Danny Roddy And Meal Suggestions

[jaketthomas]

The notion that using mineral robbing, refined white sugar is merely revealing a nutrient deficiency, is insane to me. What it reveals, is that it's not a healthy addition to anyone's diet. So many people benefit from removing it from their diet, therefore, it cannot be considered a health food. I absolutely won't hear of it being a worthwhile addition to anyone's diet. I'm very open minded, but this is a pretty open and shut case.

Danny Roddy saying, "Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Please do not confuse me for a guru or expert—I dropped out of community college. Trust no one, including me." is a disclaimer, that he absolutely must say, to protect him from legal issues and persecution, since he holds no degrees or certifications in the field of health. He obviously thinks what he's preaching is correct, or else he wouldn't be charging $47 for a book of Ray Peat "interpretations" (some of which are 100% incorrect, btw).

I'm off to go have a cup of black coffee with NO sugar!

 

[gretchen]

I've been under the impression that DR is experimenting with sugar to manipulate hormones, raise body temperature, increase CO2, etc. He looks at it as an anti-stress substance.

I use a little sugar in my milk and gelatin and once in a while in my coffee. I think it's OK in moderation.

OTOH, refined sugar has a long, negative history tied directly to the slave trade which all around has a bad-vibe feeling. I keep a little pouch of sugar in my fridge, not a whole whopping container.

 

[pboy]

How can you say sugar 'robs' minerals, that's just honestly an unsubstantiated fear based self imbued belief. It might not provide any minerals, but it doesn't 'rob' them. Gotta never use coconut oil then, because it doesn't have any minerals either so its robbing you. Butter? Ghee? out. No one is saying white sugar is a health food (what does that even mean anyways), its simply better than having a low or no blood sugar, but it is not ideal...no one is saying it is, non allergenic fruit and/or milk sugar is always a better option. If you were starving would you not eat any sugar because you assume it would be robbing you? If you ate nothing but sugar, you'd run deficiency's not because its robbing you but because you weren't providing any nutrition in addition to it...you don't need crazy mineral stocks that require a long time to build up just to process sugar. You could have one well balanced meal and have some sugar with it and process it fine

 

[frustrated]

How can you say sugar 'robs' minerals, that's just honestly an unsubstantiated fear based self imbued belief. It might not provide any minerals, but it doesn't 'rob' them. Gotta never use coconut oil then, because it doesn't have any minerals either so its robbing you. Butter? Ghee? out. No one is saying white sugar is a health food (what does that even mean anyways), its simply better than having a low or no blood sugar, but it is not ideal...no one is saying it is, non allergenic fruit and/or milk sugar is always a better option. If you were starving would you not eat any sugar because you assume it would be robbing you? If you ate nothing but sugar, you'd run deficiency's not because its robbing you but because you weren't providing any nutrition in addition to it...you don't need crazy mineral stocks that require a long time to build up just to process sugar. You could have one well balanced meal and have some sugar with it and process it fine

No. Your comparison of coconut oil to sugar is very flawed as they are not metabolized the same way.

No one is saying white sugar is a health food (what does that even mean anyways), its simply better than having a low or no blood sugar, but it is not ideal...no one is saying it is

Read the title of the thread and some of the posts ITT. We are talking about whether it is a good idea to apply sugar to EVERYTHING like Danny Roddy suggests in his meal plans. I didn't see any of the "anti-sugar" people in this thread saying don't eat it if you're starving. More like just follow what Ray Peat says not second hand interpretations.

If you ate nothing but sugar, you'd run deficiency's not because its robbing you but because you weren't providing any nutrition in addition to it...you don't need crazy mineral stocks that require a long time to build up just to process sugar.

Mineral deficiencies are real and happen for a variety of reasons. It's a dumb idea to add white sugar to everything to start because if a deficiency exists you will have negative consequences with glucose metabolism.

Niacinamide, used in moderate doses, can safely help to restrain the excessive production of free fatty acids, and also helps to limit the wasteful conversion of glucose into fat. There is evidence that diabetics are chronically deficient in niacin.

How do you explain some of the negative reactions people in this thread have had? How do you explain the people getting fat on the diet (rhetorical, and if you don't believe that's the case check out the ray peat fans group on fb).

 

[Anonymous]

Imonaquest,

I think it's very strange that you say things like "Ray said to try to avoid white sugar because its devoid of any nutrition."

Ray says with his own voice that he uses 3 tablespoons, yes tablespoons of sugar and he's talking about pure white sucrose in some warm milk. This is in the podcast with Josh Ruben called "Dr. Ray Peat: Glycemia, Starch." I'll post the audio clip if you don't believe me.

He has also said that sucrose sugar can be used to heal the beta cells of the pancreas. He also uses white sugar himself in his life, from his homemade coconut oil ice cream to other ice creams that he likes. It's just weird that you say that he said that.

White sugar is just sucrose extracted from the sugarcane plant. You can also buy just pure fructose extracted from beets. Sucrose is not just "white sugar" it is in many foods naturally. Sucrose is half glucose and half fructose. I find it so strange that you say that white sugar gave you panic attacks because for me it has helped alleviate such things.

This is The Ray Peat Forum and I am shocked to see so many people on this post hating on "white sugar." Peat is very pro white sugar. Yes he said that you have to have all nutritional needs met but he is still pro white sugar nonetheless.

If someone does not want to use it fine, but there is a difference between you not wanting to use it for whatever reason and saying that Peat says avoid white sugar or it's ok in moderation, that is simply not true.

You still haven't showed the actual email.

 

[FunkOdyssey]

Also as a reminder, the majority of sugar in fruit exists in the form of sucrose (table sugar/ white sugar). Smaller amounts of free fructose and glucose are also present. There are exceptions but more often than not that's the case.

 

[4peatssake]

The notion that using mineral robbing, refined white sugar is merely revealing a nutrient deficiency, is insane to me. What it reveals, is that it's not a healthy addition to anyone's diet. So many people benefit from removing it from their diet, therefore, it cannot be considered a health food. I absolutely won't hear of it being a worthwhile addition to anyone's diet. I'm very open minded, but this is a pretty open and shut case.

Danny Roddy saying, "Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Please do not confuse me for a guru or expert—I dropped out of community college. Trust no one, including me." is a disclaimer, that he absolutely must say, to protect him from legal issues and persecution, since he holds no degrees or certifications in the field of health. He obviously thinks what he's preaching is correct, or else he wouldn't be charging $47 for a book of Ray Peat "interpretations" (some of which are 100% incorrect, btw).

I'm off to go have a cup of black coffee with NO sugar!

This kind of emotional "black and white" thinking and the resulting rhetoric is what disturbs me about this thread. We have yet to even see Ray Peat's actual comments that form the basis of this thread. Moreover, neither Danny Roddy nor Ray Peat are here to defend themselves and further explain their viewpoints and put them in context.

What's worse is the disservice to new people that results from this confusion. Rather than resorting to an emotional stand off between two groups jockeying for position, it would be far more beneficial to actively seek the Truth, because in most instances it lies somewhere between the two - sometimes in the most unlikely of places.

I have found no where in Ray Peat's articles where he advises against using refined sugar - he is very clear about its protective and therapeutic effects - and certainly no where does he say that it is not a healthy addition to anyone's diet. That position is just not supported and it is not merely Danny Roddy you disagree with by taking such a stance, it is Ray Peat.

It is perfectly fine of course to hold the point of view that refined sugar "is not a healthy additional to anyone's diet", but let's be clear - that is not Ray Peat's position.

"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."

(BTW, the bold is Ray Peat's.)

 

[frustrated]

The notion that using mineral robbing, refined white sugar is merely revealing a nutrient deficiency, is insane to me. What it reveals, is that it's not a healthy addition to anyone's diet. So many people benefit from removing it from their diet, therefore, it cannot be considered a health food. I absolutely won't hear of it being a worthwhile addition to anyone's diet. I'm very open minded, but this is a pretty open and shut case.

Danny Roddy saying, "Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Please do not confuse me for a guru or expert—I dropped out of community college. Trust no one, including me." is a disclaimer, that he absolutely must say, to protect him from legal issues and persecution, since he holds no degrees or certifications in the field of health. He obviously thinks what he's preaching is correct, or else he wouldn't be charging $47 for a book of Ray Peat "interpretations" (some of which are 100% incorrect, btw).

I'm off to go have a cup of black coffee with NO sugar!

This kind of emotional "black and white" thinking and the resulting rhetoric is what disturbs me about this thread. We have yet to even see Ray Peat's actual comments that form the basis of this thread. Moreover, neither Danny Roddy nor Ray Peat are here to defend themselves and further explain their viewpoints and put them in context.

What's worse is the disservice to new people that results from this confusion. Rather than resorting to an emotional stand off between two groups jockeying for position, it would be far more beneficial to actively seek the Truth, because in most instances it lies somewhere between the two - sometimes in the most unlikely of places.

I have found no where in Ray Peat's articles where he advises against using refined sugar - he is very clear about its protective and therapeutic effects - and certainly no where does he say that it is not a healthy addition to anyone's diet. That position is just not supported and it is not merely Danny Roddy you disagree with by taking such a stance, it is Ray Peat.

It is perfectly fine of course to hold the point of view that refined sugar "is not a healthy additional to anyone's diet", but let's be clear - that is not Ray Peat's position.

"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."

(BTW, the bold is Ray Peat's.)

What's a disservice to new people is trying to eat Peat, thinking they must add white sugar to everything to lower stress, and getting bad results and then concluding Peat's stuff is useless.

A woman called in to one of the Peat radio shows saying how she thought white sugar was bad, or she had a bad reaction to it -- something along those lines. He specifically said white sugar can CAUSE problems when there aren't adequate minerals in the diet. This is clearly context dependent. On average, it is better to just recommend fruit only which is why he says this:

Refined granulated sugar is extremely pure, but it lacks all of the essential nutrients, so it should be considered as a temporary therapeutic material, or as an occasional substitute when good fruit isn't available, or when available honey is allergenic.

You claim to be interested in the truth, so here are two studies you can ponder
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21621801

I reiterate: Most people here think sucrose is a negative calorie food just because it has a greater thermogenic effect than glucose. The adding of sugar to liquids is a terrible idea because it causes an over consumption of calories. Gaining fat is very high stress and outweighs the anti-stress effects of sucrose. A chronic over consumption of calories when sucrose intake is over a certain level does actually have toxic effects.

 

[frustrated]

Imonaquest,

I think it's very strange that you say things like "Ray said to try to avoid white sugar because its devoid of any nutrition."

Ray says with his own voice that he uses 3 tablespoons, yes tablespoons of sugar and he's talking about pure white sucrose in some warm milk. This is in the podcast with Josh Ruben called "Dr. Ray Peat: Glycemia, Starch." I'll post the audio clip if you don't believe me.

He has also said that sucrose sugar can be used to heal the beta cells of the pancreas. He also uses white sugar himself in his life, from his homemade coconut oil ice cream to other ice creams that he likes. It's just weird that you say that he said that.

White sugar is just sucrose extracted from the sugarcane plant. You can also buy just pure fructose extracted from beets. Sucrose is not just "white sugar" it is in many foods naturally. Sucrose is half glucose and half fructose. I find it so strange that you say that white sugar gave you panic attacks because for me it has helped alleviate such things.

This is The Ray Peat Forum and I am shocked to see so many people on this post hating on "white sugar." Peat is very pro white sugar. Yes he said that you have to have all nutritional needs met but he is still pro white sugar nonetheless.

If someone does not want to use it fine, but there is a difference between you not wanting to use it for whatever reason and saying that Peat says avoid white sugar or it's ok in moderation, that is simply not true.

You still haven't showed the actual email.

I agree he/she needs to post the email. I'm quite curious.

 

[key]

if you add sugar to milk it has more nutrients than raisins

someone eating 8oz of sugar a day could get more minerals and nutrients than someone eating the same amount of calories from only whole foods

sugar could displace nutrients and make someone feel like crap

I personally think nutrient dense fruit like OJ is way superior to pure sucrose. But I also think that pure sucrose isn't that bad; nutrient deficiencies are bad.

 

[Mittir]

someone eating 8oz of sugar a day could get more minerals and nutrients than someone eating the same amount of calories from only whole foods

That is not easy for everyone, especially for someone who has problem reading nutritional profile of foods.
Anyone who can use cronometer should be able to do that, but that needs some work. In many experiments they use pure sugar or glucose, but they make sure rest of the diet delivers required vitamin and minerals.
Ray Peat used to recommend low dose of DHEA. Then he stopped that after one of us got an enlarged liver using higher dose than recommended. I think if RP reads this thread he will stop recommending table sugar.

 

[j.]

I consume sucrose simply by appetite, and that works fine for me.

 

[4peatssake]

What's a disservice to new people is trying to eat Peat, thinking they must add white sugar to everything to lower stress, and getting bad results and then concluding Peat's stuff is useless.

A woman called in to one of the Peat radio shows saying how she thought white sugar was bad, or she had a bad reaction to it -- something along those lines. He specifically said white sugar can CAUSE problems when there aren't adequate minerals in the diet. This is clearly context dependent. On average, it is better to just recommend fruit only which is why he says this:

Refined granulated sugar is extremely pure, but it lacks all of the essential nutrients, so it should be considered as a temporary therapeutic material, or as an occasional substitute when good fruit isn't available, or when available honey is allergenic.

You claim to be interested in the truth, so here are two studies you can ponder
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/4/908.full.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21621801

I reiterate: Most people here think sucrose is a negative calorie food just because it has a greater thermogenic effect than glucose. The adding of sugar to liquids is a terrible idea because it causes an over consumption of calories. Gaining fat is very high stress and outweighs the anti-stress effects of sucrose. A chronic over consumption of calories when sucrose intake is over a certain level does actually have toxic effects.

Well you have succeeded in taking my comments completely out of context and adding further to the confusion. You might want to read the thread.

And yes, I maintain that confusion and emotional posturing does more harm than good and makes it difficult for new people who want to learn about Ray Peat - which is why they are here in the first place.

The amazing thing is there is not even any context for this thread - we've yet to even see the comments being attributed to Ray Peat.

I find it curious too that in your rebuttal you quote the exact same quote of Ray's I used earlier to point out what Peat actually says about sucrose. I'm not advocating the improper, overuse or reliance on refined sugar in one's diet so don't ascribe that to me.

If you look at my first post, I state clearly that context is everything. But there are people here on this thread now making wild claims that white sugar is bad and should never be used. That is not Ray Peat. Period.

BTW, throwing around studies doesn't make you smart or correct. And I much prefer to read Ray Peat because I trust the source. If you are interested in studies, you may want to read the study posted by Edward recently entitled "Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high sucrose diet during weight 1oss."

if you add sugar to milk it has more nutrients than raisins

someone eating 8oz of sugar a day could get more minerals and nutrients than someone eating the same amount of calories from only whole foods

sugar could displace nutrients and make someone feel like crap

I personally think nutrient dense fruit like OJ is way superior to pure sucrose. But I also think that pure sucrose isn't that bad; nutrient deficiencies are bad.

:1

 

[key]

"That is not easy for everyone, especially for someone who has problem reading nutritional profile of foods."

I agree. Just going off a basic guideline(eat fruits,dairy,etc) doesn't guarantee nutrient needs are met and adding white sugar probably won't help.

For example Andrew kim's diet http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/04/what-i-learned-from-red-meat-carnintine.html is not 100% rda for b1,b3,b6, folate, and zinc. He eats about 400-500 cals of sucrose. If he replaced those cals with oj(or its equivalent) he'd get over 100%.

 

[4peatssake]

"That is not easy for everyone, especially for someone who has problem reading nutritional profile of foods."

I agree. Just going off a basic guideline(eat fruits,dairy,etc) doesn't guarantee nutrient needs are met and adding white sugar probably won't help.

For example Andrew kim's diet http://www.andrewkimblog.com/2013/04/what-i-learned-from-red-meat-carnintine.html is not 100% rda for b1,b3,b6, folate, and zinc. He eats about 400-500 cals of sucrose. If he replaced those cals with oj(or its equivalent) he'd get over 100%.

Thank you Key and Mittir. This is the kind of information that is helpful so people understand the goal is to get nutrient needs met and to work toward developing a strategy that works for them for the purpose of raising metabolism.

Mittir, your comment about people having difficulty reading (or rather comprehending) the nutritional profile of foods was helpful for a project I am considering - so thanks!

 

[pboy]

Honestly, its really simple...eat sugar if you're hungry, have the one available at the time with the most nutrients, whatever it may be...make the best choice at the time but never go hungry unless you are doing it on purpose for some reason. And if you are allergic to a particular sugar, don't eat it. People all have different allergies.

I can almost guarantee people are often times blaming sugar for a problem or bad feeling that could be caused by a million and one different factors, possibly and probably not even related to food. I'd also like to point out that being in a mental state of fear shuts off your digestion, so if you fear something you will inevitably not be able to digest it no matter what

 

[Mittir]

If he replaced those cals with oj(or its equivalent) he'd get over 100%.

One of the distinct feature of RP recommendation is cooked potato juice. He talked about it's exceptional
benefits in many of his interviews. When you remove the starch from the juice, it is simply a juice of protein and tons of minerals and vitamins. If i make juice from 2 lbs of potato and add 100 grams of sugar to it, it's nutritional content looks much better than one quart of OJ. Fruits are generally rich source of potassium and magnesium, 100 cups of OJ will provide RDA of zinc. We will need variety of foods to get all the nutrients, just adding juice will not provide much.


http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/veg ... cts/2556/2
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fru ... ces/1971/2

 

[frustrated]

BTW, throwing around studies doesn't make you smart or correct. And I much prefer to read Ray Peat because I trust the source. If you are interested in studies, you may want to read the study posted by Edward recently entitled "Metabolic and behavioral effects of a high sucrose diet during weight 1oss."

I'm done with this thread but in passing you should know that is the exact same study I just posted lol.
I'm not throwing studies around for a laugh. If you actually read the study it goes against a few of the rp quotes you've been spamming. And just blinding believing someones explanations probably makes you less-smart and less-correct.

 

[key]

4 cups of oj would add 75%-b1, 25%-b3, 31%-b6, 75%-folate, 5%-zinc. He was already almost at 100% zinc.

replacing 400cals pure sugar with 400cals oj does provide enough nutrients in this situation

I doubt potato juice retains all the nutrients. Only benefit I've heard is keto-acids, which are only needed if you can't digest protein. If it was so exceptional(for average person) he'd probably be doing it himself. I don't agree with your logic since fruits have beneficial compounds beyond vit/min like salicylic acid, hesperidin.

 

[frustrated]

I don't agree with your logic since fruits have beneficial compounds beyond vit/min like salicylic acid, hesperidin.

I would just like to add that many people here seem to forget about this, even though RP has mentioned it somewhere. Probably because he seems dismissive of plant compounds by default. The plant compounds in oranges are extremely beneficial and help with endotoxin, which is why it is relatively slimming compared to white sugar.