Criticisms of the Ray Peat pro-metabolic bioenergetic nutrition strategy

[Rinse & rePeat]

FYI, the guy in the first video is @haidut

Serious?!! Oh my gosh! That is so fun to put faces to to names!

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

I meant that those members here that go full hog sugar and blow up should realize that it's beyond what Ray, Georgi, and Danny can help them with.

Not because sugar is bad, as we know, but because Ray and Danny never climbed the mountain, while Georgi is still climbing the mountain.

None has ever gone thru the challenge of being overweight and overcoming it. So they still can't help these members. Members like Cirion (or former member).

But you can't fault anyone for not having all the answers. No one does. But those who fail to overcome should not just rely on Ray or Georgi of Danny for all the answers. They still have to go outside this realm.

Ray's shortcoming is that he tends to go deep into cortisol, and have people trying to control their cortisol. He understands though that cortisol is not the cause, because it is a stress hormone from the stress of being low on sugar. Yet he focuses on cortisol, and not on why blood sugar gets low, and how to keep it from getting low. At the heart of their problem is the instability of blood sugar. It is this instability that causes overweight and obesity.

My sister was heavy into starches and when she quit dabbling in them and paired her proteins and sugars appropriately she quit having blood sugar problems and lost 100 pounds in a year. So I seriously think PUFA's, starches and chemicals in our foods are the biggest problem.

 

[Mito]

I don't know a thing about the other two, but Ray Peat has been spot on for me.

Here‘s the Ray interview on that same YouTube channel.

View: https://youtu.be/96AFY50-J4A

 

[yerrag]

My sister was heavy into starches and when she quit dabbling in them and paired her proteins and sugars appropriately she quit having blood sugar problems and lost 100 pounds in a year. So I seriously think PUFA's, starches and chemicals in our foods are the biggest problem.

I can agree on the PUFA and chemicals, but starches I have to qualify that. People who traditionally eat rice don't get overweight. They become overweight when they began using PUFAs for cooking, substituting saturated fats with the "heart-healthy" soya and corn and canola oils that are PUFAs.

I'm not sure about wheat. Even in the US, the current land of overweight and obesity, people were lean in much earlier generations even on wheat. But then, it could be they ate bread from wheat varieties that were not hybridized.

Were the native Mexicans always so plump? Or did eating modern corn varieties thst are also GMO make them so? Plus the PUFAs.

But outside of these usual suspects, there is also the bacterial aspect. I've always been lean, until 3 years when my blood sugar OGTT curve got out of whack. It got thst way from increased systemic bacterial infection. The bacterial enzymes messed with how my pancreas secreted insulin. I'm still dealing with the infection as it involves a colony of synergistic bacteria and fungi ganging up against me. This is outside Ray, Danny, and Georgi's scope.

They can't help me more than they already did. The doctors can't help me. I have to go outside the stock answers in RPF.

This is what I meant because if the stock advice is followed and it still doesn't work, don't give up and don't say it's wrong. Don't shift to keto. It's not going to get. better. It means there's something else going on.

Find the root cause and once found, work on eliminating that cause.

 

[S-VV]

@Cirion (I can't even tag him) did you ever reach the ER? Are you doing fine up there? Is there something you want to tell us about sugar and how you got it wrong using sugar?

Whatever happened to Cirion? Is he all right?

 

[yerrag]

Whatever happened to Cirion? Is he all right?

I don't really know. If I don't get past today, you'll know when you don't hear from you forever after.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

I can agree on the PUFA and chemicals, but starches I have to qualify that. People who traditionally eat rice don't get overweight. They become overweight when they began using PUFAs for cooking, substituting saturated fats with the "heart-healthy" soya and corn and canola oils that are PUFAs.

I'm not sure about wheat. Even in the US, the current land of overweight and obesity, people were lean in much earlier generations even on wheat. But then, it could be they ate bread from wheat varieties that were not hybridized.

Were the native Mexicans always so plump? Or did eating modern corn varieties thst are also GMO make them so? Plus the PUFAs.

But outside of these usual suspects, there is also the bacterial aspect. I've always been lean, until 3 years when my blood sugar OGTT curve got out of whack. It got thst way from increased systemic bacterial infection. The bacterial enzymes messed with how my pancreas secreted insulin. I'm still dealing with the infection as it involves a colony of synergistic bacteria and fungi ganging up against me. This is outside Ray, Danny, and Georgi's scope.

They can't help me more than they already did. The doctors can't help me. I have to go outside the stock answers in RPF.

This is what I meant because if the stock advice is followed and it still doesn't work, don't give up and don't say it's wrong. Don't shift to keto. It's not going to get. better. It means there's something else going on.

Find the root cause and once found, work on eliminating that cause.

Rice would be very good in cultures where fruit or sugar is scarce. It gets converted to sugar.

“Starch and glucose efficiently stimulate insulin secretion, and that accelerates the disposition of glucose, activating its conversion to glycogen and fat, as well as its oxidation. 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. Eating “complex carbohydrates,” rather than sugars, is a reasonable way to promote obesity. Eating starch, by increasing insulin and lowering the blood sugar, stimulates the appetite, causing a person to eat more, so the effect on fat"-Ray Peat

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

It is also handy in famine situations when little protein can be afforded. People have to hold skin and bones together with something.

 

[mm33]

Serious?!! Oh my gosh! That is so fun to put faces to to names!

Hey R&R, if you have time Danny Roddy does youtube videos with Georgi and Ray - i think he's up to around 57 or 58 now. About every third one has Ray and the others have just Georgi or occasionaly Danny just answers questions. Ray goes over all kinds of things so i really like it when he's on plus he recaps his latest news letter. When it's just Georgi he goes over all the studies he posts on haidut.me. If you already know about this sorry for the duplication but it appeared from the quote above you didn't follow them.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Hey R&R, if you have time Danny Roddy does youtube videos with Georgi and Ray - i think he's up to around 57 or 58 now. About every third one has Ray and the others have just Georgi or occasionaly Danny just answers questions. Ray goes over all kinds of things so i really like it when he's on plus he recaps his latest news letter. When it's just Georgi he goes over all the studies he posts on haidut.me. If you already know about this sorry for the duplication but it appeared from the quote above you didn't follow them.

I don't follow anybody mm33. I just adhere solely to Ray Peat's words. No sense trying complicate things for myself with differing opinions when Ray Peat has cured me of all my complaints. Thanks though for the good options. Freeing up time listing to Ray Peat has my plate full :)

 

[mm33]

I don't follow anybody mm33. I just adhere solely to Ray Peat's words. No sense trying complicate things for myself with differing opinions when Ray Peat has cured me of all my complaints. Thanks though for the good options. Freeing up time listing to Ray Peat has my plate full :)

I'm lucky i'm a sales rep and drive around all day to different retailers so i can listen to all of these and it helps me learn as i'm relatively new to Ray's ideas.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Don't get me wrong mm33 and yerrag, I make killer cupcakes and have boiled potatoes once every week or two and even a taco with masa tortillas when I want, just not when I am wanting lose fat :)

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

I'm lucky i'm a sales rep and drive around all day to different retailers so i can listen to all of these and it helps me learn as i'm relatively new to Ray's ideas.

Oh yeah I love long drives for book tapes too! I have been Peating for almost 5 years fanatically for most of it, and because I didn't dabble and dived in, I got the job done pretty quick. So I haven't struggled with Ray Peat not working. When it wasn't working at first I didn't assume Ray Peat was wrong and knew it was me dabbling too much to make the science fit what I wanted. So I would "Rinse" away what I was doing and "rePeat" all over again straight back to the beginning. It is a fun way to eat, with my food now not expecting back something in return

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Here is a pic of my AMAZING cupcakes! My strategy for them is to bake them, frost them, all from scratch, eat ONE, then decorate the rest and give them away to someone who needs cheering. If they stayed in my house I would eat one everyday, and have a muffin top to show for it. So I appreciate the sugar starch combo the same as next person :)

 

[yerrag]

Ray Peat has a love relationship with fructose. In earlier newsletters, he spoke of fructose like it was the best thing since sliced bread. Linking to studies where fructose was used to cure type 1 diabetes. I don't think he ever came out later to change his attitude towards fructose.

But I am to find out in this forum that fructose feeds more bacteria than glucose. I am to find out also that pure fructose doesn't exist at all in nature.

He's also said that fructose will be absorbed by tissues even for people who are diabetic. This would explain how sucrose would be superior to glucose, especially if one has problems with glucose absorption. Fructose would aid in glucose being absorbed by tissue.

But what if one does not have problems with glucose absorption? How would sucrose be superior to glucose in terms of sugar absorption when this person has good glucose metabolism already, as reflected in good blood sugar regulation?

This is like telling people to take aspirin when the person has no issues that need him to take aspirin. Yeah, this analogy isn't perfect but it will do.

A better analogy would be me telling everyone that they should switch from white rice to brown rice because I feel much better and less sickly on brown rice. And I have actually done this.

The morale here is to not think everyone is like us. If it worked for us, good. It doesn't necessarily follow others need what made you feel better. Your solution is not their solution.

There is at least half the population doing well eating white rice. They don't have to take sugar or brown rice.

Like Ray would say, you have to know your context.

Just because Ray says so, doesn't mean you just follow what he says. Ray would agree on this attitude. He actually prefers this attitude. He'll probably tell you to get off his back as he's not going to have your weight on his back.

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Ray Peat has a love relationship with fructose. In earlier newsletters, he spoke of fructose like it was the best thing since sliced bread. Linking to studies where fructose was used to cure type 1 diabetes. I don't think he ever came out later to change his attitude towards fructose.

But I am to find out in this forum that fructose feeds more bacteria than glucose. I am to find out also that pure fructose doesn't exist at all in nature.

He's also said that fructose will be absorbed by tissues even for people who are diabetic. This would explain how sucrose would be superior to glucose, especially if one has problems with glucose absorption. Fructose would aid in glucose being absorbed by tissue.

But what if one does not have problems with glucose absorption? How would sucrose be superior to glucose in terms of sugar absorption when this person has good glucose metabolism already, as reflected in good blood sugar regulation?

This is like telling people to take aspirin when the person has no issues that need him to take aspirin. Yeah, this analogy isn't perfect but it will do.

A better analogy would be me telling everyone that they should switch from white rice to brown rice because I feel much better and less sickly on brown rice. And I have actually done this.

The morale here is to not think everyone is like us. If it worked for us, good. It doesn't necessarily follow others need what made you feel better. Your solution is not their solution.

There is at least half the population doing well eating white rice. They don't have to take sugar or brown rice.

Like Ray would say, you have to know your context.

Just because Ray says so, doesn't mean you just follow what he says. Ray would agree on this attitude. He actually prefers this attitude. He'll probably tell you to get off his back as he's not going to have your weight on his back.

I hate when I read a recipe on the internet, and read the people's comments rating it, with some of them changing the recipe a little bit to suit their needs or tastes, and some change it a lot from the original recipe, and then they give it a poor rating. How can they give the recipe only 3 stars instead of five stars when they didn't follow the recipe? It is the same on this forum, people griping because they have aches and pains and are too fat and will still insist rice is good when Ray says it is "famine food", "animal food", "not optimal" and it "makes people fat". People insist on having it their way and can't seem to get anywhere, and so Ray Peat is wrong?Nobody should get upset not getting their rice, even Ray has some once and awhile, but don't expect miracles out it.

 

[yerrag]

Hah, I'm glad we had this exchange to flesh out and bring out some ideas.

I would ask now what really is so bad about eating grains if grains provide glucose only.

Is the grain bad as a source of sugar and energy?

Or is it because the body can't absorb glucose as well?

If someone else can do well on rice, then shouldn't you ask yourself what's wrong with you that you can't?

Isn't taking sucrose in place of rice a way to compensate for something wrong in you? Just like in eating brown rice to compensate for the inability to absorb simple sugars, both glucose and sucrose?

Or is there something you have to fix in you?

Ray does not give you a recipe. In fact, his ideas are not written in a Rosetta Stone. He sets the stage for us to have the foundational knowledge to build on, but he does not say he knows everything. You still have to question him and you have the license to modify the recipe.

 

[yerrag]

Clearly, we all have to write Ronaldo and tell him he's gonna end up like Maradona if he stops drinking regular Coca-Cola:

Cristiano Ronaldo’s Coca-Cola snub helped knock $4B off market value

Soccer superstar Cristiano Ronaldo may have helped wipe out $4 billion of Coca-Cola’s market value when he moved two Coke bottles out of view at a press conference — and opted for water inste…

nypost.com

Heaven forbid if next time he ditches all carbs and brings out a fat juicy steak and says "Keto."

 

[Rinse & rePeat]

Hah, I'm glad we had this exchange to flesh out and bring out some ideas.

I would ask now what really is so bad about eating grains if grains provide glucose only.

Is the grain bad as a source of sugar and energy?

Or is it because the body can't absorb glucose as well?

If someone else can do well on rice, then shouldn't you ask yourself what's wrong with you that you can't?

Isn't taking sucrose in place of rice a way to compensate for something wrong in you? Just like in eating brown rice to compensate for the inability to absorb simple sugars, both glucose and sucrose?

Or is there something you have to fix in you?

Ray does not give you a recipe. In fact, his ideas are not written in a Rosetta Stone. He sets the stage for us to have the foundational knowledge to build on, but he does not say he knows everything. You still have to question him and you have the license to modify the recipe.

I have no problems eating starches or grains. Me not having them in my daily life is a conscious choice to eat better quality food because I don't look old, fat and wrinkled. If I were going by my taste buds I would be heading to Chick-Fil A for dinner tonight. It is proven grains have anti-nutrients meaning they carry out more nutrition than they give if you don't pair them with calcium, not to mention their high phosphorus and PUFA's that accelerate the aging process. Then if you do decide to save your teeth, bones and skin by pairing them with calcium then your calcium gets carried out of the body, so what a waste of good calcium trying to have a cookie, bowl of oatmeal or some bland rice! Most people have enough problems trying to get in ENOUGH calcium in a day, but just to have it all undone is like being on a rat wheel and getting nowhere.

 

[yerrag]

I have no problems eating starches or grains. Me not having them in my daily life is a conscious choice to eat better quality food because I don't look old, fat and wrinkled. If I were going by my taste buds I would be heading to Chick-Fil A for dinner tonight. It is proven grains have anti-nutrients meaning they carry out more nutrition than they give if you don't pair them with calcium, not to mention their high phosphorus and PUFA's that accelerate the aging process. Then if you do decide to save your teeth, bones and skin by pairing them with calcium then your calcium gets carried out of the body, so what a waste of good calcium trying to have a cookie, bowl of oatmeal or some bland rice! Most people have enough problems trying to get in ENOUGH calcium in a day, but just to have it all undone is like being on a rat wheel and getting nowhere.

Then it's a matter of eating grains by preparing them the right way so that the anti-nutrients will be gone. After all, people prepared them correctly in the past.

So, it's again not the grains being bad, but the person being bad, isn't it?

If you're not interested in the additional work, then you can just eat white rice, as there's not so much anti-nutrients in rice.

The grains that have high PUFA are also the source for vitamin E. They come together because it's healthful. We don't have to buy them separately, one as a harmful oil, and then we have to go to the health food store to buy the vitamin E that came from it. That's the idea of eating whole foods, which you probably already do to keep you healthy and glowing.

Phosphorus isn't a problem unless you eat a lot of nuts and seeds, and meat. But everything has phosphorus. To key to it is balance, not avoidance. Can you eat a diet with zero phosphate? No. It's not all that bad. And then have enough calcium as well. It's not difficult to do either. You don't have to avoid either grains to have a good calcium/phosphate ratio.