not name calling) -- where as you have already directly called me an idiot.

I have already explained why I said it was cultish -- some of the things Peat said, e.g., the fructose inhibting insulin quote have no evidence yet they are being believed as gospel.

 

[j.]

I have already explained why I said it was cultish -- some of the things Peat said, e.g., the fructose inhibting insulin quote have no evidence yet they are being believed as gospel.

What's the evidence of the part in bold?

I have already explained why I said it was cultish -- some of the things Peat said, e.g., the fructose inhibting insulin quote have no evidence yet they are being believed as gospel.

What's the evidence of the part in bold?

 

[frustrated]

I have already explained why I said it was cultish -- some of the things Peat said, e.g., the fructose inhibting insulin quote have no evidence yet they are being believed as gospel.

What's the evidence of the part in bold?

I have already explained why I said it was cultish -- some of the things Peat said, e.g., the fructose inhibting insulin quote have no evidence yet they are being believed as gospel.

What's the evidence of the part in bold?

That's not quite how it works. It's like saying, "where is the evidence that god doesn't exist". Peat has made the claim -- he needs to cite it (he didn't). I've looked for it, asked people smarter than me for it (they said there was none), and now I'm posting here hoping someone can justify it.

The evidence that it is being believed as gospel is that people here dont have ANY idea of the source Peat's using to justify his claim, yet believing it to be true by their self experimentaiton -- which may or may not be good for health, but it doesn't prove his quote AT ALL. This fructose inhibits glucose's insulin is just one example.........

 

[kiran]

Do you guys ever fact check any of peats quotes?

"Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."

?????????

Here's a study that says 50g of sucrose generates less of a plasma glucose and insulin response than 25g of glucose.

(this doesn't hold good for 100g of sucrose and 50g of glucose, but 100g is a lot)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9881888
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/ ... q28791.pdf

That just shows sucrose has a lower insulin response -- because it is a mixture of the two. The key word is inhibit. I've actually seen evidence of the opposite

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/31/1115183109

I have no idea why Peat is so against the stimulation of insulin either

50g of sucrose contains 25g of glucose + 25g of fructose.
since 50g of sucrose has less of an insulin response than 25g of glucose, the fructose must be having some insulin lowering effect.
Does that make sense?

 

[frustrated]

Do you guys ever fact check any of peats quotes?

"Fructose inhibits the stimulation of insulin by glucose, so this means that eating ordinary sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide, consisting of glucose and fructose), in place of starch, will reduce the tendency to store fat."

?????????

Here's a study that says 50g of sucrose generates less of a plasma glucose and insulin response than 25g of glucose.

(this doesn't hold good for 100g of sucrose and 50g of glucose, but 100g is a lot)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9881888
http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/ ... q28791.pdf

That just shows sucrose has a lower insulin response -- because it is a mixture of the two. The key word is inhibit. I've actually seen evidence of the opposite

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/31/1115183109

I have no idea why Peat is so against the stimulation of insulin either

50g of sucrose contains 25g of glucose + 25g of fructose.
since 50g of sucrose has less of an insulin response than 25g of glucose, the fructose must be having some insulin lowering effect.
Does that make sense?

Yes. You are concluding Peat is right based off circumstantial evidence, at best, being drawn from a poor sample with numbers you are extrapolating linearly. Look at the stdev.

 

[Ray-Z]

Can we pretend I wrote that

Ray-Z, Excellent stuff.

Well, the post would gain credibility if we did. Thank you, Kettlebell.


Narouz:

I'm not sure precisely which statements are your targets in this thread, but I'm pretty confident that some of the authors include (the greatly missed) peatarian, Danny R, and me. My response had those three people in mind. Hopefully that information will help make sense out of what I wrote.

What are the risks of summarizing/outlining Peat? Assume, for the moment, as peatarian did, that some people rely on the summary in place of reading Peat.

Such people are essentially replacing Hamlet with cliff notes (albeit perhaps written by someone very smart).*** They are passing up opportunities to learn how to think like a gifted scientist, weigh scientific arguments and evidence, dismantle propaganda, and become intellectually independent. And as I argued in my response above, cultivating one's mind in this way matters a lot because we can't always rely on Peat (his teachings are necessarily incomplete), and the cultivation is a worthwhile end in itself. The problem isn't so much the summary, as what it (hypothetically) displaces.

[***EDIT: This comparison isn't meant to slight you, Narouz. I'm sure your outline or summary will be excellent. I'm imagining a comparison here between Peat's writings and a generic summary.]

I emphasize, as I have elsewhere, that a summary or outline might not discourage many people from reading Peat's articles. The opposite could very well occur. I said in another thread that Danny's website (and by extension, a good summary of Peat) could actually be a "gateway drug" that sucks people into the Peaty underworld. Different people (or the same people at different times) might respond in different ways to a summary of Peat. So I am not sure that many people will necessarily make the choice that worried peatarian.

Nonetheless, the concern about stunting some readers' intellectual growth by dumbing down Peat's ideas is not a trivial or unreasonable one. (Not saying that your project would amount to dumbing down.) This concern is clearly one that Ray Peat takes very seriously (otherwise why argue so carefully from the scientific evidence in every article?), so it makes sense that peatarian and Danny take it seriously as well.

I don't think this concern about dumbing down Peat's work, which animates at least some of the statements you've criticized, requires one to oppose all generalizations about Peat's recommendations or believe that "anything goes" on a Peaty diet, etc., etc.

One last thought about your claim that a standard Peat diet could accommodate all the scenarios I imagined: No diet or set of recommendations can ever anticipate the infinite variety of human needs and circumstances. Designing a diet that anticipates all circumstances is like designing a contract or piece of legislation that anticipates all circumstances -- with all due respect, it ain't gonna happen. And because no set of dietary recommendations will ever fit you perfectly throughout the course of your life, you need to cultivate your own understanding of your body and your own independent judgment.

This is your thread, Narouz, and I've exhausted my caffeine supply and everyone's patience, so I'll give you the last word. I do, however, reserve the right to return to babble incoherently about lipofuscin and print random smilies.

 

[cliff]

"Postprandial glycemic excursions were reduced by 66 ± 12%, and insulin responses were 65 ± 5% lower (both P < 0.001) during HFr consumption."
http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/89/6/2963.short

"the insulin response to a sucrose meal is half that of a equivalent amount of glucose"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/31/8/1305.short

Peat doesn't think insulin is necessarily bad tho as it promotes thyroid hormone

 

[narouz]

Narouz:Such people are essentially replacing Hamlet with cliff notes (albeit perhaps written by someone very smart).

Couple of things for starters:

1. Personally, for you, do think Peat is more important
as an Artist
or
as a Scientist?

2. What about this question:
http://raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=946&start=10#p8413

 

[narouz]

Peat's writings are, like all teachings, incomplete. Eventually, the student always encounters circumstances his teacher did not directly or clearly address. When we find ourselves in these boundary regions, we must exercise our own independent judgment, conduct our own experiments, and draw our own conclusions from our experience and the literature. In short, in these boundary regions, we have to take up Ray Peat's work; he can't do it all for us. The more closely we are wedded to simplified notions of a Peat diet, the less we will be able to respond flexibly and creatively to the challenges we face.
...

"Peat's greatest gift to us is not any specific dietary recommendation, but rather the example of an independent mind carefully questioning, observing, and reasoning. We abandon this example, and trust a simplified view of Peat's teachings, at our peril, because sooner or later we will all find ourselves on the frontier, where simplifications break down, and only our own understanding and judgment can save us."

Thinking about this some more,
it would seem that you may, in effect,
be trying to make the argument that Peat's work
should be regarded as somewhat occult.

In other words, the Peatian knowledge should best remain somewhat hidden
from casual or unserious observers,
lest, with it, they endanger themselves and others.
Only those with seriousness of purpose
willing to spend time studying an array of Peatian texts and interviews,
and to exercise their "independent judgement" and
employ their "carefully questioning, observing, and reasoning" abilities...

...only those willing to make such investments of time and effort,
and able to utilize those functions of higher intelligence...
only they should be allowed into the knowledge of Peat.

So those efforts could be thought of as the price of admission.
It seems that you may be arguing that
that price serves two purposes:
1. it keeps out the unserious applicant who will be likely to make a muck of Peat
(I don't know...use his knowledge wrongly or dangerously or impurely,
perhaps for commercial purposes, or egotistically,
to develop the superhuman sexual prowess
I and many other Peatians are deploying as I write...?)
2. set in place a training system for Tomorrow's New Peatian Order,
with their giant brains bred on OJ and milk and coconut oil,
and with their superior critical thinking skills...?

 

[gretchen]

Yay, Peat For Dummies! We can publish and distribute to the meno crowd. Just take an aspirin and the room will stop spinning. No, wait, aspirin can burn a hole in your stomach.